Subject: Re: [Ows_solutions] Fw: [NYCGA Internet] Ideas for user-generated content on website
From: Rabbitrock Charlotte
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:48:57 -0400

Hi Greg.

I saw this on the OWS list serve.

Earlier I had proposed a system to vote on the language used in pending bills in congress.  In my opinion voting on pre-proposal / bill-ideas is not getting the job done - thus, I think we should be using wisdom of the crowds on exact bill language.  

Not sure my proposal has had much traction.!/rabbitrock/status/125661302709428224

Could be perceived complexity; or the nature of being a bit out of context to the necessary boots-on-the-ground issues that surround OWS tech.

Not sure your thoughts, but thought I'd ping you directly (Greg) 

Personally I find it a bit ironic that pending law, down to the sentence level is not being polled. Seems everyone's dancing round what should be proposed (into law), meanwhile law language people disagree with is being written every day with effectively no force being applied during the critical pending - till - vote time-window.

All my best.


Robert Reddick
Mount Holly, NC
704-301-1239 cell

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:49 AM, <> wrote:
This is a job for the open source team, cc'd.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: Gregory Orr <>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:03:27 -0400
To: <>
Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Ideas for user-generated content on website


I would like to join this working group, and I plan to attend the working group session tomorrow afternoon.  I have a couple ideas (the first leading into the second) about how to use the internet to develop government policy/program proposals.

Idea #1: Twitter-style policy/program proposals are published and rated by the audience (at least thumbs up / thumbs down). Could look like, with additional information and comments about each idea available with a clickthrough.

Idea #2: Develop and organize policies/programs through a wiki. We'd want to propel nuanced schools of thought about each issue, so it wouldn't be like wikipedia where there's just one page for each topic - we'd allow discrete policy/program versions as requested by contributors/managers. Each policy/program would have a self-selected community around it, and there could be the current proposal, implementation plans, public comments / discussion board, proposed edits, etc. To help the cream rise to the top, we could evaluate with: (1) crowdsourced ratings, (2) standardized analysis like cost-benefit, (3) recommendations of review board. The website should be designed to be optimal for contributors (e.g., collaborative technology, rights management, etc.) and visitors (e.g., organized and subcategorized and ranked so that all the good stuff is easy to find).

These ideas could be important steps toward direct democracy and away from special interests and two-party politics. What do you think?

Greg Orr

Ows_solutions mailing list


Robert Reddick