|
Open-source governance (also known as open politics) is a political philosophy which advocates the application of the philosophies of the open-source and open-content movements to democratic principles to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a wiki document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry, employing their collective wisdom to benefit the decision-making process and improve democracy.〔(Open-source democracy: how online communication is changing offline politics ) by Douglas Rushkoff, published by Demos. Page 56 et al〕 Theories on how to constrain, limit or enable this participation vary. Accordingly, there is no one dominant theory of how to go about authoring legislation with this approach. There are a wide array of projects and movements which are working on building open-source governance systems.〔(List of related projects )〕 Many left-libertarian and radical centrist organizations around the globe have begun advocating open-source governance and its related political ideas as a reformist alternative to current governance systems. Often, these groups have their origins in decentralized structures such as the Internet and place particular importance on the need for anonymity to protect an individual's right to free speech in democratic systems. Opinions vary, however, not least because the principles behind open-source government are still very loosely defined.〔()〕 == Applications of the principles == In practice, several applications have evolved and been used by actual democratic institutions in the developed world:〔(Service-oriented architecture governance for the services driven enterprise ); Eric A. Marks〕 *Open government mechanisms including those for public participation and engagement, such as the use of IdeaScale, Google Moderator, Semantic MediaWiki, GitHub, and other software by actual ruling governments – these mechanisms are well developed especially in the UK and the USA.〔(Knowledge governance: processes and perspectives ); Snejina Michailova, Nicolai J. Foss, Oxford University Press. Page 241 et al〕 *Open politics forums and wikis, where political issues and arguments can be debated, either within or between political party constraints, taking three distinct forms: * *Political party platform development, in which ideas are solicited from anyone or almost anyone and openly discussed to a point but the ranking and devotion of resources to developing ideas is reserved to party members or supporters. A variant is the non-partisan think-tank or citizen advocacy group platform development as has become common in Canada, for example the Dominion Institute policywiki.〔( As one experiment ends, a new one begins for Policy Wiki ) The Globe and Mail / Dominion Institute policywiki〕 * *Citizen journalism forums obeying stricter rules to ensure equal power relationships than is typically the case in blogs, strictly designed to balance libel and free speech laws for a local jurisdiction (following laws strictly is part of the open politics ideal). * *Open party mechanisms to actually govern and operate formal political parties without the usual insider politics and interest groups that historically have taken over such parties; these experiments have been limited and typically take the form of parties run by referenda or online. An example of this is Italy's Five Star Movement. *In the California Assembly, Crowdsourced legislation via a 'wiki bills' website is being initiated via an online wiki, with an introduction deadline of early February, 2015.〔(Jan 8, 2015) "Gatto Promotes 'Wiki Bill' project" ''Crescenta Valley Weekly'' 6(19) p.1,8 http://www.crescentavalleyweekly.com/news/01/08/2015/gatto-promotes-wiki-bill-project/ accessdate=2015-01-14〕 *Hybrid mechanisms which attempt to provide journalistic coverage, political platform development, political transparency, strategic advice, and critique of a ruling government of the same party all at the same time. Dkosopedia is the best known example of this. Some models are significantly more sophisticated than a plain wiki, incorporating semantic tags, levels of control or scoring to mediate disputes – however this always risks empowering a clique of moderators more than would be the case given their trust position within the democratic entity – a parallel to the common wiki problem of official vandalism by persons entrusted with power by owners or publishers (so-called "sysop vandalism" or "administrative censorship"). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Open-source governance」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|