Noveck Paper

I was quite intruiged by Beth Simone Noveck's essay "Unchat: Democratic Solution for a Wired World". Right at the beginning it is established that deocracy is only half about free speech and the other half about deliberation. Deliberation is a way of approaching problem-solving where open, equal, and reasoned discussion and viewpoints are had by all members of the community. In this article Noveck explores the creation and possible advancements that could be made in technology and software to facilitate Web-based democratic deliberation.

What exactly should the design guidelines and procedures be for this Web-based deliberation?

-Accessibility: The deliberative conversation must be accessible to everyone, easy to reach, and unhindered by different operating systems.
-No Censorship: The space must safeguard freedom of thought and expression and be free of censorship (including self censorship).
-Autonomy: Participants are self-governing, and have play an active part in deliberation.
-Accountability: Participants cannot be anonymous. They must be accountable not only in cyberspace, but real space.
- Transparency: The participants have the right to know about the space they are deliberating in, any monitoring that is taking place, and any biases that may exist.
-Equality: All participants should have equal opportunity to be heard and contribute.
-Pluralism: To ensure everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard, some regulations may be had to give everyone a voice.
-Inclusiveness: The space must be intended to include all members of the relevant community.
-Staying Informed: Participants must base their judgements on information from a wide variety of viewpoints.
-Publicness: The dialogue should represent the interests of the community as a whole and not individuals or a small group within the community.
-Facilitation: Participants must be managed in some form to make deliberation more orderly and easy.

The next section of the essay consisted of two examples in which this deliberative theory was put into use. The first was with Yale Law School International Cyberlaw students being connected with representatives from around the world. The second was with high school students from different settings. The second example allowed the students the option of "shouting" a message interrupting the deliberation, and "whispering" which is a private message between two participants. Neither messages go through the moderator, but a limit was set on the number of times one could use this power.

As we continue in the essay, Noveck explores how each design guideline was put into practice for the "Unchat" software. Such things are discussed as to why accountability can play such a cruicial role, the issue of relevance and responsiviness, and the selection of a moderator and the responsibility in deliberation. The "shout" and "whisper" options are also discussed further as well as methods of archiving and keeping chat (or Unchat) logs for the sake of staying informed.

Noveck concludes by restating what the goal of "Unchat" was as well as where development could lead in terms of new options and features. Exploring human expression beyond the "shout" and "whisper", the option of keeping things off the logs, and the possibility of allowing anonymity. I think that "Unchat" sounds like a great deliberation tool. That is if you are able to collect a good unbiased sample of the community and jump the digital divide (if need be).