Defra wiki politics: don't clam up - lighten up

The Defra wiki story (libertarian political bloggers force closure of collaborative online space by humourous comment overload) is already yielding a number of insights and talking points ranging from the nature of tech tools to the deeper reaches of democratic engagement. I hope Defra keep going.
First of all Guido Fawkes, the political blogger who mobilised the demo, adds a comment to my earlier piece in which he asserts that: "The Wiki was a PR exercise in sham consultation" and adds:

The Wiki idea is a good one for collaborative projects. Politics is not collaborative. The reality is that politics is a clash of ideas and ideology as well as parties. Only a deluded wonk would overlook that non-trivial detail.
Wiki's can only effectively work as policy development tools when used by a community with common values. The policy making political class do not have common values.
So if you invite those who oppose your ideas to contribute to refining them you should not be surprised when they seek to frustrate your objectives.

Clearly a thoughtful position on politics  and participative democracy, whether you agree or not. As one of the participants on the UK E-Democracy Exchange remarked on reading this, it is " the core of the philosophical challenge to people in the business of building collaborative political tools."
Another participant (I'm not using names because it is a forum that requires registration, and so is not strictly public) points out that the wiki used by Defra is JotSpot, a commercial application that has limited functions in the basic package. You can't offer registration, so can't easily manage who contributes. What might be better - the contributor suggested - was a good open source package and also more thought to the human side of things, because - for example - it is only when people in a partnership start to trust each other that you can get agreement on documents. So -  If DEFRA wants to negotiate an environmental contract, it needs to work out the stages of negotiation, and use the tools appropriate to each stage.
This sort-of chimes in with the point that Guido was making - that wikis are good for collaborative projects (with the implication that they have to be part of a genuine collaborative process).
The point was re-inforced by another wiki expert who wrote to me after I alerted him to the story:

I've said it many times before - Public wikis are like public bathrooms (and I got slapped for that remark).
.... I am more interested in those small to medium sized groups of people who are already involved with long-standing nonprofits at the local level who just need a better means to communicate amongst people they either already know or would like to get to know in the context of delivering services in a more straightforward manner. It seems to me, there are far more people engaged in these types of endeavors than are involved in the politically-charged advocacy groups that attract vandalism.

So it seems that the rationale for Guido's attack on the wiki is that it is a political rather than democratic/collaborative endeavour. Some, at least,  among e-democracy specialists feel that wikis will only work in a trusted environment as part of a wider process.
Guido's view may well, of course, be a little coloured by his (and his co-conspirators) general lack of enthusiasm for David Miliband. He cites Tony Benn on Miliband:

"He sees policy as something that has to be worked out and pushed through the policy forums, the conference, the Cabinet and the Commons. There's no real participatory element in it."
-Benn Diaries (Free at Last!) p643

You can get more of a flavour of how the co-conspirators view Miliband from comments under Guido's blog item.
Many e-democracy specialists argue, as I do, that relationships are more important than tools .... or rather that tools work in the context of relationships and cultures. Guido is saying the cultural context here is politics ... Defra is saying that it is (ultimately) how to save the world by tackling climate change and other environmental issues. They would argue, I think, that the politics is about priorities, not David Miliband's style of doing things.
In this context, the story of how the wiki got started becomes quite important, and whispers reach me that may cast some light on that.  In my earlier item, I asked:

But how did it happen? Did Miliband, pleased with his blogging, and wanting an alternative to draughty church halls just say to his civil servants that it was now time to try a wiki? Did they say "yes, Minister, but it is more complicated than that. We need a process to recruit potential contributors, an editing policy ...." Didn't they know what might happen? Was advice ignored? Was it out-sourced?

My understanding is that the original idea, from a civil servant, was for an internal wiki , but that David Miliband - or his advisers - wanted to canvass a wider range of views. There was substantial discussion about the nature of the tool and need for moderation. A decision was taken to go for something simple, low-cost, and low-moderation in the full knowledge that it could go wrong .... but then at least no-one could say it was another expensive IT disaster. It wasn't intended to be a consultation exercise - because there wasn't a policy - more of a gathering of ideas for starters.
Perhaps those involved were mindful of the fuss about David Miliband's blog, where there were Lib Dem and Tory claims that it was written by civil servants and cost £40,000 a year.  Miliband says he writes it himself and the cost is much lower.
For whatever reason, it seems that the JFTI (Just ******* Try It) view prevailed, and on reflection I think Defra may gain more from the exercise than from something more carefully orchestrated.

• There has been international press coverage. OK, most has been on the lines of "Minister left red-faced in trying to keep up with the times" but that can be turned around because ...
• The virtue of the wiki is that it is very easy to revise. Defra could easily say "that was fun - now who want to join in the serious discussion"
• It is an opportunity to alert environmentalists - and others - to the environmental contract, and invite contributions. Among the nonprofits, environmentalists are the most online, I think, so it shouldn't be difficult.
• It didn't cost much.
• At least Defra are having a go at getting people engaged using different tools - the wiki and the Minister's blog.

Democratic engagement is ultimately about conversations. People are talking. Don't clam up ... just lighten up.

Comments

[Kris Olsen]

David - thanks for including my thoughts in your post ("Public wikis are like public bathrooms").

David Miliband's attempt at public discourse and concensus building is laudable but naive. The Guido Fawkes of the world are a political reality that, unproductive as it may seem, is a primary reason that, the larger and more well-known a public site becomes, the less likely it will succeed in its objective. There are better avenues to achieve his goal.

For one, the original plan of keeping the wiki private and inviting only those with a common goal was the correct instinct. This is the arena in which I like to engage.

I don't have that much experience with political or advocacy groups, but my experience with local, charitable, civic involvement type groups tells me that using private wikis to facilitate a common goal is the most effective communications and project management approach I've ever seen.

By using a private wiki to develop internal group concensus, a next step for Miliband's team could have been granting read only access to the public, developing a complementary blog, discussion forum, or some other medium that leverages the work done on the original wiki instead of compromising it.

[Simon Collister]

David, Guido posted what appears to be the same comment over at my blog. In my response to him I pointed out that he hit on Miliband's wiki for political purposes when it wasn't set up for political but rather departmental policy reasons.

I argued in a post at eDemocracy Update (http://simoncollister.typepad.com/edemocracyupdate/2006/07/using_web_20_to.html) that web 2.0 tools suchas wikis and Writely offer a really good forum for debate. BUT, registartion is needed and the current formula for carrying out consultations should also be continued.

Specifically, stakeholders should be invited to participate (given registration) and then the consultation made public. Interested parties could apply to join the debate.

The tools change but the human interaction and management of the consultation stays roughly similar.

[Andrew Brown]

I think I disagree with Kris's point about keeping the wiki private or invite only. One of the refreshing things about Miliband's approach to social media is that (contrary to what Benn and Guido suggest) he seems to welcome different approaches and debate.

What Guido did was similar to what Stephen Colbert did to Wikipedia earlier this year, and I suspect reaction will be similar.

But the reason I don't think this should have been a private conversation is because it was/is about a contract between the individual and the state; if people don't have the chance to engage in that then the concept is doomed anyway. On top of that the perception of this government is that it is in hoc to special interests and doesn't listen. How would an invite only policy process have changed that perception?

This isn't to say there aren't lessons to be learnt.

[Phil Green]

Also disagree about keeping the wiki private. Sustainable Community Action wiki, which I founded has been going nearly 2 years now. I also had a minor involvement with the SDC's Whitehall wiki. Defra seem not to appreciate the community aspect of wiki contribuutors. I put a few things into their wiki, but some, which I'd taken care and time to craft disappeared. If vandalism then they weren't prepared. If editing by them then the're not being genuinely open or explaining their edits (or entering into any genuine dialogue). Either way end of sense of community, end of trust. Future for open stuff may be hard, but future for cosy little chats seems to me to be end of government through increasing irrelevance. (see also stuff on "When friends say...")