Personal Democracy Forum: Blogging The Wisdom Of Crowds

On the first morning of this year's PDF, Micah Sifry, editor of the Personal Democracy Forum and co-founder of TechPresident.com, said, "I'm a big believer in the wisdom of crowds." By the end of the second day at this largely but not exclusively liberal/progressive conference, a confidence in crowds had been challenged. This dialectic shapes not only a larger debate, the kind that occurs at conferences, but also the current presidential race. Tuesday's arc was illustrative. In the morning the digital ethnologist Mark Pesce gave a bracing corrective to crowd wisdom. Speaking from a sociological and philosophical perspective, Pesce talked about the hyper connectivity that the internet provides. We are being asked to believe this will help political campaigns, he said. We are asked to believe things and politics will be different. "Bullshit." Under an iconic image of Barack Obama, Pesce's PowerPoint presentation showed YES WE CAN HAS. In other words, the fact that Barack Obama now has over a million friends on Facebook (mentioned frequently at PDF) may not be such a happy portent.

At the closing plenary session, Gina Cooper, executive director of Netroots Nation, seemed to embody Pesce's fears. In talking about "the government of everybody," Cooper asserted that Barack Obama has made "a promise that cannot be reneged on at this point." She went on to say, "I don't think they're [an Obama Administration] gonna have a choice." Cooper's sure tone was in and of itself a dramatic enactment of Pesce's further point about hyper connectivity, that it begets hyper mimesis, which in turn begets hyper empowerment. From Pesce's point of view, Cooper is hyper empowered. We've had some "lovely sentiments" from Senator Obama about grassroots organization, Pesce said in the morning. "But his hyper connected will do as it pleases." After Cooper's remarks in the afternoon, Pesce twittered on the big twitter board above the stage, "People having a voice in trade policy. Quelle horror."

I would like to say that Mark Pesce was the best speaker at PDF because he challenged much PDF conventional wisdom--which of course he did. But in the end I was struck by him, in that typically human way, because he confirmed some of my own thinking even though I place Gina Cooper in a different perspective. I come not from thinking about and observing social media but from watching the Obama Campaign unfold. From the ground, I see two big problems with Cooper's assertion. First of all, the progressives are not Barack Obama's only constituency -- even now, when he is just a candidate. Older African-Americans, younger Hispanics, Midwestern farmers, Reagan Democrats, Independents and Obamacans don't all want the same "government of everybody." More importantly, Gina Cooper has made a fundamental misapprehension of Barack Obama if she believes that he is going to allow people to "demand" certain things of him. But the hopes of progressives have been raised. Furthermore, Obamamania itself is an inchoate force that has been let out of the bottle and cannot be re-stoppered. For quite awhile now, I have thought that the netroots affair with Obama would not end well. Cooper's beliefs only confirm my foreboding.

There was a lot of Obama at PDF just as a backdrop to general conversation. Because so many of the participants and speakers were liberals, the talk was largely buoyant. But there was a whiff of sourness, expressed best by Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig (also founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society) when he referred to our "quad-annual hope fest." Lessig, who has been a proponent of public election financing, is unhappy with Senator Obama, not surprisingly. And unlike many PDFers, uneasy over Obama's reneging (to use Gina Cooper's verb) of his promise about election funding but willing to forgive because winning is more important than a promise, Lessig stands on principle because he has seen money change votes.

This slight disenchantment in the air emanated mostly from the press, some of whom are coming down from a bit of an Obama high if not experiencing a full-blown hangover. I recognize the process because I went through it some months ago. The shift in attitude stems not so much from Obama's refusal of public financing, or from such moves to the center as his support for the FISA bill. Reporters understand that Obama will do what he needs to do to get elected. But Senator Obama and his campaign have begun to control press access more tightly. At the PDF plenary session on Monday with the internet directors of some of the presidential campaigns, Tracy Russo of the Edwards Campaign complimented Obama's Joe Rospars for the tight control the Obama Campaign has maintained over its blog site. "Insular" though the Obama blog may be, as all the internet directors seemed to agree, it succeeds precisely because it has been so controlled. Now this isn't the way most bloggers like to think of blogging. Nor is it the way reporters like to think of press access. But the tight control of the Obama website blog has always been a forewarning of what would eventually happen to the reporters following the Obama Campaign.

Correction: Yesterday I said that Jonathan Zittrain spoke about Wikipedians. In fact, Mark Pesce used them in his speech. My apologies to Mr. Pesce. Note to self to return to audio taping.

Tomorrow, What I Learned from Al Jazeera about The Road Ahead

Comments

[WorkingClass]

The voters may *elect* Obama to the presidency. But he will not be president without the permission of the oligarchy. And he will not get that permission if he is a threat to the telcos, the oil companies, the media giants or the HMOs. Obama has to convince the people that he will represent them while at the same time convincing the oligarchy that he will work for them.

So what will he accomplish as president? Nobody knows. You just have to trust him to do his best on our behalf. Thats the audacity of hope. Short of armed revolution, have you got a better idea?

[Nommo]

"They all laughed at Christoper Columbus,
When he said the world was round..."

[egal]

...Except that they didn't, of course.

[Nommo]

"Ford and his Lizzie,
kept the laughers busy,
That's how people are..."

[wildflowermaven]

I'm surprised there are still people out there who are idealistic enough to believe all of anyone's campaign rhetoric. But I read something yesterday that said if one looks at Obama's positions, he's been remarkably consistent. And anyone who believed that he was in lock step with the views of progressive netroots folks were deluding themselves. Haven't followed the campaign closely enough myself to have personal opinion, but I tend to be a bit cynical about all politicians. I'm happy if they are at least moving in the direction I favor.

[ReElectNoOne]

Perfect timing !

Last night I was watching a science program that touched on the "wisdom of crowds" It cited experiments where hundreds were guessing the weight of a bull. Though no one hit the exact weight, the median of all the guess was right on ! Another example, in the search for the lost US Sub Scorpion, many tried to locate it without success. Someone got the idea of averaging everyone's best guess and it was found only 220 yards from the average of those wrong guesses.

No one person my get it right, but the average the wisdom of the crowd and you are likely to be right on!

Based on polls and blogs, Obama is our next president !

[kellygrrrl]

glad I'm not the only one who watches Science progams?

did you catch the new NoveScienceNow on PBS? just started last night

great show

[jackie4444]

Its much the same wisdom that underlies the jury system.

[ARBOC2]

The jury system can hardly be related in any way to the word Wisdom. Without commenting further, I give you the OJ trial; enuf said.

[wayoutleft]

i always instinctively knew baywatch was the greatest show ever. now i have an objective criterion.
(i'm sorry bill and hillary- it's my fault. i should stick to covering cat shows. i was doing so well! then,on my way to the primary, someone or something really attractive started to guide me along and i fell back into my dreams. i'm so sorry. yes you swept the smartest state, but i let you down. where can i buy monica l.'s new fashions? water under the bridge, hillary? ok? if i tell my women friends the truth- they won't speak to me even more... i'm so sorry.)

[gadfly55]

Collectively good people can act out of interest in the good, not exclusively in self-interest. Capitalism reduces behavior to at best mutual self-interest, or Iraq gets democracy and American oil tycoons get their oil, or else endless destruction, impoverishment, horror. What does it take for most people to know what to do and for a political leader to act in their interests? This is not rocket science, it is common sense and for the first time we have direct access to the expression of anyone who can be bothered. The issues of the mob wrecking the structures of the state for short-term gain are easily managed by the tri-partite powers of government. For sure the rich need to be taxed on income, capital gains, property, assets, inheritance and luxury spending, and of course this will be the single greatest aspect of the revolution in American government which has them terrified but with a weak dollar, unable to dodge the express train freezing them in its headlights.

[jesselee26]

here's my problem with all this "netroots" bellyaching: if we're ALL getting slices of the pie... everyone's slice is going to be smaller. that's just how the math works.

[strifeknot]

What a heartwarming capitalist view. Why should you have a bigger slice than anyone else?

[1099]

Capitalism is what made this country the most powerful nation in the world.

Let's just redistribute wealth across the board and call it day I guess.

[LTCKal]

The main point is that we, who write comments into the internet sites, interact with e-mails, watch MSNBC, can end up in an illusion that we really count. I watch Mathews, Buchanan, Mika Brzezysnki, and others and need to remind myself that "these people are not my friends, they have no idea who I am." The reality is that we are blogger-gnats, perhaps a collective of millions of us might make a difference to someone, but it hasn't happened yet. I am an educated, well-travelled person, who understands the subleties of politics, yet my vote can be instantly nullified by that of any idiot (as it has in 2000 and 2004). Sorry for this negativity.

[mheister]

Your point is well-taken.

I would also not accept the assertion that bloggers are a single monolithic group with a single shared political philosophy.

The Internet is an insanely effective organizing tool, but it - and we - do not exist in a vacuum.

[mightbesane]

"The government of everyone..." Ayn Rand, anyone?

As one poster points out, a national referendum on slavery wouldn't have led to emancipation 150 years ago. Indeed, the Democratic Party's Solid South went south over the issue of integration as recently as the 1970s. T

The fact that waves of technologically savvy young folks joined progressives (I hate that term, but if the fit shoes...wait a minute...reverse that...) only means that they could go waving in other directions, or lose their momentum entirely, if they become disenchanted. And just as we couldn't have predicted the wave that carried Obama to the nomination when it began to take shape a year or so ago, there's no telling what could cause it to diminish. Campaign financing? FISA? Who knows?

When you ride the public tiger...

[ARBOC2]

The naive Obama no nothings about governance in a two party system will be disenchanted as hell when they learn that Obama's ill-defined 'CHANGE",amounts to little more than a con game. Jimmy Carter, of whom the young Obamicans have no knowledge , was serious about the same "change" crap and he failed miserably, as will anyone who attempts to seriously challenge Washington's timeless system of legitimized corruption and greed.

The veterans of the Carter "crusade" can only look with pity on the new crusaders. We Democrats never really learn. We had a good chance with Hillary for intelligent well managed practical change and blew it in our time honored fashion of sanatching defeat from the jaws of what might have been.

The best hope now is to replace as many incumbent Republican senators and representatives as possible in order to slow down the damage inflicted on the constitution and the general welfare of the public inflicted on us by the Bush administration and it's corporate sponsors.

[WLA]

We had a good chace with Hi!lary for more of the same. Give me a break. She's about an 8th of an inch this side of McShame.

[BrattyOz]

Naive is an understatement!

[fun2bfree]

If Obama delivers on what I find his most appealing attribute- his dedication to open government, transparent government, then I will be satisfied... I don't agree with Senator Obama on many issues...I am much more of a liberatarian--but the one thing that libertarians and big government types should be able to agree on is that whatever the government is doing should be agreed upon openly--that the process should be transparent so the special interests at work are visible. This may not eliminate big governments shoddy ways--but it has the best chance of any approach.

[pgate127]

But he already ISN'T promoting transparency in government! His stance on FISA is abyssmal! turning it over to an appointed official is the farthest thing from transparency possible...if you can't vote them in, you can't vote them out. This official will be Obama's employee, not yours.

And do you honestly think that privately financing the general election leads to transparency? How can it, when it's controlled by a self-serving organization (read: business) that answers only to the candidate, ultimately? Don't bother telling me that the candidate answers to you, by the way; BO's change in stance on his "signature issue" (campaign reform) and FISA are direct indications of his realization that he can now start shedding the activists who got him where he is.

Oh, man...there are so many who are in for such a letdown.

[ladyfractal]

To be perfectly honest, I understand why the Obama campaign would want to control press access more tightly. Can you (or anyone else here) remember the last time that a commentator, anchor, or reporter either asked him a *genuine* policy question or talked about a *genuine* policy issue regarding him? Anyone? I thought not. Instead it's "Jeremiah Wright said this...why do you agree with that?" or "People call you Osama sometimes, why are you Osama bin Laden" or some other utterly facile nonsense that has not one thing to do with the issues facing this country in the most important election since the 1930's! But you wouldn't know that from the coverage. So if (and I'm just throwing this out there) the press starts doing their bloody *job* of reporting (if you don't remember what that looks like watch the BBC America's news show) then perhaps the Obama campaign may decide that it's worthwhile talking to the media.

Cheers
LF

Cheers
LF

[navalflightofficer]

Boy have you bought the snow job!
I hear quite a lot about Senator Obama's public policy positions, but there are almost no specifics. Don't tell me to go to his web site. I don't tallk to a web site. A web site will not, if Senator Obama is elected President, be running this country, making foreign policy, commanding our military.
I hear surrogates telling me he will do this on taxes, or how silly this position of Senator McCain is, or, I am ashamed to say and appalled to hear, how OLD and dottering and confused Senator McCain is. That is the worst of the politics of personal destruction, coming straight from the mouth of your hero.
The press are reporting what they have, and if you weren't so blinded you would see it is highly slanted in favor or Senator Obama (Fox news and talk radio excluded.)

[Jamchinadian]

Actually, ladyfractal is correct. Every little slip of the tongue by anyone supporting Obama, whether or not the person is connected to his campaign, gets looped and looped and endlessly disected by the so-called MSM.

On the other hand, even the most outrageous, irresponsible and/or ignorant proclamations by McCain gets a pass from the same MSM.

[egal]

Let's see...none of Obama's surrogates, nor Obama himself, have done what you claim. The nearest we've gotten is the claims of McCain's plans and positions being asinine, but that's just statement of facts, not personal destruction.

All the old and doddering claims have come from other politicians not connected to Obama, the media and their misappraisals of statements about McCain's policy flip-flops, and the public, which predominantly (especially the oldsters) finds McCain too old. Blaming Obama for that is pointless and incorrect.

This isn't about hero-worship, it's about policy. Which his website explores in detail. And if you somehow believe that going to Obama's website to read what he has written about his policy and intentions isn't informative or trustworthy enough, then how on earth have you lived with all the presidents before him who have NOT outlined their intentions and positions so clearly and have patently lied about both and much else?

[WLA]

OK. Let's vote for another C student that doesn't really understand any of it, but has a bunch of lobbyists to steer him. But hey, he graduated 5th from the bottom of his class!

[CindySue]

You said: "Correction: Yesterday I said that Jonathan Zittrain spoke about Wikipedians. In fact, Mark Pesce used them in his speech. My apologies to Mr. Pesce. Note to self to return to audio taping."

+ + + + + + +

Phew.. Good thing, then, that I put the hold on a fairly long comment I after the fact realized had absolutely nothing to do with anything in your post save for the Wikipedians line.. :D

Cyber hugs from North Georgia..

[littlepuffycloud]

Why wouldn't he want to control the press' access? When has the press ever showed to be honest or fair? They took absolute glee in showing Rev Wright over and over and over and let's not forget Michelle's mis quoted remark, so Obama wants to control who has access to his campaign. Good for him. Why anyone thinks they can demand anything from this man is ridiculous. He is showing he's tough, smart and will do what's necessary to get elected. That's what he needs to do. Senator Obama is and will always be somewhat caught in Catch-22; no matter what he does.
I believe in Obama and trust him to do what he thinks needs doing. So, deal with it so-called reporters.

[MoeB]

Agreed. I think people need to be brought into reality. Either you want him to agree with you on 100% of the issues (which is nearly impossible, regardless of political affliation), or you want him to get elected. One will happen. The other will not. I don't agree with him about FISA and I disagree with his stance on the death penalty, but agree with him on taxes, the economy, healthcare, social justice, Iraq, the war on terror, and countless other things. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate.

And concerning MSM, I couldn't agree more. This is the same entity that BLASTED M. Obama about her "proud to be american" comments, but not a whisper about McCain basically saying the same thing...like THREE times! Or calling Obama a "flip-flopper" while not mentioning any of McCain's greatest misses (or hits, depending on where he stands at the moment). And they are STILL on the flag pin nonsense! Because a stupid flag pin is going to ensure that social security is there when I retire. Michelle saying it was the first time she was REALLY proud of her country in her adult life is going to cause Iran to go nuclear. But the worst part about the MSM right now is that they spend as much time covering this garbage as they do trying to convince the public that they are only covering this because the public WANTS them to!

[JoshSN]

The wisdom of crowds? That would be pro-slavery in the 1860s.

The wisdom of crowds? Evolution surely would never have gotten off the ground.

Ideas, one imagines, occur in the minds of one or a few individuals, and need to spread from there. Whether the idea is good or not doesn't dictate whether it spreads (for instance, if the person with the idea has 20 million dollars to burn on a television advertising campaign).

I support the wisdom of crowds when it is against bad ideas, but am generally suspicious of the wisdom of crowds because I know most people believe in angels and ghosts.

[BrattyOz]

The "wisdom" of crowds landed us with George W. Bush! THAT kind of wisdom I can live without, thank you very much!!

[ladyfractal]

To be perfectly honest, I understand why the Obama campaign would want to control press access more tightly. Can you (or anyone else here) remember the last time that a commentator, anchor, or reporter either asked him a *genuine* policy question or talked about a *genuine* policy issue regarding him? Anyone? I thought not. Instead it's "Jeremiah Wright said this...why do you agree with that?" or "People call you Osama sometimes, why are you Osama bin Laden" or some other utterly facile nonsense that has not one thing to do with the issues facing this country in the most important election since the 1930's! But you wouldn't know that from the coverage. So if (and I'm just throwing this out there) the press starts doing their bloody *job* of reporting (if you don't remember what that looks like watch the BBC America's news show) then perhaps the Obama campaign may decide that it's worthwhile talking to the media.

Cheers
LF

[CindySue]

'Tis a good thing, then, that the rest of us out here are not able to be so controlled.. As media links within our own minority communities, *we've* asked questions, too, directly of the campaign about minor details like, oh, *INCLUSION* of *ALL* persons in the campaign, in particular the "Vote For Change" (VFC) voter registration drive..

Purported coming directly from Michelle Obama herself, the original generic correspondence emailed out regarding VFC states, "From the beginning, _our goal_ has been to reach out to _people of all races, ages, and backgrounds_ and bring them back into the political process. We must use the rare opportunity we have right now to _bring people together_ and make this a better country for _all Americans_." (Emphasis mine..)

_Persons of all races, ages, and backgrounds_ continue to be illegally incarcerated in long term care (LTC) facilities (nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, etc) across our United States.. Those same _people of all races, ages, and backgrounds_ fit the bill for Michelle's (quote) _all Americans_, yet by and large they have been woefully excluded from the otherwise honorable VFC endeavor.. To date, disability advocate concerns sent straight to the Obama campaign camp regarding the same go wholly unaddressed, either publicly or privately..

For these Fingertips, that's a very.. very... serious Deal Breaker.. Thank goodness the Internet has enabled these same Fingertips and many, many others like them by heaving wide open access to the concept of...

Free Press..

Cyber hugs from Talking Rock..

[voteUSA]

We need to learn how to vote like it is the 21st century.

I envision a cross between American Idol and Letterman's Top Ten. All week long a voter can get on the web at her leisure and review the issues, research, offer new questions and vote on those topics that most interest her. On Friday night that week's voting is closed and tabulated and the weekly cycle repeats.

Imagine the possibilities. The MSM would have a field day. Politicians would be backed into a corner. Average people would start to get involved and excited on a personal level. Poll bias goes away because the people themselves are creating the poll questions. This would be real 'Personal Democracy'.

Our culture certainly has the means to start implementing such a system. Sure there are a few challenges to overcome and it would take time for us to learn how to do it but I think the framers would be proud of us. They lived in a world where it took a week to get from New York to Philadelphia on the back of a horse and the limitations of that world are reflected in the processes enshrined in our founding documents. They also wisely foresaw the world changing and provided us with the tools to adapt.

I think it is high time we started adapting.

I have some plans if anyone is interested in chatting about it.

-gary-

[kellygrrrl]

we need to learn how to vote like we have a brain, IMO

how people can be so blindly led is beyond me

Middle School America is dangerous