Une nouvelle économie : la socialnomics

Les réseaux sociaux changent notre manière de vivre, de travailler et de consommer.
On parle de “socialnomics” pour désigner l’impact des réseaux sociaux sur notre vie et sur l’économie.

Erik Qualman, auteur d’un blog et d’un livre sur ce sujet a lancé cette vidéo spectaculaire qui donne des chiffres étonnants sur l’expansion des médias sociaux :

On y apprend par exemple que :
- 1 couple sur 8 s’est marié aux États-Unis l’année dernière suite à une rencontre un réseau social,
- les réseaux sociaux ont détrôné le porno sur le web,
- Wikipédia compte 13 millions d’articles dont 78% ne sont pas en anglais,
- 78% des consommateurs ont confiance dans une recommandation d’internaute VS 14% à la publicité,
- 70% des 18-34 ans regardent la TV sur internet et 25% des américains ont regardé une vidéo sur leur téléphone portable,
- 1,5 millions de contenus sont mis en ligne chaque jour sur Facebook (photos, liens, commentaires)…

Les médias sociaux changent profondément l’accès à l’information et notre manière de communiquer.
Pour exister sur les réseaux sociaux, les entreprises doivent agir comme des partenaires, échanger et ne plus se contenter de diffuser de la publicité. Les marques doivent d’abord écouter pour vendre ensuite.

Selon Eric Qualman, les médias sociaux représentent une révolution aussi importante que la révolution industrielle !

Comment le Web participatif change notre société

Pour prolonger cette réflexion, je vous conseille l’excellent documentaire Us Now disponible ici avec des sous titres en français.
Ce documentaire (60 min) a été réalisé par l’anthropologue anglais Ivo Gormley qui travaille pour le cabinet de design social I Think Public et comme consultant pour FutureGov.

Il démontre la puissance du Web collaboratif à travers des exemples concrets, notamment :
- le couchsurfing qui regroupe 1,3 millions de membres avec des solutions d’hébergement gratuites, partout dans le monde,
- le club de foot participatif Ebbsfleet United pour lequel les membres votent pour décider de la composition de l’équipe et des transferts…,
- le microcrédit entre internautes, sans intermédiaire financier avec l’exemple de Zopa,
- l’échanger de trucs et astuces par les mamans pour l’éducation de leurs enfants sur le réseau Mumset.

Tous ces succès du Web sont nés grâce à des individus qui pour l’immense majorité ne se sont jamais rencontrés « dans la vraie vie ».

La magie du Web 2.0 permet de communiquer avec un grand nombre de personnes en instaurant une sorte de confiance collective qui transforme les relations entre le gens.

Cette collaboration de masse conduit à la création de services innovants et particulièrement efficaces.

Les plateformes communautaires donnent d’immenses possibilités pour réorganiser presque tous les aspects de notre vie.

Les services publics sont à la traîne dans ce domaine. Ivo Gormley imagine comment les réseaux sociaux pourraient changer le mode de gouvernance des pays en impliquant les citoyens et en leur donnant plus de pouvoir de décision.

Tout ceci est à méditer, mais il est clair que les réseaux sociaux ont un impact fort sur notre société.
Sans parler de changement de mode de gouvernance, le secteur public pourrait s’inspirer des expériences positives du monde de l’entreprise pour s’engager dans le mode collaboratif.

Je ne sais pas si c’est une révolution, mais cela y ressemble !

Ten film powinien być obowiązkowy dla każdego obywatela współczesnego świata. Nie tylko w prosty i przystępny sposób pokazuje czym jest social web ale przede wszystkim… czym może być dla nas wszystkich. W obliczu ostatnich wydarzeń w Iranie jego tematyka jest podwójnie aktualna.

Don Tapscott podsumował go słowami: “Ważny i prowokujący film, który powinni obejrzeć ludzie wierzący w demokrację”.

Od niedawna nie trzeba go już kupować – można go obejrzeć w HD w sieci.

Tym, co zwraca moją uwagę, jest fakt, że sam film nakręcony przez Ivo Gormley-a, nie zakończył swojego życia po wyprodukowaniu. Wchodząc na poświęconą filmowi stronę widać, że wokół niego wytworzyła się aktywna społeczność… No właśnie jaka to społeczność? Widzów? Aktywistów społecznych? Użytkowników social web? Osób, które zostały zainspirowane tym filmem?

Już to, samo w sobie, jest warte spojrzenia na tą stronę…

A może ktoś z Was podejmie się zadania stworzenia polskich napisów z tłumaczeniami do tego dokumentu?

I watched Ivo Gormley’s film UsNow (again) today at its launch – watch it here. (I posted about this after watching it in Brussels and wanted to revisit my thoughts, as I believe I still hold the same opinions (you never know!).).

I have a couple of updated thoughts, but pretty much what I wrote then is what I think now; for your viewing pleasure I have managed to copy and paste the old post below my updated stuff.

New points:

• unfair Miliband editing (or not) but still as funny/uncomfortable today as it was when I first winced at it
• it confuses public service and Politics, so much so that I cannot unpick it really; but I suggest you watch the film twice:

1. with a Politics and politician head on
2. with a public service/community head on

• it still scares me: what are we actually inviting here? I would ask that anyone who reads this blog, and watches the film, has a really good *think* about the battle this film seems to wage. Before you take up arms and demand crowdsourced e-democracy, think
• I agree and want crowdsourced public services, and proper consultation on policies that matter to me; Politics, politicking, catching Ministers out? I would rather leave that to the Press (as pointed out today, politicians are their staple diet) – this does not mean that it does not matter to me or you, but I don’t think I should be the one to monitor them this closely (I have a day job and a life)

As was reiterated today: don’t assume the electorate is thick, don’t assume everyone to be criminals… but, if we seriously want this to be the case, then we too must stop assuming that all Politicians are corrupt. (Hard, I know in the current expenses scandal – whole other post, that I will not be writing (not my bag)).

I know this may not be popular (and actually this is almost a direct copy from someone who commented in the Daily Mail on a post about MP expenses – and the comment was given a *boo* vote of at least -300 ) but: I would like to think that the country is run by people who know what they are doing, are paid well to know what they are doing and are given the relative trappings of success that come with being the most fervent in their field. I don’t like paying them; especially when I am absolutely terrified about mine and my children’s next ten years – but I seriously do not want to take on the country’s woes and debt too. I DO want to make my local community better, and I do still want to do stuff for charity (sponsor me here http://bit.ly/EydYT sorry) and I want to get involved in the stuff that I am passionate about – when government is debating/consulting on it.

I stand by my twitter update: @hubmum Crowdsourced public service management/delivery yes. Crowdsourced politics: No

Now… the old post, the stuff I wrote when I first watched the film:

Here’s the blurb:

In a world in which information is like air, what happens to power?
Us Now is a documentary film project about the power of mass
collaboration, government and the Internet.
Us Now tells the stories of online networks that are challenging the
existing notion of hierarchy. For the first time, it brings together
the fore-most thinkers in the field of participative governance to
describe the future of government.

Now, aside from the fact that he is officially my new geek crush, Ivo has created an extraordinarily powerful and compelling film that leaves you pretty speechless and perhaps a little bit disturbed. Here’s why…

Take it as read that the best are interviewed in the film, Clay Shirky has much to say, as does Paul Miller, whom I rate highly, Tom Steinberg, George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Matthew Taylor and so on, really, all the greats (although the decision to interview Ed Miliband over Tom Watson confuses me slightly, but hey ho).

So… we have about an hour’s worth of superb dialogue and compelling argument that leads the audience to a clapping crescendo, nodding and chuckling to themselves about how right they were to believe in this stuff. But… I am left a bit disturbed.

To reduce the whole film to the comparison between the crowdsourced management of the football team: Ebbsfleet United and democratic government would not do it justice; yet it is what sticks, and disturbs.

Without you being able to see the film I know I am being a bit annoying, but let me try to explain. At one point in the film, for a disproportionately long time it has to be said, Ivo follows the success of Ebbsfleet United: a football team managed by its fans; the fans decide who plays, and where… and this ‘citizen-management’ has got them to Wembley (I think, am not a football bird but that seemed to be the gist). There are many clips of over-excited and dedicated fans ‘planning’ the match, deciding who plays where, and when. Great for ticket sales and garments, I presume… also engagement and enthusiasm in a woeful world, granted.

Where this all goes, which is a bit disturbing, is when Ivo transcribes the football playing field onto the Cabinet table, and starts showing us how we could be choosing who sits in what position, where on the table, what part they play. Cabinet Ministers becoming as suggestible/manageable as Ebbsfield United.

Visually compelling stuff indeed. But can you imagine what Sir Alex Ferguson would say? Let alone the rather confused Government of today?
I am not going to get into party politics here, but I absolutely believe that all Ministers sitting in Parliament, whether in power or opposition, are there because they are fundamentally driven to *do* something.

What scares me about Ivo’s film, or just this Ebbsfield bit, is that there is no way I would ever sign up to a society governed by crowdsourced decisions and I am terrified that the digital revolution might, if not managed properly, tip the balance of lively debate into anarchy.

Why?

Because I expect the government voted in democratically by the citizens of this country, to do their job. I don’t want it, I don’t have the time nor the where-with-all to do their job. I don’t want or need the responsibility of running the country, from central to local government, every morning when I wake up. It is enough for me to keep my family going. I *want* to trust the people my country decides are fit to run the country (every four years) to do their job so that I can do mine.

Yes, there will always be dissent, and there will be challenges to the decisions taken by those in power. However, I rely on the Press to keep on the case on this one. I *believe* that if there is a travesty, the Press will pick it up and expose it, I will read about it and believe that if there has truly been an abomination against democracy, that the person/party/people involved will be brought to justice. I do not want to be the person to do that, I want those in the know to do that.

At this point I can feel the groundswell of outrage at my naivety, but I am being a generalist on purpose here… I am really scared abut what *we* are trying to do with our digital enablement of government.

Running a country is a tortuous business, I imagine/assume. It is greater than running a consultancy, a bank, a hedge fund, a football club… all of which we accept requires skill that we do not question. The fact that I belong to a democratic country means that I cannot just sit on my backside and wait to be told what to do, I am allowed to affect the decisions taken, should I care to. The problem is that I don’t always know what these decisions are, where to find them and how to engage/influence.

Surely, the digital revolution is more about a release of shared responsibility for the governing of a country. It is not an abdication of responsibility for those we vote in: please let’s not propose governance that relies on crowdsourcing decision-making on a macro, mesa or micro level. What it is is a new channel for the decision makers (who are busy dealing with enormous stuff, like war for example) to understand what is concerning the citizens of the country, enabling them to address these without relying on expensive ‘citizen insight’.

It also should mean that us citizens will stumble upon apt policies in the making, that we can affect, engage with and potentially influence – because our government is able to understand our concerns and will act accordingly. (Effective consultation.)

That is what I want to achieve by working in this space in the UK government departments. To make sure that those needing to know what we, citizens, think, can do so without too much effort (monitoring of social space); assist engagement where appropriate and be a guiding hand in what is *frankly* a daily explosion of information and data.

Why?

So that they can do their job and we can do ours.

Together with Wemind and Cevea, I’m bringing the director of the acclaimed documentary “Us Now” to Denmark, to show his film and to discuss its implications.

In a time where the president of the United States of America has over 6 million friends on Facebook, and the Danish Prime Minister actively uses the social network Twitter, attention is now being directed towards the power of social media. What are the implications of these new mediums?

What are the opportunities inherent in these new technologies? And how can modern societies adapt to this new reality, which places new demands on democracies, politicians and the inclusiveness of governments?

“Us Now” is about the power of social media and mass collaboration, and will appear in both Aarhus and Copenhagen. The film has sparked debate among thought leaders in its home country, and at screenings in Canada, USA, Norway, Brussels and Germany. It asks fundamental questions about social change in a time where man’s ability to communicate across time and space is growing explosively.

You can read more or see clips from the movie on the website www.usnowfilm.com

Screenings and panel debates:

Aarhus, 6th of May @ 19:00-21:00 in the cinema “Øst for paradis”, Paradisgade 7-9, 8000 Aarhus C.

Panelists:

• Ivo Gormley, Director of “Us Now”
• Hans Henrik H. Heming, Partner, Wemind
• Lasse Christensen, Lab Agent, Innovation Lab

Copenhagen, 7th of May @ 17:30-19:30 at Empire Bio, Guldbergsgade 29f 2200 Copenhagen N.

Panelists:

• Ivo Gormley, Director of “Us Now”
• Jacob Bøtter, Partner, Wemind
• Mads Bødker, Copenhagen Business School
• Yildiz Akdogan MF (S)

The Director of Cevea, Jens Jonatan Steen will moderate a panel debate after each screening.

Due to a large interest in the screening of ‘Us Now”, we kindly ask you to sign up for the event no later than the 4th of May at markhbeanland@gmail.com. Mark the subject line Us Now Aarhus or Us Now Cph. Note that there is a limited number of seats, so if you want to be sure of a place to sit, we encourage you to report back as soon as possible.

Download the official invitation here, and look forward to an exciting debate!

I just came across a clip to a documentary film called ‘Us Now‘, directed by social anthropologist & filmmaker Ivo Gormley. This is all I have seen…I would love to hear if anyone out there has seen the entire film.  Us Now explores opportunities that new technologies are providing and asks the question…‘In a world in which information is like air, what happens to power?’  

New models of social organization are the result of these new technologies and a culture of collaboration.  To understand the future, we need to be aware of the changes that social media is creating, traditional media as it is now cannot keep up with these changes.

The power of mass collaboration extends well beyond Facebook.  Peer to peer interaction on this scale is ‘the greatest social change since the invention of the printing press’.  

“Lets face it, look at young people. Do young people read newspapers? Do they watch national broadcasters? No they don’t, they get their information from lots of different sources. Now, there are problems associated with that, but generally speaking the democratisation of how it is we get our information, I think, has to be a good thing.”

Matthew Taylor 

At today’s epractice.eu conference in Brussels we were shown Ivo’s spell-binding film: ‘Us Now‘, clips of which are shown here. The next showing of it in the UK is here… sign up. Here’s the blurb:

In a world in which information is like air, what happens to power?
Us Now is a documentary film project about the power of mass
collaboration, government and the Internet.
Us Now tells the stories of online networks that are challenging the
existing notion of hierarchy. For the first time, it brings together
the fore-most thinkers in the field of participative governance to
describe the future of government.

Now, aside from the fact that he is officially my new geek crush, Ivo has created an extraordinarily powerful and compelling film that leaves you pretty speechless and perhaps a little bit disturbed. Here’s why…

Take it as read that the best are interviewed in the film, Clay Shirky has much to say, as does Paul Miller, whom I rate highly, Tom Steinberg, George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Matthew Taylor and so on, really, all the greats (although the decision to interview Ed Miliband over Tom Watson confuses me slightly, but hey ho).

So… we have about an hour’s worth of superb dialogue and compelling argument that leads the audience to a clapping crescendo, nodding and chuckling to themselves about how right they were to believe in this stuff. But… I am left a bit disturbed.

To reduce the whole film to the comparison between the crowdsourced management of the football team: Ebbsfleet United and democratic government would not do it justice; yet it is what sticks, and disturbs.

Without you being able to see the film I know I am being a bit annoying, but let me try to explain. At one point in the film, for a disproportionately long time it has to be said, Ivo follows the success of Ebbsfleet United: a football team managed by its fans; the fans decide who plays, and where… and this ‘citizen-management’ has got them to Wembley (I think, am not a football bird but that seemed to be the gist). There are many clips of over-excited and dedicated fans ‘planning’ the match, deciding who plays where, and when. Great for ticket sales and garments, I presume… also engagement and enthusiasm in a woeful world, granted.

Where this all goes, which is a bit disturbing, is when Ivo transcribes the football playing field onto the Cabinet table, and starts showing us how we could be choosing who sits in what position, where on the table, what part they play. Cabinet Ministers becoming as suggestible/manageable as Ebbsfield United.

Visually compelling stuff indeed. But can you imagine what Sir Alex Ferguson would say? Let alone the rather confused Government of today?
I am not going to get into party politics here, but I absolutely believe that all Ministers sitting in Parliament, whether in power or opposition, are there because they are fundamentally driven to *do* something.

What scares me about Ivo’s film, or just this Ebbsfield bit, is that there is no way I would ever sign up to a society governed by crowdsourced decisions and I am terrified that the digital revolution might, if not managed properly, tip the balance of lively debate into anarchy.

Why?

Because I expect the government voted in democratically by the citizens of this country, to do their job. I don’t want it, I don’t have the time nor the where-with-all to do their job. I don’t want or need the responsibility of running the country, from central to local government, every morning when I wake up. It is enough for me to keep my family going. I *want* to trust the people my country decides are fit to run the country (every four years) to do their job so that I can do mine.

Yes, there will always be dissent, and there will be challenges to the decisions taken by those in power. However, I rely on the Press to keep on the case on this one. I *believe* that if there is a travesty, the Press will pick it up and expose it, I will read about it and believe that if there has truly been an abomination against democracy, that the person/party/people involved will be brought to justice. I do not want to be the person to do that, I want those in the know to do that.

At this point I can feel the groundswell of outrage at my naivety, but I am being a generalist on purpose here… I am really scared abut what *we* are trying to do with our digital enablement of government.

Running a country is a tortuous business, I imagine/assume. It is greater than running a consultancy, a bank, a hedge fund, a football club… all of which we accept requires skill that we do not question. The fact that I belong to a democratic country means that I cannot just sit on my backside and wait to be told what to do, I am allowed to affect the decisions taken, should I care to. The problem is that I don’t always know what these decisions are, where to find them and how to engage/influence.

Surely, the digital revolution is more about a release of shared responsibility for the governing of a country. It is not an abdication of responsibility for those we vote in: please let’s not propose governance that relies on crowdsourcing decision-making on a macro, mesa or micro level. What it is is a new channel for the decision makers (who are busy dealing with enormous stuff, like war for example) to understand what is concerning the citizens of the country, enabling them to address these without relying on expensive ‘citizen insight’.

It also should mean that us citizens will stumble upon apt policies in the making, that we can affect, engage with and potentially influence – because our government is able to understand our concerns and will act accordingly. (Effective consultation.)

That is what I want to achieve by working in this space in the UK government departments. To make sure that those needing to know what we, citizens, think, can do so without too much effort (monitoring of social space); assist engagement where appropriate and be a guiding hand in what is *frankly* a daily explosion of information and data.

Why?

So that they can do their job and we can do ours.

Expect a small flurry of blog posts now. I have just got back from David Osimo and Dominic Campbell’s conference in Brussels, that – apart from being thought-provoking – gave me some much needed train/MAC time to knock some stuff off my ‘to do’ list (and add to my list of things to yell for help on through my blog).

Anyway, Brussels/EU/stuff…

I was there with James Darling to speak about what we did at Rewired State. What was great was that, quite by chance, we happened to be on a panel of people showcasing everything that they had done with data. It was billed as a web 2.0 conference, but as we all know this is far greater than meeting the general cry for a MyFace or Spacebook account. Here’s the list of people we were on a panel with:

• Jack Thurston, founder, Farmsubsidy (EU) – looks a bit like fatboy slim, Jack is the champion of ‘getting stuff done’ in the EU, hoping to do a rewired state type event (making a big play for boy wonder’s geekery skills – join the queue). He was disappointed that so much of the panel, and day, was showcasing UK talent and achievement, I concur and look forward to this being done with more of a European show-off
• Adrian Moraru, IPPC: how MEPs vote: he had a great voting record hack to show, but as they had run out of funds, it is no longer available online to view. Shame, I hope they get their funds, and/or the geeks get their hands on the Opensource info and recreate it for us to enjoy. I am v interested in Adrian’s work and hope we have more Eastern block talent shared at future events
• David Price, Debategraph: this kind of went over my head in the quick ten minute showcase; however, it is one that I will go and have a proper look at. I believe that somewhere in here is the answer to monitoring online consultation.

So then us. You see? All hacks.

This then lead into another panel, lunch, Ivo Gormley’s film: Us Now and an afternoon of meso and macro level approach to Public Services 2.0. I am pretty sure it will all be shown and available, keep watching FutureGov… it was very good and worth watching/following but I will not do a blow by blow here.

Conversation at lunch revolved around data provision and procurement of talent such as the geeks at Rewired State. For the former, I look squarely in the direction of Richard Stirling, Power of Information Taskforce. For the latter, I am slightly more out of my depth, however the Agile Procurement Manifesto, based on the Agile Manifesto, proposed by the agile procurement group (borne of UKGovBarCamp09) looks like it will begin to address this. (This is a bit of a teaser, the wiki will be up shortly and I will definitely show you where and when.)

Ivo Gormley’s film inspired the most thought for the day but I will do this in a separate post. All in all it was a good day, and I am excited about what is happening across Europe in this public service 2.0 space.

Do watch the recorded video from the day as and when you can, and definitely get to see Ivo’s film.

I was lucky enough to snag a ticket to go and see Us Now at the RSA on Wednesday night.

Us Now, by Ivo Gormley, is a film about the power of online collaboration and communities – and what that might mean for future government. Its very powerful, highlighting some excellent case studies and interviewing a range of experts (its worth seeing for Ed Miliband’s appearance alone I think).

Others have already written better reviews than I could so all I will say is – its fantastic, go and see it.

There’s another preview viewing next Wednesday evening in London and there are still (free) tickets available. If you’re around, I highly recommend going along. This is one hour of your life you won’t regret giving up.

Ticket details here.

An interesting trip last night to a screening of Us Now, a new documentary about how the wisdom of crowds is being applied in the real world. Lots of familiar stories – Zoba, Couchsurfing, Ebbsfleet United – and some new ones on me – a community deciding how to allocate grant money.

“Us Now tells the stories of online networks that are challenging the existing notion of hierarchy.  For the first time, it brings together the fore-most thinkers in the field of participative governance to describe the future of government.”

It’s enjoyable stuff. Clay Shirky and Don Tapscott doing their shtick, and a wide-eyed tourist arriving in scary ol’ London and meeting his couchsurfing host. Will he or won’t he be a predatory axe-murdering maniac?

But it felt a bit relentlessly upside. I had my hand up to ask a question but didn’t get picked, so here goes.

Remember Mr. Splashypants?  

Mr. Splashypants is a humpback whale. Greenpeace was launching  its “Great Whale Trail Expedition” and decided to ask the internet to name a whale. And inevitably, I suppose, the contest got gamed. Somebody suggested “Mr. Splashypants” as a name, and then somebody else broke the voting machinery and then Boing Boing, Digg, Reddit etc got hold of the story and all of us joined in the joke and ”Mr. Splashypants” won the vote by a country mile.

So my worry about online networks challenging the existing notion of hierarchies is that online networks don’t promote responsibility. It’s all so damn disinhibiting. People are ruder, sillier, more destructive online than in person. Which doesn’t really fit with a new model of government.

It’s a pity. I’d really like this to be a brave new world and human nature not to be such a bitch all of a sudden, but I think it probably still is. 

Good film, though.

I went to see Us Now at the RSA last night… a documentary by Ivo Gormley and Banyak film that looks at web collaboration type stuff through some real stories about online/offline communities, and a few interviews. It got me thinking:

People right across the world are connecting in all kinds of ways on the web right now without any great institution or medium to support this in a traditional top-down sense. What is more, they are then getting things done – whether that’s about big online projects that use collective wisdom like Wikipedia or Linux, or whether its facilitating personal meetings and connections like mumsnet coffee mornings or couchsurfing.

This is useful, and interaction with a larger whole means something to individuals who take part. Big-little, global-local, public-personal. This is an important landscape feature of online collaboration.

Wikipedia is now my first point of reference when I want to know something, its part of my personal web toolkit, and through it I’m tapping into the  thoughts and knowledge of people from across the world who feel confident enough and who have time to contribute to building that vast resource for free. A wise collective.

The couchsurfer’s story in UsNow illustrated a more personal side of connectedness – for the surfer, the experience served to put a friendly face onto a blank and unknown cityscape, a way of providing a connection through shared affirmation and a sense of trust induced in part through online reputational systems. Basically, a guy he’d never met cooked him dinner and let him sleep on the couch – and this was all OK.

We know this right? But then, the film takes us to the story of Ebbsfleet football club, and into the world of Ed Miliband and this is where it gets interesting. At Ebbsfleet we see the story of players being picked online by fans, photos are dropped into position online by various enthusiastic supporters. The manager, the expert, then has to pick the team that the fans choose for him. In the film – Ebbsfleet wins the match – they’re all going to Wembley – and fans speak of being part of that victory – ‘we’ did it, ‘we’re going to Wembley etc. But Ebbsfleet don’t do this anymore – they’ve gone back to being expert-controlled with the manager, the expert, taking the decisions for the good of the team and the fans.

Then we see an image of Ed Miliband’s head being gently dropped onto a ‘pick your cabinet’ webpage…hmmmm. Not a great way to construct a cabinet I think… This is followed by a wicked moment of confusion captured on the film that shows a much more human side of an MP – for once, the ‘answers’ aren’t all there… but of course, this was then followed up with an official statement of ’solution’. I’d much rather it wasn’t.*

When those with traditional expertise don’t know what to do, when a public mandate for change is required, when decisions are at stake that can be based on the real, lived experience of people who know the area, service, attitudes best – those kind of situations are crying out for a more participatory approach. This is going to happen with or without government going along with it – but it would be so much better to have radical system change happen willingly and with optimism rather than reluctantly, through backlash and disenchantment, cynicism, loss of trust in decision makers etc.

Ed’s head in hands moment of bewilderment illustrates the institutional tensions and personal, inner conflict that go to work when we start transposing user generated participatory ideas onto existing, top down ‘representative’ (failing) democratic systems. Yes, there will be leading participatory disruptors that impact on the way government takes decisions, but the question is whether it would be better to transform and decentralise current systems of governance to enable a more equitable distribution of power. I reckon that more votes were made on disgruntled feelings, hairstyle and humour in the London mayoral elections than on policy issues. There’s potential to make a bad system worse…

In Us Now Paul Miller points that there is a misconception that decision makers and those with power make – that people are thick, therefore they shouldn’t be involved in making decision on important things. This problem of perception works at a number levels – decision makers don’t give enough credit to public wisdom and intelligence, the press consistently portray the public as being respondent, passive and powerless rather than active and influential, and people themselves do not feel able to influence decisions in their communities. These three have worked together to ensure that many citizens remain as passive consumers. Now, take the mass media image out of the picture, and instead put in place a new kind of reflection of a citizen - that seen through web 2.0 collaboration and connectedness – a far more attractive and empowering form of citizenship emerges, and its one that does not fit with current outmoded democratic systems.

It is clear that there is a place for two broad based kinds of expertise in this participatory future and for Ebbsfleet as much as Parliament. One form of which taps into public wisdom, one which uses the skills of learned specialist individuals. We need to work out how the two interconnect – where the system needs to change, (pretty much everywhere, especially in terms of repersentative politics), where power ought to lie, and what people everywhere will do for themselves next.

Now, I’m not sure how that’ll all pan out – so might go and ask someone else what they think…

 *see comment below

**Update: Check out what someone else thought at confusedofcalcutta where JP Rangaswami, who chaired the event writes it up.