Daniel Forrester at GovernmentChangeAgents critiqued an article posted in Government Computer News dealing with the assimilation of Web 2.0 at the federal level. While it’s topical, I bristled at some of the assumptions and conclusions. Since he asks us all some questions, I thought I’d take a stab at some answers.

• Do experts in the government consistently demonstrate more wisdom than a well monitored and diverse crowd?

Yes. That is why we consider them experts. One thing that sets the United States apart is the education and professionalism of our civil service.

And while public input is vital and necessary, there is absolutely no guarantee it is wise. Our country is built on that premise. It’s why we are a representative democracy and not a direct one. Furthermore, “well-monitored and diverse” is ambiguous at best—difficult concepts to define and enforce.

• Why shouldn’t the government consider enabling many pilot programs to tap the wisdom of the American people? Why just dip your foot in the water when a market based economy (read: a very wise crowd) is at the heart of what it means to even live in America?

I fully support pilot programs, but there are very good reasons to test the water first. Without doubting the “wise crowd,” they deal with a different beast. A business can get creative, fund 10 pilot programs, watch nine fail, and bask in the glow of the lone success. A government agency must plan and justify all 10, aim for a 100-percent success rate, be held accountable for all 10 programs, and deal with the aftermath through reduced trust and funding should even one not pan out. That is the wisdom of the public in action.

• With all of the retirements within the government over the next 5 years, can we really afford to not think innovatively about how to enable a different conversation with the American people about how we can best solve problems?

Amen! It is going to take a great deal of innovation to get a meaningful conversation going. Not to mention it is something we should have started at least a decade ago. And new technologies will be a major part of that conversation.

• With the amount of outsourcing done by the government, why should we take a cautious approach to engaging the free minds and wisdom that come with harnessing the innovation of a diverse and normal distribution of people?

Because there is a huge amount of outsourcing. While government and business have a history together, outsourcing has never been as widespread as it is today. Neither government nor business has established ideal methods of working together. Until they do, thoughtfulness and caution are well warranted. Too much haste results in bad business, bad government, and an unhappy public.

• Why is the government moving so slowly in embracing web 2.0? In the Global War on Terror for example, do we actually think the terrorists are missing the chance to collaborate through the web to solve the complex problems of their deranged visions?

Perhaps terrorists aren’t missing the chance, but they have to answer to no one other than their respective higher powers. As for the complexity of their deranged visions, I’d offer that it is easier to blow up a building than it is to carry out the business of any federal executive agency serving almost 300 million people, especially when the abilities and effects of your tools aren’t well established.

I am a wholehearted supporter of Web 2.0 in the public sector. There are, however, real obstacles to using it well, especially in light of characteristics unique to our government structure and political climate. We will be more successful getting to “Government 2.0″ if we thoughtfully deal with these obstacles to craft a Web 2.0 strategy that best benefits our projects, our government, and ultimately ourselves.