Man, I love a lively discussion! And I really love it when it revolves around the intricacies of public service and civil society.

Throw in Web 2.0 and it might as well be my birthday, Christmas, and a Will Ferrell movie all rolled into one.

So you can imagine my excitement as I waited for Dan Forrester and his response to my recent rejoinder about the best catalyst for the development of a wikigov solution. And then I was asked to do a book report.

Bummer. I have read the suggested books (The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki and The Difference by Scott Page), and while I could do my 3rd grade teacher proud by building a shoebox diorama to explain the impracticality of distilling a diverse and smart crowd in a public policy context, I’ll save the rubber paste and stick with the original topic in this initial forum.

“Is it time for wikigov, and if so, what factors are positively or negatively affecting its implementation?”

Regarding the basics, I don’t think Dan and I disagree. The collaborative Web holds countless opportunities for sharing information and knowledge in new and more effective ways. Actually, I think both of us may be exhibiting a characteristic of a wise crowd: cognitive diversity. We have different experiences and resources that we bring to the discussion. While I would argue his position is centered on effectiveness, I am more concerned with accountability.

Citizen-driven dialogue within a policy process is vital to democratic governance. The average person should be involved whenever he or she can, and any tool making such things possible should be welcomed. However, Web 2.0 is much more than a tool. It is also a social and cultural phenomenon—just like democracy. It includes values and norms that form a social institution.

It must, in turn, be reconciled with other institutions. How, for example, does the digital divide affect the fairness of Web 2.0? If someone does not have a connection to the Internet or a basic understanding of a wiki, have their due process rights been violated by a virtual notice and comment session hosted on such an application? How can we “regulate” public participation to maximize effectiveness without impinging on individual rights such as privacy?

There are no simple answers. Dan’s example of the Patent and Trade Office is highly relevant, but is not yet conclusive. Nor is it alone. Dr. Stuart Shulman and the Sara Fine Institute at the University of Pittsburgh have been working on the impact of technology on individual behavior since 1999. One aspect of this has been “eRulemaking.” Since 2003, they have been conducting extensive research on this topic for the National Science Foundation. Their research across federal agencies has highlighted many of the benefits and challenges associated with public engagement through technology. They provide a great deal to think about and ample justification for a deliberate approach. Generally, their data show that many agencies receive several hundred thousand substantial responses when they invite comments online.

For example, within a 90-day period, the USDA received approximately 277,000 comments on their initial proposed standard for the term “organic.” By law, each of these must be reviewed. That is no small task. And now Web technology is allowing lobbyists and activists to create form letters that people simply add their name to. On a controversial topic, the volume can be staggering. A major new initiative is to develop software to classify comments and filter for duplicate ones. Unexpectedly, this has become a resource and time-intensive process.

My point is that questions remain which must be answered before we successfully create Government 2.0. If not, we run the substantial risk of hastily implementing the solution that we hope pays off right away—and ending up with problems we have to pay for down the road.