I guess digital democracy is associated more with netizen’s basic freedom of speech and the government’s regulation on censorship in developing countries like China. The prevalence of internet is like starting a new round of democratic movement again. It is still very common for hundreds of posts regarding sensitive issues in Chinese websites disappeared in two or three hours after their publication, and also there are endless radical websites being forced to shut down every day, but I guess the good thing is the struggles never stop with the rapid development of new internet technology(social networking sites, microblogging, etc….), so that the movement always seems to be going on, no matter subtly or publicly…

Based on that, I agree that “brave and critical optimism is the way to go when it comes to ‘digital democracy’”.

I tend to be optimistic, but the Internet is such a rapidly evolving medium that it’s difficult to know if I will remain so.

I think moreland shriek was right in saying democracy may be more than the exchange or sharing of informtion. I see it as communication and debate between the public and policy-making individuals. Certainly, the Internet provides the opportunity for this interaction to become more of a two-way thing, and more open. I think the keyword here is opportunity. Whether or not we find an effective way to facilitate this interaction is another thing.

What’s holding me back from being fully optimistic is the Internet’s history of not being used in the way it was intended. Given this, I think we can try as hard as we like to use the Internet in a way that aids democracy, but ultimately its success as a democratic vehicle will depend on how the Internet evolves.

I think I’ll adopt the “open optimism” approach: yes, I’m optimistic; but if it’s looking like the Internet will take another path, I won’t be surprised.

I suspect in the first instance that it is access and ability to contribute to information flows which underpins democracy. Totalitarian/authoritarian states flow gallons of information – it’s just that the flow is one way (top down) and the ability to contribute is formally restricted to the state.

I think in the second instance that there is considerably more to democracy than exchange or sharing of information. And I think this is also true of the concept of a ‘brave and critical’ digital democracy. Corporeal or digital, it requires broad-ranging (ie. majority of constituency) participation to give sufficent mandate to any outcome.

I suspect in the third instance that although we will inevitably have professional ‘knowledge-makers’ as you mention above – people who make their living by organising and arranging digital information – such professions may be the ritualistic product of capitalism rather than a necessary condition of digital democracy. That is, where people can create a commodity of their expertise, they will, but there is no reason why non-professionals could not carry out the same task. I’m not across the details of how wikipedia and other digital info-management projects work, but I thought they maintained a high degree of voluntarism? From your post, it sounds like wikipedia are now employing professional staff not through the need to professionalise their information management, but rather through the need to legally cover their arses.

So I think on the whole I’m a bit sus about the enthusiasm of boffins like Michael Wesch. I agree it is good to have people who are pro-active and creative about digital democracy. But I can’t see how this enthusiasm is going to rapidly change one of the constant features of modern democracies: that most of the constituency do not wish to pro-actively participate in the creation and maintenance of a democracy, that they largely want a political system which will operate with minimal supervision and public participation but maximum domestic benefit – ie. more free time to do stuff, and more money do stuff with.

It’s the kind of thing which makes me think digital democracy, at least for some time yet, will be only for the enthusiasts.

So I think my final comment is that although ‘brave’ and ‘critically optimistic’ strike appealing notes as key features of digital democracy, ‘pragmatic’ and ‘broadly appealing’ are features which will also require incorporation.

(Apologies if this is a bit of an uninformed rant, didn’t have time to check thru yr links or ponder full implications)