Talk:Participatory democracy

"The participatory democracy practised in the Council of Europe, the Home of Democracy, represents a unique and original form of citizen involvement in the European construction process." "participatory democracy to be established in Europe, as advocated by the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe in her statement at the Warsaw Summit: “Participatory democracy means recognising citizens as players for the common good. Recognising them as players is the key to the future of our democracies.” ^[1] "In this context, the work of the CoE Forum for the Future of Democracy,2 to be established as part of the Action Plan adopted at the Warsaw Summit, will be of utmost relevance to the question of freedom of association in general and the participation of civil society in the democratic process more specifically. Through an “exchange of ideas, information and examples of best practices”, when created, the Forum will allow for addressing new challenges, such as the role of civil society and its organised part - the NGOs - in policy-making, the question of “participatory democracy” and the future of “Quadrilogue”. ^[2]

"Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Raggz 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the key values of SDS in the 1960's (and today with its rebirth) was Participatory Democracy, as advocated in the iconic Port Huron Statement. Just google search "participatory democracy" and you won't have to search far to find an article related to SDS. I think leaving SDS out leaves this article without any accurate historical context. --24.33.240.164 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The term "participatory democracy" is of central concern to the Port Huron Statement. Also, why is there no history of this term? Who first coined it? Where? Was it Port Huron?--Vasser24 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A new form of participatory democracy was proposed and publicly debated this month (August 2007). Two institutions were proposed 1) open electoral system, and 2) open legislature. I am wondering if there is room in this article (or anywhere on Wikipedia) for these.

Points I consider in favour of inclusion:

• Both systems were critiqued in public forums, and stood up well. Participating were political scientists, computer scientists, sociologists, and the general public. (So the forums could serve as references, for now.)
• The open electoral system was actually *designed* in public. In response to a paper recommended by a researcher, I did the initial design sketch. Then I refined it in response to criticism by researchers. (So it has been participatory from the start.)
• The open electoral system is simple; can be implemented in a matter of months; can be deployed without financial cost, entirely by participants; and would have immediate, arguably profound political effect. (So it is interesting.)

I looked at other, more specific articles (E-democracy and Open politics). But I like the quality of this article (Participatory democracy), so I'm knocking on this door first, and asking for opinions. Should we describe this on Wikipedia? And where, exactly? -- Michael Allan 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a page on the web that suggests a potential distinction between 'participatory' versus 'direct'. Or perhaps an alternative meaning? The distinction would seem to be between inclusiveness (i.e. public participation) and openness (e.g. a show of hands, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.195.197 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section "Vagueness of Term" saying "1) Horowitz's argument doesn't say the term is misleading; 2) the other "criticisms" here are contradicted by the article itself)". An editor restored it, calling it "my section" . Of course, it doesn't belong to that editor. Here are my reasons, more fully. Horowitz's article certainly mentions the term "participatory democracy", but he never calls it misleading (as I said); at most he implies that its usage in one context was misleading, but even there, he doesn't say that. As for the second, the section makes a claim that "there appears to be" no "historical, practical, commonly understood" definition of participatory democracy. The definition given in the lead seems to me to be accurate, and pretty much the only one used for this term. The continual weasels of "it is commonly understood" is ridiculous, and seems designed to argue that there is one and only one proper use of the term "democracy". I think the lead is perfectly clear, and if there is further discussion needed, it should happen here. Tb (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see that Horowitz is calling "participatory democracy" a cover, i.e. misleading (Who do Hayden and Flacks think they're fooling at this late date?) for sexed up marxist theory you must have a political bias. How can he state it more plainly? I'm afraid, tb, you are the one engaging in splitting hairs and using weasel words. On top of that you are suppressing useful information concerning an article of very questionable value. Even though I disagree strongly with the merits of this article I had the decency to leave it untouched and let other people decide for themselves. You seem afraid of that. Why?

I went down the list "Social Movements Practicing Participatory Democracy". Every single "movement" (and I use that term ironically since most are squatters groups demanding free services and land) was at another Wikipedia article (did you write them?). Only two out of ten had the term "participatory democracy" used in the article itself or footnotes, SDS and Zapatista Army of National Liberation. EZLN is self-admitted marxist and anarchist. SDS is marxist in all but name only. I would suspect that the Port Huron Statement was the first time "participatory democracy" was cooked up. The term itself is a fraud. It means nothing because you can't describe it in the real world as to a) what it is, b) the process involved, and c) who coined the term. Really, this article should be pulled.

Why can't you answer my questions, tb?

1. Please explain to me the process of "participatory democracy" compared with "representative democracy". Nowhere in the article is this described. Do you understand what the word "process" means? How does one vote? How many candidates or parties? Are the ballots secret? Who counts the votes? How long are the terms? Is the winner determined by simple majority?

2. Please write a brief history of the term. When was it first coined and by whom? You did not even try on that one. Why?

You say that the lead "pretty much" (I like that "pretty much") describes the term. There's some vague nonsense about using technology to "empower" who it doesn't say.

Specifically, what does this mean in plain English? Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied. The footnote (the only one in the definition) refers to something called Shirky, Clay "Here Comes Everybody" with no publisher, no link, no dates, no nothing.

And you have the gall to call this definition "perfectly clear"?

Again, please answer the questions I have asked. I am not satisfied with your (non)answers.

And do not remove the subheading Vagueness of Term until you answer these questions satisfactorily (see below also). --Vasser24 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking again at the sentence I asked you to explain. Let's parse it.

1. Effectively increasing the scale of participation - isn't this called universal suffrage? I think its been done already, tb. Or do they want twelve-year-olds to vote?

2. and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks - how does one translate a small but effective group into a small world network? What is a small world network? What's the difference between a participation group and a group? And why would you want to "translate" small groups into small world networks in the first place?

3. So these "areas" are currently being studied by someone called Shirky who's whereabouts are very murky. Anyone else engaged in "studying" these "areas"? --Vasser24 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore your insinuations about my motives and focus on the substance.

* Please explain to me the process of "participatory democracy" compared with "representative democracy". Nowhere in the article is this described. Do you understand what the word "process" means? How does one vote? How many candidates or parties? Are the ballots secret? Who counts the votes? How long are the terms? Is the winner determined by simple majority? It's not a contrast to representative democracy; a system might well be both. It is easy to explain how a representative democracy might fail to be a participatory democracy, however. For example, if the citizens are denied access to information necessary to make a coherent policy choice, or if the citizens are prohibited from free discussion of policy choices, then you might still have representatives elected, but you don't have participatory democracy. The lead expresses this well, but if you think it could be improved, by all means.

* Please write a brief history of the term. When was it first coined and by whom? You did not even try on that one. Why? I have no idea what the history of the term is. You seem to be sure that it originated with the Port Huron statement; if so, then it should be simple to find a reference and add a relevant explanation cited.

* Specifically, what does this mean in plain English? Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied. I'm no expert, but it sounds like one way to increase participation is to find ways of getting more people involved ("increasing the scale of participation"). And, participation is easier in smaller groups, so "translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks" would seem to be a sensible way to have large-scale participation arise naturally out of small-scale participation.

* Effectively increasing the scale of participation - isn't this called universal suffrage? No, voting is not the same as participation. Participation is about "meaningful contributions to decision-making" as the lead says, not merely about voting for decision-makers. Moreover, since it refers to "all members of a political group", I think it means all of them. So universal suffrage might be a necessary part of participatory democracy, but it isn't sufficient all by itself.

* and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks - how does one translate a small but effective group into a small world network? What is a small world network? What's the difference between a participation group and a group? And why would you want to "translate" small groups into small world networks in the first place? Given that Small-world network is a wikilink, you might have looked there to see. A small effective group is, well, small and effective. Participation is easy in small groups where people know each other. But populations are huge. If we are all in a small-world network, then each small group will be only a couple people away from another small group, and the connectivity of the network will enable communication between the groups efficiently. Seems to me that's what it's talking about. Why would you want it? Well, you may think it's a stupid thing nobody should want; but that hardly makes the article defective. It's not an op/ed piece. But the article says that you want it because then you can increase the scale of participation--that is, you can have effective participation across a much larger population.

* So these "areas" are currently being studied by someone called Shirky who's whereabouts are very murky. Anyone else engaged in "studying" these "areas"? I have no idea who Shirky is. On the other hand, I found the book by typing "clay shirky here comes everybody" into google. If you want to ask about that reference, you should ask the person who added it to the article.

Fundamentally, however, it is inappropriate to place, into an article, explanations for why the article should be deleted, or calls for additional work to be done. If you think the article should be deleted, post an AfD and improve the encyclopedia. If you think the article should be improved, improve it. (For example, you are interested in the origin of the term: so go track down the information and add it.)

Your questions are good and fine, and I hope they lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. You seem to be taking me as some kind of apologist for "participatory democracy", which I am not. I simply don't want to see Wikipedia articles with little arguments in the middle of them. The improvements belong in the article; the rest belongs in discussion. So here's what I'm doing. Clearly you dispute the article's accuracy, so I'm adding the relevant tag at the top. I'm moving the discussion about the article here, where it belongs, and I'm happy to keep discussing whatever improvements you think should be made. But please discuss improvements to the encyclopedia and not "why you think the term is a bogus political concept". Tb (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that Small-world network is a wikilink, you might have looked there to see. I did. Its an article about proteins and molecular level relationships. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people, let alone political organization.

I could go down your answers one by one, td, but its a waste of time. I can't believe you actually believe the stuff you write. You, or the authors of this article, are simply wishing, or pretending to wish more likely, that life were perfect. That everyone could have complete knowledge and there is no conflict and everyone has good intentions and no weakness or lust for power or envy. The sinister part enters when we connect this airy-fairy juvenilia with SDS. We begin to see ulterior motives, td. We begin to see clever people who are willfully duping naive but willing accomplices. This is why the targets, the naifs, were called "useful idiots" by Lenin. This article is a willing accomplice or an instrument willed by clever but not very honest people.

Rather than waste more time just change it. The article should read:

The term "participatory democracy" was coined by the authors of the Port Huron Statement, the founding manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The term was designed to deflect awareness towards its target market, estranged college students, of the document's underlying marxist ideology.^[1]

Get rid of all the fakery, the useless, deadend references, doubletalk and innuendo.--Vasser24 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm a fan of participatory democracy. I'm not. You are approaching this as a partisan question of whether participatory democracy is a good idea, which is really quite irrelevant here. As for Small-world network, it's a general term for a kind of graph which applies (as do many mathematical concepts) to a vast domain of real-world cases, including a graph of social links and relationships. The Horowitz article describes how the Port Huron statement used the term "participatory democracy", but doesn't actually claim that it started there afaict Moreover, relying only on Horowitz is a poor strategy; he's one author writing an opinion piece and not a good secondary source. He's a source for his opinions but not much else. If the term was really invented by the Port Huron statement, then it should be easy to find better sources. We must also be careful not to conflate origins with present use; the SDS is gone and the Port Huron statement is dead and the Soviet Union (which called itself a "socialist democracy" and was in fact neither, of course) has collapsed. The term "participatory democracy" continues to be used however, in contexts which are not simply shills for international Bolshevism. This suggests that a section--a well-researched and sourced section--on the origins and history of the term would be useful, both to outline its origins (if it really did start with Port Huron), and its current use. Tb (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SDS is not gone and totalitariansim is very far from dead.

But let me understand you. You are saying, if I'm correct, that Horowitz is just writing his opinion and therefore can't be used as a source. But the originator of this article can produce this term "participatory democracy" out of thin air, describe this non-existent theory as something that's real and comparable to actual working democracy, using either no citations or ones without documented publisher or link, falsely link to 8 out of 10 references to "movements" that are somehow involved with this hallucination called "participatory democracy" who in fact are simply squatters, communists and misfits as proof of this fabricated term's existence, and this is okay? Why should I have to prove that a dream doesn't exist? Let the author prove it does.

I don't mind you having standards tb but shouldn't you apply them to everyone equally?

From the 1st para: However, traditional representative democracy tends to limit citizen participation to voting, leaving actual governance to politicians.[citation needed] Exactly how is this not an opinion, albeit stupidly written? Wait, politician is dirty word, comrade. Maybe political officer is better, no? Or community organizer better still! No ref of course, even a scholarly one.

I've already covered the 2nd para. You have not given a satisfactory answer.

The 3rd para: Some scholars argue (for a cause) for refocusing the term on community-based activity within the domain of civil society, based on the belief that a strong non-governmental public sphere is a precondition for the emergence of a strong liberal democracy.[2] These scholars tend to stress the value of separation between the realm of civil society and the formal political realm.[3]

Doesn't arguing for a cause bias the neutrality of the "scholar"? I have never read such opaque nonsense.--Vasser24 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly opposed to participatory democracy, or the use of the term, or whatever. If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that the green party in Europe and the US use the term, which doesn't make them totalitarian (nor is Wikipedia somehow not supposed to discuss totalitarian theories). A look at amazon.com or google will show you the wide use of the term outside Marxist circles; whatever its origins (interesting though they are, and which you have so far failed to find out despite your passionate interest) the term has moved on since then. Horowitz can tell you what the term was doing in the early sixties in the New Left. He isn't even trying to talk about more recent uses of the term, nor does he claim that Port Huron originated it (which is interesting, but hardly the only interesting thing to say). I didn't create the links to those organizations; if you would like to discuss them, please make edits which will improve the article, by explaining why the groups in question don't use the term or otherwise don't fit the term's scope. (It's quite irrelevant the moral character of the groups; the article isn't saying that everyone who claims to care about participatory democracy is on the side of the angels, nor should it.) This discussion is about the questionable argument you were trying to have inside the article itself. If you wish to discuss other parts of the article, please open new sections (one for each such thing you believe is inaccurate) and we should discuss them. I'm insisting here, in this section of the discussion that whatever the merits or demerits of the first part of the article, having an argument in the article text itself is not a satisfactory solution. If you want to draft a section explaining that, according to Horowitz, the term was used in the Port Huron statement as a cover for Bolshevism, that's all well and good. But it's perfectly clear that, for many who use the term today (as opposed to forty-five years ago), it is not. A brief look at the use of the term today would show that. Tb (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created sections to discuss the three areas you have brought up. If there are more, please create more sections as needed. If we work together, we may improve things. Tb (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the article, as explained above, as being about why the article is bad and should be deleted (in the opinion of the editor who added these words) rather than about the topic itself. Further discussion here tending to improvement of the article is a good thing. Tb (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While there is an historical, practical and commonly understood definition to the term "democracy" meaning "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" (Webster's Dictionary), there appears to be no such source material concerning "participatory democracy."

It is commonly understood and documented that the term demos originated with the ancient Greeks and it was they who invented the meaning of democracy.^[1]

It is commonly understood that in a modern democracy an election is held in which two or more candidates run for office, each eligible voter has the right to cast a vote in a secret ballot and without coercion, and that the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election.

It appears that "participatory democracy" has neither a history nor an explanation as to how it actually works that can be described in a sentence or two. In other words, the origins and process appear unintelligible in a commonly understood manner by a reasonable person.

There has been some criticism of the term as misleading.^[2]

Another editor objects to the following text in the lead: However, traditional representative democracy tends to limit citizen participation to voting, leaving actual governance to politicians. The editor seems to think I'm a communist or something, but regardless, I'm happy to discuss it. His objection was: Exactly how is this not an opinion, albeit stupidly written? Wait, politician is dirty word, comrade. Maybe political officer is better, no? Or community organizer better still! No ref of course, even a scholarly one.

I agree that a reference should be provided; I can dig some up if you like. Citizen participation in the United States, for example, is mostly confined to voting; small minorities write letters to politicians, though politicians are under no obligation to read, reply, or consider their contents. It is extremely common in the United States for politicians of all stripes to lament low levels of citizen participation in decision making, and only a small minority of issues are the subject of newspaper coverage, town-hall meetings, and so forth. About the vast majority of congressional legislation, citizens are unaware, uninformed, and unable to express an opinion; their only input is the vote they cast. I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm not saying there are any easy solutions, and I'm certainly not saying that a "political officer" or community organizer would somehow produce more participation. A simple comparison, however, with direct democracy in Athens would show that an average Athenian citizen had vastly more participation in government decision making than any resident of a representative democracy today.

Now, the objection of the editor seems mostly confined to name-calling (apparently I'm "comrade", which is a ridiculous bit of red-baiting), and saying that there aren't any better ways to run a democracy. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it's quite irrelevant. I can point out that there are lots of homeless people in the United States, and that this is a problem, without needing to provide a better solution in order to simply report the fact. Likewise, it seems pretty clear and obvious to me that citizens in the US don't participate much in political decision making, aside from voting, and that this is a situation which is lamented widely on all sides. Tb (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

. . . that there aren't any better ways to run a democracy. This is the most revealing thing you've written, td. You don't run a democracy you run for office. Thank you for proving my point. What was the first election you voted in, td? Mine was 1972, I voted McGovern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "revealing" thing you think this shows; it's a way of speaking. You seem to think I'm some totalitarian communist, and I can't figure out whether I should be offended or just laugh. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the article; if I were a communist, that doesn't somehow disqualify me from editing Wikipedia, and your rather pathetic guessing about my political opinions is irrelevant here. Tb (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your way of speaking indicates your way of thinking.

You are not a very honest person, tb. You wrote: Fundamentally, however, it is inappropriate to place, into an article, explanations for why the article should be deleted, or calls for additional work to be done.

"Vagueness of Term" nowhere says anything about deleting the article. You deleted my work. Nor does it call for additional work. It states in the nicest way possible that the term "participatory democracy" is a fraud, perverting the spirit and meaning of the word democracy.

I have researched this. You correct me:

The term "participatory democracy" was coined by the authors of the Port Huron Statement, the founding manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The term was designed to deflect awareness towards its target market, estranged college students, of the document's underlying marxist ideology.^[1]

You and your kind specialize in denigrating the West and its accomplishments. That's why you created the whole Potemkin Village of "Types of Democracies" in the first place. Its your own little bit of subversion isn't it? Oh, look at all the other democracies out there. My goodness, the West certainly can't claim any monopoly on that! (teehee) I went down the list. Its a joke, not merely the usual inchoate nonsensical writing but the volume and emptiness of the content is just pure obfuscation. You don't clarify anything, tb, you demoralize and confuse.

Bye bye for now. I've got other things to do like living a life and taking a long bath.--Vasser24 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You have invented a whole fantasy of who I am, simply on the basis that I found the criticism you inserted into the article to be bad for an encyclopedia and invited you to write a better one. I have no idea what you mean by "you and your kind", and your offensive statement that I am lying suggests that you are unwilling to have a productive discussion on the article. I'll leave the POV statement up for a few days in the hope that you'll come back and work together, instead of inventing a fantasy of who I am on the basis of your imagined red conspiracy. (The irony is that I'm about as anti-Bolshevik as you can get.) Tb (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor objects to the second paragraph's reference to small-world networks. I addressed this above, and I'll repeat it here. He said: Specifically, what does this mean in plain English? Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied.

I replied: I'm no expert, but it sounds like one way to increase participation is to find ways of getting more people involved ("increasing the scale of participation"). And, participation is easier in smaller groups, so "translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks" would seem to be a sensible way to have large-scale participation arise naturally out of small-scale participation.

He asked, Effectively increasing the scale of participation - isn't this called universal suffrage? This clearly misunderstands the difference between participation and voting; I replied: No, voting is not the same as participation. Participation is about "meaningful contributions to decision-making" as the lead says, not merely about voting for decision-makers. Moreover, since it refers to "all members of a political group", I think it means all of them. So universal suffrage might be a necessary part of participatory democracy, but it isn't sufficient all by itself.

He asked, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks - how does one translate a small but effective group into a small world network? What is a small world network? What's the difference between a participation group and a group? And why would you want to "translate" small groups into small world networks in the first place? If one understands what a small world network is (there's a wikilink) this isn't too complicated, but I replied, saying, A small effective group is, well, small and effective. Participation is easy in small groups where people know each other. But populations are huge. If we are all in a small-world network, then each small group will be only a couple people away from another small group, and the connectivity of the network will enable communication between the groups efficiently. Seems to me that's what it's talking about. Why would you want it? Well, you may think it's a stupid thing nobody should want; but that hardly makes the article defective. It's not an op/ed piece. But the article says that you want it because then you can increase the scale of participation--that is, you can have effective participation across a much larger population.

He asked about Shirky, saying, So these "areas" are currently being studied by someone called Shirky who's whereabouts are very murky. Anyone else engaged in "studying" these "areas"? and I replied, I have no idea who Shirky is. On the other hand, I found the book by typing "clay shirky here comes everybody" into google. If you want to ask about that reference, you should ask the person who added it to the article. I invite whoever added Shirky to comment. I think that to challenge the reference, one must at least obtain it and see. Since the book is readily available on Amazon, I invite the editor objecting to review it and make a clearer objection than simply saying that because he's whereabouts are "very murky" (the book is on Amazon, for grief's sake) he doesn't count as anything.

I invite discussion here about this paragraph of the lead; I think it's perfectly clear, but this other editor seems to think it's very confusing. Perhaps he now understands what it means, or perhaps there are still parts he doesn't understand. Tb (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor objects to the text, Some scholars argue (for a cause) for refocusing the term on community-based activity within the domain of civil society, based on the belief that a strong non-governmental public sphere is a precondition for the emergence of a strong liberal democracy.[2] These scholars tend to stress the value of separation between the realm of civil society and the formal political realm.[3] He says, Doesn't arguing for a cause bias the neutrality of the "scholar"? I have never read such opaque nonsense.

Indeed, scholars arguing for a cause may well be biased. They are good evidence for the claim that "some scholars argue XXX", but, if the bias is pernicious, not good evidence for simply asserting XXX. Note that the article does not say the term should be refocused, nor does the article say that the separation of civil society and the formal political realm should be stressed. Instead, the article reports that these are the opinions of some scholars.

As for whether it is "opaque nonsense", the question seems pretty clear to me. These scholars note that participation can be formal political participation in formal political decision making, but it could also be non-governmental participation and other community-based activity. The text says that these scholars think the term "participatory democracy" should be broadened to include things beyond only formal political participation, and that doing so would have beneficial effects on the ways those concerned value other, non-governmental, forms of participation.

I'm sorry that the editor in question doesn't understand; it doesn't seem that complicated to me, but then, I am far more neutral about the term than he seems to be. Tb (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference on this page on November 28, 2009. It relates to my opinion that the concept "participatory democracy" is in fact a pleonasm! Indeed, according to me, democracy demands participation by the citizens. I justify this opinion in an article which I placed in the section "external references".

Now, somebody erased it on November 29, 2009 explaining that "Wikipedia is not a place to disseminate your own papers"!

- First, I would have appreciated being informed by this person when he(she) unilaterally decided to erase my contribution. He(she) could also have asked me why I feel this inclusion is usefull for all. Am I not supposed to be a responsible contributor?

- Second, does the fact that I am the author of this added reference prevent me automatically from being authorized to insert it? If yes, it is rather strange!

Best regards,

--PhDG (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who removed the reference, and I'm happy to address your concerns. In response to the first, nearly all edits on Wikipedia are "unilateral"--as was, for example, your addition to the article. It is assumed that contributors will watch pages they are interested in, and it is not customary to send personal notes for every edit to a page to alert other potentially interested contributors. I would advise you to watch pages you are interested in--Wikipedia provides excellent facilities for that--and ask questions (as you now are) when editors make changes you disagree with. Second, it does not prevent you, and it is not a question of authorization. It is, however, a clear case of a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Of course you consider your own work to be of considerable importance. Wikipedia requests editors in general to be very cautious about citing themselves, adding links to their own material, editing pages which discuss themselves, or other such activities. This is particularly problematic when an account is created (as was yours) solely to add a single link, to your own material.

While you don't specifically ask, I can also explain why the link in question seemed to me to be inappropriate. First, it offers your own view about participatory democracy, but it is not written very well. It reads as if it is a set of bullet points, or slides for a public presentation, but contains little analysis, and almost no discussion of the deeper questions that the use of "participatory democracy" brings up. It does not seem to address "participatory democracy" at all, but is instead concerned with defusing a claim that civil society organizations should be disdained when they are non-representative. (Presumably this claim is important because the "Permanent Forum of European Civil Society" has been criticized for being non-representative.) None of that has much at all to do with the question of whether state institutions, or society in general, exercises power or authority in a participatory way. Also alarming is that the letter head on the paper could easily be misleading, suggesting that the publishing organization is an official EU agency, which of course, it is not. In sum, the addition of the link seemed designed to draw attention, by you, to your own work, but does not in any meaningful way assist readers of the article to understand the concept of participatory democracy. Indeed, the only thing the article says about participatory democracy is in its title. Tb (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. At least I know that I am not talking to an automat!

- First, I did not register "solely to add a single link". Being francophone, I am used to visiting the French Wikipedia and contributing to it when I feel it useful for all. Now, if the WP:COI say that it is not appropriate, I am not inclined to just say "let it be"!

- Indeed – and that's my second point – I feel there is a major difficulty with Wikipedia, which I already experienced with the French Wikipedia. It relates to a sort "filtering effect" induced by the WP:COI, which could detrimentally affect the possibility to make visitors aware of "new knowledge" that exists in relation to the topic of a given page. Is Wikipedia aims to registered "crystallized knowledge"? I mean the knowledge that is aleady recognized as being true by all (or mostly by a clique of oligarchs)? And if the answer is "yes", who has the authority to judge whether a particular contribution is included in – or excluded from – the crystallized knowledge? And why should one care to contribute to Wikipedia instead of just consulting the Encyclopedia Britannica?

- I thought that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia". I mean an encyclopedia that is freely constructed by citizens: an encyclopedia that is not restricted to what the oligarchs say the "good and gentile people" are allowed to know. But, on the contrary, an encyclopedia that allows the "good and gentile people" to become aware of other visions and knowledges that the oligarchs wish to remain hidden. Am I wrong?

Concerning participatory democracy, the people should be made aware that this concept is a pleonasm because democracy demands citizens' participation! If not, there is no democracy. But this statement is considered by oligarchs as an anathema because it explicitly states that they do not practice democracy genuinely: they wish to keep on using and exercising power without to much interference by citizens.

Regards,

--PhDG (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the policies of Wikipedia, this is not the place to debate them. Feel free to do so in the appropriate forum. Indeed, Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. It is, indeed, exactly what you fear it is: a place for "crystallized knowledge". Which is why my original comment in deleting your link was exactly right in its criticism of your link: "Wikipedia is not a forum for you to broadcast your own papers." It is, moreover, disingenuous of you to pretend to some disinterested desire for "new knowledge". It is not new ideas in general which you are trumpeting here, but specifically and only yours. (And what you don't seem to get is that your idea isn't new and is already in the article, though without the two-dollar word "pleonasm".) As for the topic of this article, you are confusing a criticism of voting-only democracy with an article about a deeper form of democracy. Whether that deeper form is better, or more real, or whatever, is not appropriate for Wikipedia, because it is most assuredly true that the believers in voting-only democracy think their form is a perfectly real form. Whether you or I disagree is beside the point, this is not the place for making "the people" "aware" of what you think they should be. Tb (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I duly register that Wikipedia is "a place for crystallized knowledge". It's a shame but it is so.

I don't know what a two-dollar word is. But knowing that the $ is a monkey currency that is ill-managed by those who own it, I supect you mean a "worthless word". This is rather strange. Pleonasm is "the use of extra words not needed to give the sense" (See: The Oxford Reference Dictionary).

Should we not terminate this talk? Indeed, I feel my contributions are not taken for what they are in full objectivity but judged by a preconceived opinion that I am only interested in "preaching my own ideas". This is dishonest!

Goodbye and regards.--PhDG (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the articles on participation, and I noticed that they are not very coordinated and they overlap quite a bit. I'm starting a discussion about this at Talk:Participation#Overlap_between_participation_articles. Any help is appreciated! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No Original Research is one of our core policies, and the policy page has a nutshell definition, ": Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Please read our policy. If you want to use Shirky et. al. in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS) that uses the term participatory democracy in discussing participatory democracy. If you disagree, we have a discussion board where you can raise the issue, see WP:NORN.

Using Shirky as a source linking him with participatory democracy is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role.Vasser24 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as it is quite frankly pointy, and has been raised at ANI. There is no OR or synthesis in the content that you deleted.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To any readers who may wonder what this is all about, I removed some original research Vasser24 had added elsewhere, and his response was "I can use this for deletion of many, many articles at Wikipedia.". His language above is more or less copied from what I wrote on the other article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"In 2011 participatory democracy became a notable feature of the Occupy movement, a movement largely started by a Tumblr post (titled "We Are the 99 Percent") protesting and claiming that a few individuals held all the power."

The origins of the Occupy Movement are in the Arab Spring in Tunisia & Egypt. The Tumblr post to which the above sentence refers may have played an important role in spreading the Occupy Movement in the U.S. and around the world, but occupation as a form of direct action, as a strategy for changing public policy/discourse/leadership, and as an incubator for experiments in participatory democracy began in Tahrir Square. Mattathias Schwartz wrote an article for the New Yorker titled "Pre-Occupied" that mentions how the occupation of Tahrir Square inspired U.S. Occupy activists. Furthermore, the original Adbusters article calling for the occupation of Wall Street - an important catalyst for the U.S. Occupy Movement and probably the earliest call for occupation in U.S. public discourse - explicitly calls for New York City activists to model their protests on those of Tahrir Square activists. Incidentally, the Adbusters article also draws an important connection between Egyptian occupation and anti-government protests in Tunisia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1418:474A:E585:E5C2:CFDA:1D2A (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering about the passages in the lede that refer to technology. I feel it lacks sourcing. I was also curious as to why it was mentioned only three times in the article, all in the lede. Wouldn't something in the lede need to summarize larger points that we then refer to later on? If I'm mistaken and this materials belongs in the lede, I would be interested in reading any editing tutorials that address the kind of issues I'm raising. --47.144.151.55 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! The guideline you're looking for is WP:Lede. And yes you're right; generally speaking the lede should summarise info discussed in more depth in the body. On the other hand, tech is without doubt an increasingly important theme for the article's topic. And the body does hint at this with the mention of social media. So there's no compelling need to delete the info IMO. But if you want to, go ahead. Quite a few editors here have the knowledge to substantially expand the tech coverage here, you might even inspire them to do so . FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your timely and courteous response! I've been treated poorly by other editors from time to time and your encouragement and contextualizing was constructive. Thank you! --47.144.151.55 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

From the article...

The theory of participatory democracy was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later promoted by J.S. Mill and G. D. H. Cole, who argued that political participation is indispensable for the realization of a just society.

From me...

Participatory Democracy was a reality long before this "theory" of it. Therefore, it cannot be a theory, as it was already a well-defined, well-tried, and proven fact. LOL.

Thibeinn (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to need a section on the role of sortition in encouraging participatory democracy. I plan on using Bernard Manin's book in order to add to the history of participatory democracy to further elucidate the historical use of sortition, particularly in the "Origins" section under the history header. I will use Professor Landemore's book to add to the strengths section as well as the introduction of the piece, perhaps using it to add to the "Models of Democracy" section. In order to expound on the use of sortition in modernity, under the "21st century" section, I will rely on several articles discussing the successes of particular conferences including Irish, UK, and French assemblies. I hope to also add to the overview section, challenging the consent to power over the exercise of power using Van Reybrouck's work. Manin, Bernard (1995). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge University Press. Landemore, Hélène (2020). Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. Wilson, Claire Mellier, Rich. "Getting Climate Citizens' Assemblies Right". Carnegie Europe. Retrieved 2021-02-28. Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan; Apouey, Bénédicte; Arab, Hazem; Baeckelandt, Simon; Begout, Philippe; Berghmans, Nicolas; Blanc, Nathalie; Boulin, Jean-Yves; Buge, Eric; Courant, Dimitri; Dahan, Amy (2021-01-26). "Deliberating on Climate Action: Insights from the French Citizens' Convention for Climate". Farrell, David; Suiter, Jane (2019-12-31), Reimagining Democracy: Lessons in Deliberative Democracy from the Irish Front Lines, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-1-5017-4934-6, retrieved 2021-02-28 David, Van Reybrouck (2013). Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. Random House UK. ISBN 978-1-60980-810-5. OCLC 1029788565. Does this seem appropriate? Thank you. Zraerobertson (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In the subsection of Citizens' assemblies in Mechanisms promoting participatory democracy, the italicised part of the sentence '... the assemblies are more representative of the population than elected legislatures whose representatives are often disproportionally wealthy, male, and white' may only apply to white-majority countries, but it doesn't make that clear. This makes the quote seem biased for white-majority countries. Perhaps the quote must specify where the disproportional white legislatures are found to appear less biased. Thanks. Factthinker (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through bits of the history section and found copious amount of synthesis. In many cases, the sources are talking about something completely different and/or just flat out don't reference "participatory democracy" in any form. This article's sourcing is in desperate need of review. Any sources that don't verifiably reference "participatory democracy" ought to be removed, or else the article's factual reputation will remain dubious. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone through and verified the sources in the "History" section, removing the ones that failed verification. Although bold, I attempted to be conservative in the removals, keeping those that referenced participatory processes, even though they didn't reference "participatory democracy" exactly. Other sections still need going over. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What would help a lot, prior to the Overview and History sections, is a section Definitions that lists a range of some of the more notable definitions of "participatory democracy" by recognised political scientists, properly sourced. Quite likely there's some diversity in definitions, and they likely more or less overlap, with some differences. That will then help in deciding what's in and out of scope.

Hope this participatory !vote helps in these deliberations. ;) Boud (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)