This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: E-democracy
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I chose this article because I think a large part of civic tech focuses on implementing and promoting E-democracy. This article is a good overview and introduction to E-democracy and the types and ways one can engage in E-democracy through technology.

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead does a good job presenting an overview of what E-democracy is and the essential components of E-democracy such as technology that facilitates the spread of information and helps with communication. However, it doesn't really go over what the article would include in the different sections, since the topic is quite broad. The lead also specifically references a person who does not appear again in the article, and because his reference is in the lead, readers may have to look him up to see the relevance he has to the subject.

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

This article provides a great variety of relevant information on the topic since e-democracy is quite a broad topic to talk about. At the end of the article, there was a section on the idea of "Wikidemocracy" which I think slightly deviates from the topic, since it introduces and promotes a possible project or system a group or individual is in favor of creating and utilizing, rather than simply providing information on e-democracy. I don't think this should be a section in this article and may belong better on a page of its own. Otherwise, the content in the article all introduces key components and propellers of e-democracy and other platforms that tried to allow e-democracy to play a bigger role in society, which provides more insight on the topic.

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I think the article leans more on the side of promoting e-democracy and associates it with positive terms. However, it is not completely unbalanced since it not only shows the pros of e-democracy but also outlines the opposition that it faces which provides an alternate point of view. Opposition is slightly underrepresented though since it only talks about groups or governments that can not accept or opposes e-democracy, but doesn't necessarily shine much light on the negative effects e-democracy may lead to. The article seems to want to put e-democracy in positive light.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Throughout the article, there were frequent citations that successfully led to reference links. I spot-checked links throughout the article and many led to research papers, academic journals, government websites, and also posts from big news platforms such as CNN and the Huffington Post. However, there were also a few links that didn't work, for example citation [85] led to "404 page not found" and citation [97] led to "story no longer available". The sources do provide information on the claims, for example, the claim on how the OPEN Act allows people to participate in deliberative democracy is supported by a CNN post on the OPEN Act and how it makes the process easier. Most of the sources are also relatively current. There were sources from as current as 2020, whereas very few that are dated from before 2010.

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Throughout reading the article, I haven't caught any spelling or grammatical errors. Most of the sentences are also concise and clearly expresses what they intend to say. However organization wise, I think some parts and sections can be put in a different order to make things more clear. For example, in my opinion the "Requirements" section should come before the "Goals" section (which immediately follows the lead) because it provides more details on what e-democracy is to the readers. I think this would provide more information for people who don't know much about the topic to understand it first, before looking at its goals and what e-democracy wishes to accomplish.

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There aren't a lot of images in this article; more specifically there is only one. In my opinion, the image that shows a 3D roadmap of e-democracy is a little hard to understand and I think it could be summarized better. More pictures could definitely be added to this article to make it less dense and text heavy. It would make the article more interesting to read as well. For example, under the section of "Effects", there are many movements outlined and if images are included it can really enhance readers' experiences and help them visualize the effects. However for other sections, because it is largely about the internet and the connection with e-democracy, it would probably be repetitive to continuously put snapshots of websites.

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The article is part of WikiProject Politics and it has a B-Class rating. There were many discussions on overlapping topics with other articles on Wikipedia, and the potential for merging articles or clarifying the difference between some. Other parts of the talk page talked about editing external links for e-democracy and there are many interactions between Wikipedians verifying each others edits. However there was also a very random section where the Wikipedian started talking about aliens and the galaxy which was not relevant to the topic at all.

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall I think the article is very comprehensive and clearly written. Every section of the content is relevant to the topic, provided more details, and was concise. However tone wise, I think the article leans towards promoting e-democracy and the positive side of e-democracy, whereas possible negative effects are underrepresented. I believe the tone can be more neutral to adhere to Wikipedia's standards, and perhaps alternative point of views can also be represented under the "Opposition" section. For sources, there were also some links that did not work. For example, citation [85] led to "404 Page not found", and citation [97] led to "story no longer available". This may make it hard for others to check the source and authenticate or dive deeper into the information.

• Link to feedback: 11General evaluation of article

Article title

E-governance

Article Evaluation and Improvement:

Overall the article quite clearly provides the definition and overview of e-governance. However throughout the article, the format is not uniform or consistent. For example, the section under G2G has subsections outlining "objectives" and "overviews", whereas the section titled G2B shows "benefits" and "disadvantages" that is not outline in the previous section. Where "objectives" and "goals" occur also do not match throughout the article. Sometimes it comes right after the section header, whereas other times it's towards the middle or end of the section. The organization of the overall article can be improved to make things more clear and make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for. In addition, the article can be improved to provide more comprehensive information on the topic and different point of views. For example, the challenges section is quite short and not very detailed, which can be a place for more research and explanation on the topic. Lastly there are also some reference links that are missing or could not be found.

Article title: E-participation

Article Evaluation and Improvement:

I think overall the article seems to be developing in its early stages and is a little not cohesive. For example under the section "history", the three numbered points are not exactly well explained and connected to e-participation. For instance the first point talks about the development of CSCW, but doesn't tie it back to how that contributed to the growth and development of e-participation. If the section could be re-summarized and organized in one cohesive paragraph, it will be easier for readers and students to understand as well. In addition, there are direct quotes in the article followed by a citation, which does not align with Wikipedia policies. Many "tools" described in the article also just link to other Wikipedia pages, which kind of undermines the importance of this topic and also does not explain how these tools propel e-participation. There is also some information that is not relevant to the topic that may distract a reader, for example, the part about football. The article overall can be reorganized and also could use more details on the topic as well, for instance engagement and interactions based fostered through e-participation.

Article title: Artificial intelligence in government

Article Evaluation and Improvement:

I think this article is quite new since it does not have a rating and only has one person's comment on the talk page. Much of the sections are bullet points rather than well summarized and comprehensive paragraphs like an encyclopedia should have, so organization wise it could already use a lot of improving. Under the section "uses of AI in government", more detailed could definitely be added to each idea and also be connected to other ideas; for example, assisting public interactions can be connected to greater public participation, or e-democracy, or the better spread and understanding of legislature and government policies. The article is very undeveloped and many areas can be expanded upon, like how the potential risks section only has a sentence listing possible ideas but not further elaborating upon them. As the AI industry grows and plays a bigger role in people's lives from an economic perspective and political perspective, there are more examples and possibilities that could be included in this article.

Potential edits

1. Modify and reformat history section:
   1. Better summarize and connect the three numbered points in a cohesive paragraph
2. Instead of having a "on the definition" section, I suggest changing it to "effect of e-participation"
   1. I think the first section about the definition of participation is slightly irrelevant so it could bet condensed
   2. The paragraph touches on how e-participation changes decision making and how it's changing citizen engagement rather than the definition, I think this is a more relevant title for this section
3. Citations:
   1. There are multiple direct quotes in the article which is not in line with Wikipedia's policies, I will be modifying these quotes to fit Wikipedia policy
4. "Models and Tools" section could be modified as "Technology and Tools"
   1. Each section under this topic isn't elaborated upon and only links to other pages so it doesn't show how it relates to e-participation. I think tools and technology should be related back to e-participation and how they each facilitate or help evaluate e-participation rather than just listing.
   2. Technology can be updated as well. For instance, I think quadratic voting is a developing and emerging technology that is relevant to e-democracy and could be added in the tools section.
5. Add section on EPI
   1. Especially in the EU, there has been a lot of reports on how e-participation projects have turned out and how people are participating through e-participation. These can be used as examples to show trends and how e-participation has grown in the past decade
   2. The e-participation index as defined by the UN should be mentioned in the article
6. Add section about challenges to e-participation
   1. Digital divide
   2. Transparency

Sources

Definition & development project https://publicadministration.un.org/en/eparticipation

About the e-participation index: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index

UN Report on trend of e-participation: https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2020/wp163_2020.pdf

Book chapter about e-participation's functions: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_4

Evaluating e-participation: https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/e-government/5-ways-to-measure-evaluate-e-participation/

Abstract of e-participation advancement: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8879652

University of Cumberlands paper on how tech advances e-participation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00831.pdf

EU Examples https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/en/content/youthwiki/59-e-participation-france

QV

https://medium.com/eximchain/what-makes-quadratic-voting-an-effective-democratic-voting-mechanism-d7a555de8f6b

**Kriplean citation link on wiki page is broken: change to https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~bestchai/papers/chi-smt09-2.pdf (same UW study; updated link)

A number of tools and models have emerged as part of Web 2.0 that can be used or inspire the design of architecture for e-participation. Many online communities have created tools that makes it possible to design technology that facilitates interaction and collaboration between the public and the government ^[1].

Participation tools

**Blogs are a form of social networking services (merge with social networking bullet point)

Social networking services, such as popular media platforms and blogs, have built online platforms that makes it possible for people to connect with others and participate in interactive activities. Social activities such as the engagement between citizens and government agencies have been facilitated by online platforms and social networking has been increasingly used by the government to keep up with public trends and identify political issues people are most passionate about. Popular platforms such as Twitter and Facebook has allowed users to actively engage in politics online by expressing their political stand points and opinions as well as organize movements to bring attention to issues of importance ^[2]. The instantaneous sharing and response mechanisms social networking platforms generate has become an important tool of e-participation that enables citizens to engage in decision-making and government agencies to take initiative in addressing public concerns.

Wikis are another way people can participate collaboratively online with others, although not directly with politicians and government administrators. The evolving and collaborative nature of wikis allows citizens to contribute to topics they are knowledgable about and share that knowledge with others who want to learn about it. At the same time, it allows for debate about the topic and interaction between different contributors. The ease of updating articles allows each topic to be up to date and present viewers with the most recent and comprehensive understanding of each topic. Wikis can be tools to facilitate and inspire e-participation by allowing people to bring attention to certain movements and issues and informing others of the impact of potential issues.

Mechanisms

Electronic voting generally comes in two different forms: e-voting physically such as electronic voting machines at polling stations ^[3], or remote e-voting through the Internet. Remote e-voting is a powerful tool that contributes to e-participation by offering the ability to vote from anywhere at anytime, which reduces the time and cost of voting. This can lead to an increase in voter turnout and civic engagement as it increases citizen's accessibility to offer their support for different policies and political figures ^[4]. Especially with the rise of blockchain technology, the security and transparency of electronic voting has been drastically improved and the decentralized nature of blockchain technologies can transform the model of electronic voting in the future ^[5]. However, there are obvious drawbacks with e-voting, most clearly seen in the digital inequality of the country. Electronic voting can emphasize and enhance the digital divide between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and age groups, and the technology may not be accessible to all. ^[6] In this sense, e-voting can alienate those without access to technology and stable internet access, and in fact hinder citizen engagement rather than facilitate it.

Quadratic voting is another emerging technology that uses blockchain technology to facilitate e-participation. Quadratic voting allows citizens to express how strongly they feel about a policy by assigning individuals with a set amount of tokens, then allowing them to vote multiple times with the tokens to express urgency or passion for the policy they feel most strongly about. ^[7] Quadratic voting enables more flexibility and interactivity in the voting process. The idea of expressing the "strength" of voter's voices and opinions more clearly in the voting process increases the engagement of citizens and shows more feedback about certain issues and policies than a traditional voting system can. ^{[8] [9]}

Internet petitions have become a popular platform for citizens to engage in policy reviewing and issue petitioning. Internet petitions allow for flexibility and ease to achieve political impact and to voice concerns about urging issues both socially and politically. It increases citizen engagement while also allowing administration to be more responsive to the opinions and needs of the population. Petitioning platforms created by the government such as We The People is directly linked to administration officials who can provide response and propel important movements ^[10]. Internet petitions contributes a greater citizen participation and in return, a more inclusive relationship between government and society.

The e-participation index (EPI) was designed by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs as "a supplementary index to the UN E-Government Survey" ^[11]. The EPI is used to evaluate the effectiveness of online services that propels the interaction and exchange of information between government and individuals, as well as the engagement of citizens in policy and decision-making. It is evaluated on the bases of how well a government relays information to its constituents, how engaged citizens are in the designing of policies, and how empowered citizens feel in the decision-making process, together these factors make up the framework of "e-information", "e-consultation", and "e-decision making". Specifically, the index is calculated by subtracting the lowest e-participation score from the e-participation score of the country, then divided by the range of scores for all countries. ^[12] The resulting index score is a foundation measure that captures how inclusive a government is. ^[11]

One of the biggest challenges to e-participation is the existence of a digital divide, as e-participation highly relies on access to new technologies as well as access to stable Internet connections. Oftentimes, e-participation also requires a higher digital literacy such as skills to digitally analyze policy proposals and provide input in a digital sphere. In addition, Internet safety and collaboration are also abilities and knowledge needed to better navigate tools for e-participation ^[13]. These, along with physical access to technology, exist as barriers to people of different socioeconomic levels and those who lack or can not afford access to these technologies. The digital divide hinders and limits the ability for certain groups to voice their opinions, which in return excludes them from participation, backfiring the initial goal of e-participation ^[13].

"The original structure of the article had many flaws to it, and I believe this user added lots of relevant and up-to-date content, such as Quadratic voting. Furthermore, instead of just listening options for things like participation tools and mechanisms, the user expands on each and does a good job of adding proper support for each."

"The tone is somewhat neutral but there may be moments where there is not a cited source to support a seemingly obvious statement. For example, within the quadratic voting section, there are certain parts that may seem obvious to many but to maintain an encyclopedic tone it may be worth citing a source or finding a reference."

"While there are sources added, the actual implementation may need to be double checked for certain sections. As I mentioned before, to maintain the encyclopedic tone, it may be worth citing some sources again to re-enforce some of the points made."

"The content is well organized and is presented in a manner that makes it easy to read for the user and easier to follow than what was originally presented."

"I think that overall the contributions does a really excellent job of filling in clear holes that were missing in the original article. The expansion on the bullet point list of information originally presented is well organized and supported by lots of strong content. I think a potential step could be to include more resources or integrate them better into the text to give the reader a better understanding of what is being presented."

• I think that Lucaskim7 brought up a good point that I hadn't realized when writing my draft. After rereading my section, I noticed that I had summarized and synthesized some parts of different articles without citing it directly, which takes away from the "encyclopedic tone" required by Wikipedia. For example for the electronic voting section, quadratic voting section, and wiki section, I think I can include more citations to support my statement.

"In the first section defining E-participation I think the definition is long-winded and includes direct quotes which should not be used in a wiki article. Next, in the section "on the definition" I had trouble understanding the section due in part because it lacks concision. Lastly, I agree that there should be mention of e-participation because that is a newer and relevant topic. Esk00 ( talk) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "

• I appreciate Esk00's advice on the E-participation original article, since the first section and "on the definition" is not something I addressed in my draft. I think there is a lot to add and change on the original article, however I might not be able to change the entire article so I decided to focus on specific parts that need updating in my draft. If I have time this would definitely be something I will consider in order for the entire article to be more clear and concise.

"Peer Editing (Sid Gupta - Sid900) -

1. E-participation in context of Republican vs Democrat political parties would give a good perspective for readers
2. Driving home the main benefits of E-participation would help people understand what this article is truly about."

• I think Sid900 brought up an interesting idea about Republican vs. Democratic parties' perspectives on e-participation. This is definitely relevant to the current political atmosphere, and it can be interesting to explore how the groups either support or do not support e-participation. I think one thing is that it would be a little harder to find relevant and up-to-date credible sources about the topic, but it is definitely something I can look into. I also think benefits of e-participation is definitely a highlight of this article. However, in order to maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone, it might not be beneficial to only emphasize the main benefits, since the article should provide an overall view of what e-participation is.

The term "e-participation" originated in the early 2000s and stems from the concept of enhancing civic participation in public policies through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). E-participation generally draws on three developments: development of ICTs, increase in e-democracy, and growth of e-government. ^[13]

The development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is the greatest element that propelled the growth of e-participation by enabling and easing better collaboration between the public and the government. Development of CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) and groupware directed towards collaborative environments better supports human ICT-mediated interaction, both in work and social environments. Through enhanced ICT support, e-participation has evolved as a social activity involving the collaboration between politicians, administrative figures, and the public. ^[13]

Developments in e-democracy since the late 1990s has also contributed to the origination of e-participation. Interest rapidly evolved from e-voting to several forms of ICT-supported and ICT-enabled interaction between governments and citizens, including not only direct ones (such as consultations, lobbying, petitioning and polling) but also ones pursued outside of government itself, including electioneering, campaigning, and community informatics. To a large extent, the institutional framework conditions of the chosen democratic model define at which part of the democratic processes participation is permitted (such as direct or representative democracy, or any intermediate forms).

The development in e-government towards increasingly complex service-delivery is another factor that contributed to the growth of e-participation. Complex services require considerable interaction including searching, selecting options based on multiple criteria, calculating outcomes, notifications, inquiries, complaints, and many other activities. There are several ICT tools for such tasks, ranging from FAQs to call centers, but there is a need to coordinate all these into user-friendly but powerful toolsets for client-organization encounters. Because interaction in such contexts is complex, and because goals have to be reached, the arenas where it takes places become social arenas for ICT-supported participation.

Rephrasing and condensing "On the Definition" section:

Participation is a goal-oriented process that involves decision making and control. E-participation, which encompasses participation in political science and theory of management, refers to direct public participation in political, economical, or management decisions. When participation becomes complicated, decision making becomes necessary and any participatory process is potentially important for the rule system governing the activities. In this sense, when service processes become complex, the implementation of them will not be in all details based on political decisions but also on what is found to be practical.

Instead of taking in and accepting knowledge as is disseminated by the media and government, by participating, one becomes an active citizen and further contributes to a democratic society. When such practical doings become implemented in government e-service systems, they will affect decision making, as many changes will later be hard to make simply because existing procedures would have been implemented in ICT systems and government agencies’ procedures. There are many theories dealing with institutionalization, for example structuration theory, institutional theory, and actor-network theory. These different theories all deal with how methods of operation becomes established or rejected, and how those that become established increasingly affect the ways society habitually accomplish tasks. Alternatively, when viewed from the citizen's perspective, the capability approach is being applied to understand the behaviors of individuals. This approach allows institutions to identify normative capabilities that can improve citizen's opportunities to participate in the governance process.

This is a user sandbox of H.Susanna. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help