Last week I attended the launch of Participation Nation where I was interested in Hazel Blears’ proposal that we need new engagement models and methodologies that are easy to ‘dip in and out of’. It was suggested public bodies need to become more permeable, where people can effectively participate in the shallow end (in other words not have to join political parties and lobby).
This form of contribution made me think of the way in which Wikipedia is authored. In a nut shell, millions of users make relatively small additions and edits to articles, developing and refining them to create an informative article. Unfortunately I’m not sure this model of contribution maps to public engagement. Central to Wikipedia is its principle that all articles must be written from Neutral Point of View without bias. However, engagement is inherently subjective where participants are asked for their personal experiences and ideas, therefore I believe a wiki will not be the best place for this sort of collaboration. In turn, this begs the question what is the answer for ‘dip in, dip out’ public engagement.
Matthew Taylor gave hints at the characteristics of what this model should be, implying we need to take more risks and stop filtering participants responses and Blears responded saying that ultimately people have to vote (or perhaps Digg?) on issues, not just talk - something we’re all improving at judging by the votes cast during this weekend’s X Factor final!