[Ci4cg-announce] A framework for working with and towards civic intelligence [1st installment]

Wed Aug 3 03:38:46 PDT 2016

Hi Todd

good point. I agree with you. My main concern was about the ephemerality of these types of email conversations containing useful thoughts and discussions that may get lost, and thus, trying to capture them. Your suggested pathway is great.

cheers, marcus
Aarhus, DK

--
Professor Marcus Foth

i/Director, QUT Design Lab
School of Design, Creative Industries Faculty
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
m.foth at qut.edu.au – @QUTdesign – qut.design

CRICOS No. 00213J

> On 2 Aug 2016, at 11:05 PM, Todd Davies <davies at stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> HI, Marcus,
> 
> I don't moving the discussion to Wikipedia would be an appropriate use of Wikipedia, under WP:OR. Some kind of wider dissemination of this discussion could be worthwhile, perhaps in a longer form, with references, etc., and others might eventually include a summary and reference to it in Wikipedia. That could be an interesting exercise in online deliberation.
> 
> Todd
> 
> Todd Davies                   
> Symbolic Systems Program  
> Stanford University           
> Stanford, CA, 94305-2150 USA
> email: davies at stanford.edu
> phone: 1-650-723-4091
> office: 460-040C
> web: web.stanford.edu/~davies
> 
> 
> 
> From: ci4cg-announce-bounces at scn9.scn.org <ci4cg-announce-bounces at scn9.scn.org> on behalf of Marcus Foth <m.foth at qut.edu.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:04 AM
> To: Doug Schuler
> Cc: ci4cg-announce at scn9.scn.org
> Subject: Re: [Ci4cg-announce] A framework for working with and towards civic intelligence [1st installment]
>  
> Hi Doug and all
> 
> may I suggest to move this discussion and the output to Wikipedia? That would help improve the notability and discoverability of the term. The article could be expanded by adding examples of case studies, fora/events focussing on the theme, etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_intelligence
> 
> The “Talk” page can be used to expand and improve the current article:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civic_intelligence
> 
> cheers, marcus
> Aalborg, DK
> 
> --
> Professor Marcus Foth
> 
> i/Director, QUT Design Lab
> School of Design, Creative Industries Faculty
> Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
> m.foth at qut.edu.au – @QUTdesign – qut.design
> 
> CRICOS No. 00213J
> 
> > On 2 Aug 2016, at 3:49 AM, Doug Schuler <douglas at publicsphereproject.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Todd — and everybody else (hopefully of interest) 
> > 
> > This is a follow-on to the conversation that Todd's note launched. This note is more like the first version of a summary of the findings and assertions so far in relation to my exploration of civic intelligence. As you know I'm trying to develop civic intelligence as a focus for research, activism, education, policy-making, ... , etc. You also of course know that it's not a term that's in common use and I'd like to change that. I would love your comments on any and all aspects of this.
> > 
> > I've been packing the idea of civic intelligence in many ways for quite awhile. Sometimes it's used as a part of social inquiry, sometimes it's meant to be aspirational, and sometimes it's intended to be used as a goal or guideline — and other uses are possible (ranking schools for example). These varieties of uses could be a source of confusion (in either the critique or the exploration itself). My belief and hope is that the diverse perspectives are in fact coherent, although that might not be apparent without the background logic.  
> > 
> > I'd like to think that a graphic depiction can be developed that showed the main elements and regions of the overall exploration. Ideally this would help maintain coherence, reduce misinterpretation, and promote additional work in this area. (And, of course, critique could help shape this effort into more productive ways.)
> > 
> > I'm trying to explore a lot of things simultaneously — including the fact that exploring and practicing civic intelligence seems to be empowering to students, although this isn't addressed in this note.
> > 
> > The following is an attempt to describe one region of the framework which is largely positivistic and should have the necessary rigor and logic to be palatable to social scientists of various types. I consider that everything is subject to modification.
> > 
> > (1) We start with a (working) definition of Intelligence. This seems to be keeping with standard views of intelligence while containing elements that lend themselves to characterization and analysis. I wanted to focus on the potential richness of the concept (of intelligence) rather that be limited to a minimal, quantified and somewhat non-useful construct that some social scientists seem to prefer.
> > 
> > Definition of Intelligence: An integrated set of processes that enable an agent to act in ways that are appropriate to the agent's goals and to the environment in which it exists / acts — particularly areas that present actual or potential challenges or opportunities. 
> > 
> > An "agent" can be one or more people, any group, animal, computer program, hybrids of the above, and others as well as any artifacts, natural or otherwise, or system of artifacts that are useful in pursuit of the goals. 
> > 
> > Collective intelligence is a major type of intelligence that is distinguished from individual intelligence (e.g. that of a single person).
> > 
> > Intelligence can also be distributed over space and time. And the results of the diverse processes can be stored in many ways—in human memories, libraries, online, or in tools, systems, or artifacts.
> > 
> > (2) The various components / elements of the definition suggest ways to characterize, analyze, categorize various approaches.
> > 
> > Composition of the "agent"
> > Environment in which the intelligence operates (Intelligence is context dependent)
> > Processes that are used and how they are integrated (i.e. the structure)
> > Goals, values, and norm
> > The products of the processes
> > 
> > The claim that I'm making is that it is probably possible to identify different versions of intelligence by the goals, types of actions, and composition and coordination of the agent. This might not be 100% certain but it could be useful.
> > 
> > [TO BE CONTINUED]
> > 
> > Douglas Schuler
> > douglas at publicsphereproject.org
> > Twitter: @doug_schuler
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Public Sphere Project
> >      http://www.publicsphereproject.org/
> > 
> > Mailing list ~ Collective Intelligence for the Common Good
> >       http://scn9.scn.org/mailman/listinfo/ci4cg-announce
> >     
> > Creating the World Citizen Parliament
> >      http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-2013/creating-the-world-citizen-parliament
> >      
> > Liberating Voices!  A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (project) 
> >      http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv
> > 
> > Liberating Voices!  A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (book)         
> >  http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11601
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ci4cg-announce mailing list
> > Ci4cg-announce at scn9.scn.org
> > http://scn9.scn.org/mailman/listinfo/ci4cg-announce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ci4cg-announce mailing list
> Ci4cg-announce at scn9.scn.org
> http://scn9.scn.org/mailman/listinfo/ci4cg-announce