Harnassing institutions to serve communites' knowledge needs

Skilled people, appropriate technologies, and reliable and relevant information are the building blocks of a successful communications environment. What generates news and information in that environment, however, is not just those building blocks. It is engagement--specifically, people's engagement with information and with each other.

I think that when people "engage," some of the things they do include:

• Discussing information with other people, including people who have different values and interests, in order to make sense of it;
• Using their knowledge to help them manage public resources, run organizations, and work on public problems together. In turn, their experiences as they work together generate information, knowledge, and understanding;
• Recruiting other people, including young people, to be interested and concerned about important public issues and giving them the skills they need for interpretation, analysis, collaboration.

I start with the bias that we need institutions for these purposes. I am open to the idea that we need institutions less than we used to, because now we have virtual networks (like Facebook, or the Internet itself) that cut the costs of discussion collaboration. But I see no evidence that these networks have yet revived our democracy. And I think the tough questions to ask are:

• Can a loose, voluntary network really recruit people who lack motivation and interest in public affairs?
• Can a loose voluntary network reliably bring people into conversation with others who are different from themselves?
• Can a loose voluntary network be accountable to all its members in a fair way?
• Can a loose, voluntary network hold governments and businesses accountable consistently, over time?

Read more by Peter Levine here.