backtop

Software New Zealand to Pioneer Wiki-based Laws
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 28, 2007 4:55 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by onelittleindia.. on Oct 1 at 12:59 PM
New Zealand will allow citizens to decide what is legal or not via wiki

New Zealand's Policing Act governs what is legal and what is illegal for its citizens.  Now New Zealand will take a grand, bold step by allowing its citizens to collectively rewrite its laws in pure democratic fashion.

While the idea hearkens back to ancient democratic forums, the medium is decidedly high-tech -- the nation will use a wiki to allow citizens to contribute to the new policing act.  The page will help people organize their thoughts and collectively make decisions.

Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, chose the Hawaiian word "wiki" rather than the English term "quick" to avoid coining the term "quick-web."  Cunningham's first collaborative database was a simple, quick way to store vast amounts of user-contributed data.  His idea would eventually seed one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet: Wikipedia. 

New Zealand Police Superintendent Hamish McCardle, responsible for the review, calls the move "a new frontier in democracy" and sees the pilot as essential for police to understand public sentiment. "It's a novel move but when it comes to the principles that go into policing, the person on the street has a good idea ... as they are a customer," he claims.

The old Policing Act dates back to1958, and modern police feel the code could not accurately and fairly police its citizens in the modern landscape.

New Zealand Police boldly decided that changing the law should not be relegated to government politicians and bureaucrats.

Allegations that criminals will exploit the process to write legal loopholes do not concern McCardle. "We have been asked if we are worried about it being defaced, but wikis generally haven't been defaced internationally -- people generally are constructive and productive," claims McCardle.

McCardle specifically notes the success of Wikipedia as proof wiki-based contributions can lead to something constructive.

The Wiki is also open to people worldwide, so everyone from academics to amateur politicians can have a say in what they think would help make a safe and productive society.  However, the site is temporarily not accepting new entries due to the volume of new entries.

New Zealand successfully launched a smaller wiki, dubbed ParticipatioNZ, to study the effectiveness of wikis in government.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Does that mean...
By diliff on 9/28/2007 6:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
That you could vandalise the law minutes before killing someone and then claim at the time of the murder, it was legal?? ;)




RE: Does that mean...
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 7:02:35 AM , Rating: 4
Well, with Wikipedia they can track who does the edits, so they might be able to find you if you did an edit, then did the illegal act. Or like wikipedia they could lock some things, like murder, so that people just can't say that murder is legal.

But set aside the people out there who will always abuse anything, this could be a bold new (or old, depending on how ya look at it) form of democracy. Give more power to the people relating to issues of what the GOV can do, what they can do. Finally figure out what the majority of people really want


RE: Does that mean...
By Polynikes on 9/28/2007 7:50:46 AM , Rating: 5
But only a certain percentage of the population will actually be able to edit it. You know how some people are with computers. It's not really a totally fair way for everyone to have a say, but it is a step in the right direction.


RE: Does that mean...
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 8:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
While i don't know the statistic for the amount of people there that have a computer, i'd be willing to bet that there is a large portion of the population that does. And, for those who don't. They probably have some sort of free use computers for the general public to use. Like how in my local library they have 20 or so computers for people to use (and i live in a small town) Or one could even ask to borrow someones computer for a couple minutes. But you're right, its not perfect, but i'd say in another 10-20 years most people would easily have some computer


RE: Does that mean...
By GaryJohnson on 9/28/2007 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 4
I think the point wasn't that people don't have computers, but rather that not everyone has the necessary level of computer literacy to edit a wiki.


RE: Does that mean...
By Christopher1 on 9/29/2007 12:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't that hard, and there is a guide to it right at Wikipedia for those who are that stupid or unexperienced.


RE: Does that mean...
By Polynikes on 9/30/2007 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Some people don't even know how to navigate in the Windows shell, or type. Some people don't know what a web browser IS. You see my point? What we consider to be no-brainer stuff is utterly foreign to others.


RE: Does that mean...
By GaryJohnson on 9/30/2007 6:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Whether that's a bad thing I think depends on whether the gap in computer knowledge and literacy is predominately cause by low intelligence or high ignorance.


RE: Does that mean...
By HrilL on 9/28/2007 10:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a good point. But I find that the people that have computers are more educated then the people that do not. This is not always the case but it is a most of the time. So really this system sounds like it would work great. And those morons you don't want changing laws won't be able to because they don't know how... Seems fair to me.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/28/2007 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I find that the people that have computers are more educated then the people that do not.
quote:
And those morons you don't want changing laws won't be able to because they don't know how


You already sound like a politician, is this a disease when you give someone this much authority they feel all of a sudden so brilliant. If this type of system with this type of mentality sounds fair to you then look around you already have it. The only difference is that instead of you being labeled the moron you elevate yourself as a self proclaimed elite to label others as such. Yea, seems like a great idea.


RE: Does that mean...
By 3kliksphilip on 9/28/2007 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with that. However, people with out PCs are so inept at making laws for computer activity that having a Wiki Law guide is a step in the right direction.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/28/2007 2:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
So people without kids are too inept to make any law governing such.

People without guns are too inept to make gun laws.
People who don't smoke are too inept to make smoking laws.
People on welfare are too inept to make tax laws.
People without a business are too inept to make business laws or business tax laws.
This logic can go on and on. It seems a little flawed.

I don't need to be any of these to have the right to vote directly for one of these laws or a representative supporting my views.


RE: Does that mean...
By 3kliksphilip on 9/29/2007 8:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
Computers are misunderstood by quite a few people in power. Unlike most of the things you compared misusing computers to, computers are available pretty much everywhere and a wide range of people use them, including the people in power. Computing has boomed in publicity and accessibility so quickly that various people are worried about the growth and intend to stem it. If you get a virus, you remove it with an anti virus tool. You don't go paranoid, blocking everything which could be misused (As that includes pretty much anything). Even if you did go paranoid, you don't have to impose that on everybody else. I'm not sure if it's the same in America, but even if only half the things I've heard about the new riles in Britain are true, it's going to make buying a PC a very risky occupation.


RE: Does that mean...
By rsmech on 9/29/2007 10:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you get a virus, you remove it with an anti virus tool. You don't go paranoid, blocking everything which could be misused


The door swings both ways. I understand your concern about the lack of knowledge some have of computers & the internet. Your example is how the private sector polices the problem which I agree should be the best case. But there are very few cases where the gov't shouldn't have at least some guidelines. Take for example and correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't it a private entity which governs domain names. How many times have they denied the request to promote safer internet access for children. The easiest browser filter would be to use settings like .xxx or .kid. But this would hurt the porn industry. Maybe a little intervention by the ignorant without computers would be welcomed here since non-gov't entities don't get the picture. You don't have to fully understand the whole picture to have an opinion about part of it.


RE: Does that mean...
By Cr0nJ0b on 9/28/2007 12:20:10 PM , Rating: 3
the way I see it, only a certain percentage of the population...a very, very, very, very small one...has the ability to edit the current laws. I'm not sure that you can say it's a bad thing to go from 1% of the people to say 30% of the people. I for one would love to see more democracy in the hands of the common man instead of elected officials, lobbiests and lawyers. and for the people who don't know how to access a computer...they can always go to a library and ask for help...there are computers there.

Of course to think this would ever happen in my country is pure fantasy.


RE: Does that mean...
By HighWing on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Does that mean...
By UCanUnwind on 9/28/2007 7:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, but you'd be screwed if you forgot to verify your change by clicking the link in the email they send you.


RE: Does that mean...
By bighairycamel on 9/28/2007 7:17:01 AM , Rating: 3
And what happens if someone edits in the statement, "Henceforth this wiki can not be edited by penalty of death according to this law I just wrote, lol@U!!1!!11!"


RE: Does that mean...
By Christopher1 on 9/28/2007 7:28:12 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm sure they would have protections against that. Really though, there should be no criminal laws except those against murder, stealing from others unless it is your last choice between you and starving to death, and laws against forcing someone into sexual activities (and just being of disparate age is not forcing, i.e. no statutory rape or 'child sexual abuse').

Simple and to the point.


RE: Does that mean...
By themadmilkman on 9/28/2007 3:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
lol... oh wait, you're serious?

So there should be no criminal laws against helping somebody commit one of those crimes... or did you forget about accomplice liability?

So there should be no criminal laws agains