In addition to legitimizing 'dictatorship' since misrepresents the public as 'participated', does the approach not form the foundation to the Internet's version of: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Edney31.htm (part I) and http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Edney32.htm (part II) ? regards, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dan, true that! > > At leadership consultations in my high school ("A-levels") days, it > was quite upsetting for us the students to be told "before I tell you > what I have decided, do you have anything to say?" by the school > leadership. One found no point in saying anything since everything had > been decided, anyway. > > Thank David, > > Alex > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Brilliant. I'm definitely going to steal that. Sort of like the >> "refudiation" of crowdsourcing. >> >> Systematically-manipulated (or systematically "refudiated") public opinion >> polls can also be (and often are) used for crowdstamping, by the way. It's >> not just a feature of open-comment processes, but can be applied as a >> variant where public opinion is manufactured artificially. This is a >> technique that goes all the way back to high school. >> >> "Everyone" says so! The People have spoken! :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> >> -- >> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do >> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. >> >> >> >> At 11:53 AM +0800 8/4/10, David Cake wrote: >>> A useful neologism for ICANN processes (via Lillian Edwards >>>twitter feed) >>>Crowdstamping - going through the motions in asking the public about >>>a policy but rubberstamping it anyway. >>> (term apparently coined by Uk web developer Stef Lewandowski >>>in reponse to UK government consultation that, in response to 9,500 >>>public submissions,resulted in every responding government dept >>>uniformly saying they should keep doing exactly what they were doing) >>> Regards >>> David >> >