I came across a great piece today, written by Jennifer McFadden and Ben Berkowitz of SeeClickFix – an innovative and cutting-edge example of so-called Community 2.0. They describe how “social networking tools, user-centered design, wikis, blogs, and mashups [are] being used to create novel networks and platforms that enable a new civic reality: Community 2.0.”

Their post is worth a careful read – it summarizes and explains very well the key ideas driving an upgraded democracy: one in which citizens are actors, not spectators. They predict civic crowdsourcing through new technology will be how we tackle societal problems, often using government as a partner and facilitator. And, as the authors allude to, it’s best potential might be seen on the micro-level.

“Web2.0 allows for the creation of a new collective commons, where hyper-local, hyper-specific issues are hashed out in an open and transparent manner and then dispersed across the network.”

Indeed, I think our focus needs to be on the local level. That’s where the impact is, where real people can actually benefit from it. While much focus and attention seems to be given to large projects that happen on a large scale, digital empowerment on the hyper-local level will yield greater results.

It is nice that I can browse the new federal IT spending dashboard, but why can’t I find a copy of my County budget online?  I think it’s great that I might be able to ask a question to the White House for the President to address via web stream, but why can’t I find the email address of my township supervisor on its non-existent Web site?

This begs the question, how can we sell the public on Community 2.0 (requiring both public investment and their participation) when we seem too focused on what (excuse my cynicism) doesn’t really affect them? This was food for thought for me today while working to relaunch a project I began a year ago, School Board 2.0 – using online tools to bring local school board meetings online. The potential of increasing local civic engagement through that project is greater than the potential of anything else being done on a state or national level (in my humble opinion) because people can relate to it, and they inherently have greater ownership over their local community.

We can’t crowdsource writing national health care policy, though we certainly can pretend. Yet we might be able to help others around us by publishing our electronic health records online. We can’t crowdsource the lowering of CO2 emissions nationally, yet we can find someone in the neighborhood to carpool to work with. We ought to prioritize the expansion of Community 2.0 beginning on a local level. Surely the higher-ups can still have a role in motivating local officials and local innovators through grant programs, awards, contests and by making data available – like the EPA’s MyEnviornment or (more directly) DC’s Apps for Democracy.

In sum, the great minds in this field right now – in development, implementation, research, etc. – please, pick a town, any town and help grow the collective vision. I think the true promise of building Community 2.o is when a citizen, one who might not even have an email account, logs on the Internet to help identify, solve or otherwise engage with a community issue…and this issue will likely only be one in his own backyard.

No tags