Difference between revisions of "Summer Milestone 2 Pumas Gob"

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search
(Results)
(Results)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
*We had a tie between the form of governance which was preferred.  
 
*We had a tie between the form of governance which was preferred.  
 
*There was no clear preference among participants.  
 
*There was no clear preference among participants.  
[[File:Graf.png| 600px|center]]
+
[[File:Graf.png| 600px]]
 
[[File:Graf.png| 400px|center| thumb| Fig 1. Graphical of vote ]]
 
[[File:Graf.png| 400px|center| thumb| Fig 1. Graphical of vote ]]
  

Revision as of 22:21, 3 June 2015

Our team actively drew the two story boards of the different forms of government.
We then created a form: https://goo.gl/4b1UTg and requested people to pick which of the two ways of government they preferred.

Methods

To examine people's preferences for the two forms of government we recruited participants from both offline and online spaces in an attempt to avoid unintentionally recruiting only highly active social media users. To recruit online, we posted invitations to our formsin different Facebook groups, pages, and twitter randomly selected from public listings. To recruit offline, we approached people in public spaces (e.g., bus stops and parks) and invited them to participate in our study. Participants were shown the two story boards and were asked to select their desired form of governance (offline users were given a tablet to participate.)

Results

  • A total of 65 individuals participated in our study.
  • We had a tie between the form of governance which was preferred.
  • There was no clear preference among participants.

Graf.png

Fig 1. Graphical of vote

Discussion

Participatory Democracy

this option is carried out democracy within public forums where workers, requiesters and even developers, they can discuss and there subforums within the forum where different aspects are presented, unlike other ideas, this suggests that together reach a solution fairly, and let's reputation workers increase.

Fig 2. how reputation is evalued on the plataform?

Leadership Board

This idea is based on a committee that is made up of workers (25%), requesters(25%), and developers (25%), that must be the most popular and trusted, they themselves decide what problems to solve and which to ignore, likewise the solutions to the problems that confront decide.

Results

According to the ratings that were put to the public of the ideas in the storyboards, we obtained the following results:


Interpreting the results, people chose slightly Participatory Democracy against Leadership Board, this means that people voted solving problems together and do not let certain people as shown Leadership. That means more people will like the idea of solving the problems in community instead of leaving it to a committee of people from the same group that can be ignored.

This can cause that everyone can feel more confident and express their ideas freely, as it can be used to improve the platform generally.

We can mention that with this vote, the way you think most people is just and truly democratic way.

Our team agrees with the decision of the votes of the people, Because we think it is right that the community of workers, requesters and developers using the plataform, they themselves can see and acknowledge mistakes, in order to improve this platform to provide better use to users, generating confidence, as it is expected to have an impact to them, to openly discuss problems, surely this will provide trust in people, because it has the freedom to express their discomfort. On the other hand, a possible disadvantage is that get out of context and lose importance.