Paper by Sachit Mahajan and Dirk Helbing: “As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly shape everyday life, integrating diverse community values into their development becomes both an ethical imperative and a practical necessity. This paper introduces Value Sensitive Citizen Science (VSCS), a systematic framework combining Value Sensitive Design (VSD) principles with citizen science methods to foster meaningful public participation in AI. Addressing critical gaps in existing approaches, VSCS integrates culturally grounded participatory methods and structured cognitive scaffolding through the Participatory Value-Cognition Taxonomy (PVCT). Through iterative value-sensitive participation cycles guided by an extended scenario logic (What-if, If-then, Then-what, What-now), community members act as genuine coresearchers-identifying, translating, and operationalizing local values into concrete technical requirements. The framework also institutionalizes governance structures for ongoing oversight, adaptability, and accountability across the AI lifecycle. By explicitly bridging participatory design with algorithmic accountability, VSCS ensures that AI systems reflect evolving community priorities rather than reinforcing top-down or monocultural perspectives. Critical discussions highlight VSCS’s practical implications, addressing challenges such as power dynamics, scalability, and epistemic justice. The paper concludes by outlining actionable strategies for policymakers and practitioners, alongside future research directions aimed at advancing participatory, value-driven AI development across diverse technical and sociocultural contexts…(More)”.
The RRI Citizen Review Panel: a public engagement method for supporting responsible territorial policymaking
Paper by Maya Vestergaard Bidstrup et al: “Responsible Territorial Policymaking incorporates the main principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into the policymaking process, making it well-suited for guiding the development of sustainable and resilient territorial policies that prioritise societal needs. As a cornerstone in RRI, public engagement plays a central role in this process, underscoring the importance of involving all societal actors to align outcomes with the needs, expectations, and values of society. In the absence of existing methods to gather sufficiently and effectively the citizens’ review of multiple policies at a territorial level, the RRI Citizen Review Panel is a new public engagement method developed to facilitate citizens’ review and validation of territorial policies. By using RRI as an analytical framework, this paper examines whether the RRI Citizen Review Panel can support Responsible Territorial Policymaking, not only by incorporating citizens’ perspectives into territorial policymaking, but also by making policies more responsible. The paper demonstrates that in the review of territorial policies, citizens are adding elements of RRI to a wide range of policies within different policy areas, contributing to making policies more responsible. Consequently, the RRI Citizen Review Panel emerges as a valuable tool for policymakers, enabling them to gather citizen perspectives and imbue policies with a heightened sense of responsibility…(More)”.
Our new AI strategy puts Wikipedia’s humans first
Blog by Chris Albon and Leila Zia: “Not too long ago, we were asked when we’re going to replace Wikipedia’s human-curated knowledge with AI.
The answer? We’re not.
The community of volunteers behind Wikipedia is the most important and unique element of Wikipedia’s success. For nearly 25 years, Wikipedia editors have researched, deliberated, discussed, built consensus, and collaboratively written the largest encyclopedia humankind has ever seen. Their care and commitment to reliable encyclopedic knowledge is something AI cannot replace.
That is why our new AI strategy doubles down on the volunteers behind Wikipedia.
We will use AI to build features that remove technical barriers to allow the humans at the core of Wikipedia to spend their valuable time on what they want to accomplish, and not on how to technically achieve it. Our investments will be focused on specific areas where generative AI excels, all in the service of creating unique opportunities that will boost Wikipedia’s volunteers:
- Supporting Wikipedia’s moderators and patrollers with AI-assisted workflows that automate tedious tasks in support of knowledge integrity;
- Giving Wikipedia’s editors time back by improving the discoverability of information on Wikipedia to leave more time for human deliberation, judgment, and consensus building;
- Helping editors share local perspectives or context by automating the translation and adaptation of common topics;
- Scaling the onboarding of new Wikipedia volunteers with guided mentorship.
You can read the Wikimedia Foundation’s new AI strategy over on Meta-Wiki…(More)”.
Mapping local knowledge supports science and stewardship
Paper by Sarah C. Risley, Melissa L. Britsch, Joshua S. Stoll & Heather M. Leslie: “Coastal marine social–ecological systems are experiencing rapid change. Yet, many coastal communities are challenged by incomplete data to inform collaborative research and stewardship. We investigated the role of participatory mapping of local knowledge in addressing these challenges. We used participatory mapping and semi-structured interviews to document local knowledge in two focal social–ecological systems in Maine, USA. By co-producing fine-scale characterizations of coastal marine social–ecological systems, highlighting local questions and needs, and generating locally relevant hypotheses on system change, our research demonstrates how participatory mapping and local knowledge can enhance decision-making capacity in collaborative research and stewardship. The results of this study directly informed a collaborative research project to document changes in multiple shellfish species, shellfish predators, and shellfish harvester behavior and other human activities. This research demonstrates that local knowledge can be a keystone component of collaborative social–ecological systems research and community-lead environmental stewardship…(More)”.
Mini-Publics and Party Ideology: Who Commissioned the Deliberative Wave in Europe?
Paper by Rodrigo Ramis-Moyano et al: “The increasing implementation of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) such as Citizens’ Assemblies and Citizens’ Juries led the OECD to identify a ‘deliberative wave’. The burgeoning scholarship on DMPs has increased understanding of how they operate and their impact, but less attention has been paid to the drivers behind this diffusion. Existing research on democratic innovations has underlined the role of the governing party’s ideology as a relevant variable in the study of the adoption of other procedures such as participatory budgeting, placing left-wing parties as a prominent actor in this process. Unlike this previous literature, we have little understanding of whether mini-publics appeal equally across the ideological spectrum. This paper draws on the large-N OECD database to analyse the impact of governing party affiliation on the commissioning of DMPs in Europe across the last four decades. Our analysis finds the ideological pattern of adoption is less clear cut compared to other democratic innovations such as participatory budgeting. But stronger ideological differentiation emerges when we pay close attention to the design features of DMPs implemented…(More)”.
The Weaponization of Expertise
Book by Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson: “Experts are not infallible. Treating them as such has done us all a grave disservice and, as The Weaponization of Expertise makes painfully clear, given rise to the very populism that all-knowing experts and their elite coterie decry. Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson use the devastating example of the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate their case, revealing how the hubris of all-too-human experts undermined—perhaps irreparably—public faith in elite policymaking. Paradoxically, by turning science into dogmatism, the overweening elite response has also proved deeply corrosive to expertise itself—in effect, doing exactly what elite policymakers accuse their critics of doing.
A much-needed corrective to a dangerous blind faith in expertise, The Weaponization of Expertise identifies a cluster of pathologies that have enveloped many institutions meant to help referee expert knowledge, in particular a disavowal of the doubt, uncertainty, and counterarguments that are crucial to the accumulation of knowledge. At a time when trust in expertise and faith in institutions are most needed and most lacking, this work issues a stark reminder that a crisis of misinformation may well begin at the top…(More)”.
The Future is Coded: How AI is Rewriting the Rules of Decision Theaters
Essay by Mark Esposito and David De Cremer: “…These advances are not happening in isolation on engineers’ laptops; they are increasingly playing out in “decision theaters” – specialized environments (physical or virtual) designed for interactive, collaborative problem-solving. A decision theater is typically a space equipped with high-resolution displays, simulation engines, and data visualization tools where stakeholders can convene to explore complex scenarios. Originally pioneered at institutions like Arizona State University, the concept of a decision theater has gained traction as a way to bring together diverse expertise – economists, scientists, community leaders, government officials, and now AI systems – under one roof. By visualizing possible futures (say, the spread of a wildfire or the regional impact of an economic policy) in an engaging, shared format, these theaters make foresight a participatory exercise rather than an academic one. In the age of generative AI, decision theaters are evolving into hubs for human-AI collaboration. Picture a scenario where city officials are debating a climate adaptation policy. Inside a decision theater, an AI model might project several climate futures for the city (varying rainfall, extreme heat incidents, flood patterns) on large screens. Stakeholders can literally see the potential impacts on maps and graphs. They can then ask the AI to adjust assumptions – “What if we add more green infrastructure in this district?” – and within seconds, watch a new projection unfold. This real-time interaction allows for an iterative dialogue between human ideas and AI-generated outcomes. Participants can inject local knowledge or voice community values, and the AI will incorporate that input to revise the scenario. The true power of generative AI in a decision theater lies in this collaboration.
Such interactive environments enhance learning and consensus-building. When stakeholders jointly witness how certain choices lead to undesirable futures (for instance, a policy leading to water shortages in a simulation), it can galvanize agreement on preventative action. Moreover, the theater setup encourages asking “What if?” in a safe sandbox, including ethically fraught questions. Because the visualizations make outcomes concrete, they naturally prompt ethical deliberation: If one scenario shows economic growth but high social inequality, is that future acceptable? If not, how can we tweak inputs to produce a more equitable outcome? In this way, decision theaters embed ethical and social considerations into high-tech planning, ensuring that the focus isn’t just on what is likely or profitable but on what is desirable for communities. This participatory approach helps balance technological possibilities with human values and cultural sensitivities. It’s one thing for an AI to suggest an optimal solution on paper; it’s another to have community representatives in the room, engaging with that suggestion and shaping it to fit local norms and needs.
Equally important, decision theaters democratize foresight. They open up complex decision-making processes to diverse stakeholders, not just technical experts. City planners, elected officials, citizens’ groups, and subject matter specialists can all contribute in real time, aided by AI. This inclusive model guards against the risk of AI becoming an opaque oracle controlled by a few. Instead, the AI’s insights are put on display for all to scrutinize and question. By doing so, the process builds trust in the tools and the decisions that come out of them. When people see that an AI’s recommendation emerged from transparent, interactive exploration – rather than a mysterious black box – they may be more likely to trust and accept the outcome. As one policy observer noted, it’s essential to bring ideas from across sectors and disciplines into these AI-assisted discussions so that solutions “work for people, not just companies.” If designed well, decision theaters operationalize that principle…(More)”.
Deliberative Approaches to Inclusive Governance
Series edited by Taylor Owen and Sequoia Kim: “Democracy has undergone profound changes over the past decade, shaped by rapid technological, social, and political transformations. Across the globe, citizens are demanding more meaningful and sustained engagement in governance—especially around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), which increasingly shape the contours of public life.
From world-leading experts in deliberative democracy, civic technology, and AI governance we introduce a seven-part essay series exploring how deliberative democratic processes like citizen’s assemblies and civic tech can strengthen AI governance…(More)”.
Spaces for Deliberation
Report by Gustav Kjær Vad Nielsen & James MacDonald-Nelson: “As citizens’ assemblies and other forms of citizen deliberation are increasingly implemented in many parts of the world, it is becoming more relevant to explore and question the role of the physical spaces in which these processes take place.
This paper builds on existing literature that considers the relationships between space and democracy. In the literature, this relationship has been studied with a focus on the architecture of parliament buildings, and on the role of urban public spaces and architecture for political culture, both largely within the context of representative democracy and with little or no attention given to spaces for facilitated citizen deliberation. With very limited considerations of the spaces for deliberative assemblies in the literature, in this paper, we argue that the spatial qualities for citizen deliberation demand more critical attention.
Through a series of interviews with leading practitioners of citizens’ assemblies from six different countries, we explore what spatial qualities are typically considered in the planning and implementation of these assemblies, what are the recurring challenges related to the physical spaces where they take place, and the opportunities and limitations for a more intentional spatial design. In this paper, we synthesise our findings and formulate a series of considerations for the spatial qualities of citizens’ assemblies aimed at informing future practice and further research…(More)”.
Inside arXiv—the Most Transformative Platform in All of Science
Article by Sheon Han: “Nearly 35 years ago, Ginsparg created arXiv, a digital repository where researchers could share their latest findings—before those findings had been systematically reviewed or verified. Visit arXiv.org today (it’s pronounced like “archive”) and you’ll still see its old-school Web 1.0 design, featuring a red banner and the seal of Cornell University, the platform’s institutional home. But arXiv’s unassuming facade belies the tectonic reconfiguration it set off in the scientific community. If arXiv were to stop functioning, scientists from every corner of the planet would suffer an immediate and profound disruption. “Everybody in math and physics uses it,” Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me. “I scan it every night.”
Every industry has certain problems universally acknowledged as broken: insurance in health care, licensing in music, standardized testing in education, tipping in the restaurant business. In academia, it’s publishing. Academic publishing is dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer. Calling their practice a form of thuggery isn’t so much an insult as an economic observation. Imagine if a book publisher demanded that authors write books for free and, instead of employing in-house editors, relied on other authors to edit those books, also for free. And not only that: The final product was then sold at prohibitively expensive prices to ordinary readers, and institutions were forced to pay exorbitant fees for access…(More)”.