The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums
Abstract
Within democratic theory, the deliberative variant has assumed pre-eminence. It represents for many the ideal of democracy, and in pursuit of this ideal, online discussion forums have been proposed as solutions to the practical limits to mass deliberation. Critics have pointed to evidence which suggests that online discussion has tended to undermine deliberation. This article argues that this claim, which generates a stand-off between the two camps, misses a key issue: the role played by design in facilitating or thwarting deliberation. It argues that political choices are made both about the format and operation of the online discussion, and that this affects the possibility of deliberation. Evidence for the impact of design (and the choices behind it) is drawn from analysis of European Union and UK discussion forums. This evidence suggests that we should view deliberation as dependent on design and choice, rather than a predetermined product of the technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
From the New York Times Magazine
Minsky, & Hyman, P. (1979) · Cited by 6,899
The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier
Rheingold, H. (1994) · Cited by 5,645
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
(2006) · Habermas · doi:10.4324/9780203020166-5 · Cited by 4,779
Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age
Bostaph, S., & Barber, B. R. (1985) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1059650 · Cited by 4,000
(1999) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,259
(1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175005 · Cited by 2,183
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations
Dryzek, J. S. (2002) · doi:10.1093/019925043x.001.0001 · Cited by 1,728
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00057-2 · Cited by 1,607
Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign
Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511664113 · Cited by 1,318
36. The Theory of Democracy Revisited
Sartori, G. (2016) · Democracy · doi:10.7312/blau17412-044 · Cited by 1,264
Cited by
Democratic innovations: designing institutions for citizen participation
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-5275 · Cited by 915
Bossetta, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018763307 · Cited by 689
eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011)
Medaglia, R. (2012) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010 · Cited by 307
Weber, P. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444813495165 · Cited by 288
From “Third Place” to “Third Space”: Everyday Political Talk in Non-Political Online Spaces
Wright, S. (2012) · Javnost - The Public · doi:10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088 · Cited by 142
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, S., & Street, J.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 849-869
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2151224211
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 72.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461444807081230
- The paper
- Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081230
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
