Collaboration: another idea

I've been thinking about how the success of collaborative forums (on blogs) is, in a way, similar to the success (or failure) of a democratic government. And, within the educational setting, similar to the success (or failure) of more interactive models of teaching (i.e. getting away from the simple didactic model). Isn't the reluctance to "trust" the validity of the collaborative forum similar to the reluctance to "trust" the stability of democratic governments?

As you know, there are ways that we "tweak" the system to account for and to attempt to mitigate inequities in our society: affirmative action, a stratified tax code. These (ideally) prevent the OVERREPRESENTATION of one group/segment of society. Similarly, in a collaborative blog, there have to be conditions set to prevent overrepresentation... On the other hand, there also must be mandatory guides that confirm participation of ALL (or as many) members as possible, or else democracies presumably fail (or at the very least become of poor quality). It's not mandatory for us to vote, but sometimes I think it should be... But returning to the blog, you need to set requirements to prevent underrepresentation; i.e., you MUST post at least one blog entry, and you MUST respond to at least two entries (similar to the requirements set up in this course).

I was thinking that using the blog itself as a subject for discussion would be fascinating in a lot of classrooms (primarily in the humanities). For example, in a Social Studies class discussing differing types of government:

you could have the class break into two or three groups. One group would follow a dictatorial model (I don't know, I'm not much of a history buff). This group would be "taught" a lesson based more or less on a didactic pedogogical model (i.e. teacher speak, student shut up and listen). Then, another group would follow a more collaborative model online in a blog. This group, presumably, would follow a more democratic model, and would "discuss" the same topic given by the teacher in the previous group. While the first group would get the "info" straight from the source, it would need a restriction of being unable to collaborate or do personal research. The second group, on the other hand, while lacking the "info" provided by the teacher, would be allowed to collaborate and do personal research. At the end of a given time period, both groups would be quizzed. The results could be compared, and, more importantly, the experiences of the different "interactive/governmental" models could be discussed.

I think that "priming" the class with such a project would (perhaps) allow students to see the advantages and disadvantages of the collaborative (democratic) model. And it could potentially bring home the fact that for collaborative forums to work, there MUST be certain rules (etiquette) to ensure the success of all. Students THEMSELVES could articulate those rules based upon their experiences (it seems so much more effective for students to determine rules for themselves [with guidance, of course]).