RUSSIA may sound an unlikely place for a bold experiment in participatory democracy. But Wikivote, an online forum where citizens collaborate in redrafting laws, seems to be enjoying unlikely early success there.

The website displays a draft law and lets users propose rewrites of each paragraph; others can vote on the suggestions. In another section they can debate “thorny questions”. A reputation-rating system gives serious users' votes more weight; invited experts get even more. The site's first full-scale test came earlier this year, when protests erupted over a new fisheries bill that proposed charging Russians for their beloved pastime of fishing in public waterways. At the government's behest, Wikivote posted the draft bill; it went through two redrafts with over 1,000 proposed modifications, according to Vasiliy Burov, one of the project's creators. On the site now is a longer and trickier education bill.

Successful examples of legislation by the masses are rare. Most people don't know how to write laws. Tim Bonnemann, the founder of Intellitics, an American firm specialising in public-participation tools, says a better method is to canvas views widely but use a small team to write a draft. The hard part is not the technology (a simple online discussion forum is adequate) but creating a fair and transparent process that assures people their voices have been heard.

Another problem is that even a public consultation, let alone public law-writing, takes a lot of time and money to do well, especially when large groups are involved. Tom Steinberg, the director of MySociety, a British e-democracy organisation, says most attempts in collaborative lawmaking, whether run by governments or do-gooders, are one-offs that never gather enough steam and public interest.

A third problem is that government websites of this sort are often clunky, and poor at drawing in the public debate that thrives elsewhere online. Professional lobbyists willing to plough through the process therefore often have a big advantage. America's site for rewriting government rules, regulations.gov, displays the comments on a draft bill as a list of the commenters' names. These may run into the hundreds and the visitor must click on each name separately to see what was said. That makes getting the overall picture dauntingly tedious. Even Estonia, a world leader in e-government, had lacklustre results when it launched osale.ee, a portal for public comments on bills, in 2007. In the first two years, according to a study by Meelis Kitsing of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, the most comments any bill got was 27 (one-third got none). In contrast the Brazilian parliament's cheerful and friendly e-Democracia site is often cited as a rare success story: it channels comments straight to the parliamentary agency that advises MPs.

Non-governmental sites, on the other hand, may be easier to use, but officials are wont to ignore them. Two students who founded a site called Lexpop earlier this year think they may have got around this problem: a Massachusetts state legislator, Tom Sannicandro, has agreed in advance to propose a bill on “net neutrality” that the site's users will draft. (Drafting hasn't yet begun, though, and some doubt that anything coherent will emerge).

The big difficulty for such projects in advanced democracies is that they have to break into lawmaking systems that often function tolerably well. Wikivote, by contrast, trades on the fact that some Russian ministries produce legislation so shoddy that it does not work. “The goal of the state is to get higher-quality laws,” Mr Burov says. “It's not about being more democratic. So much of what's idiotic in Russia happens not because somebody wants it that way, but because there's nobody to prevent idiocy from happening.”