Just in case people don't click on the link:
"The way a typical US transparency project works is pretty simple. You
find a government database, work hard to get or parse a copy, and then
put it online with some nice visualizations.
The problem is that reality doesn’t live in the databases. Instead,
the databases that are made available, even if grudgingly, form a kind
of official cover story, a veil of lies over the real workings of
government. If you visit a site like GovTrack, which publishes
information on what Congresspeople are up to, you find that all of
Congress’s votes are on inane items like declaring holidays and naming
post offices. The real action is buried in obscure subchapters of
innocuous-sounding bills and voted on under emergency provisions that
let everything happen without public disclosure.
So government transparency sites end up having three possible effects.
The vast majority of them simply promote these official cover stories,
misleading the public about what’s really going on. The unusually
cutting ones simply make plain the mindnumbing universality of waste
and corruption, and thus promote apathy. And on very rare occasions
you have a “success”: an extreme case is located through your work,
brought to justice, and then everyone goes home thinking the problem
has been solved, as the real corruption continues on as before.
In short, the generous impulses behind transparency sites end up doing
more harm than good."
This is from someone that has been doing gov transparency sites for a while.
I find this critical opinion really interesting, but possibly
exaggerated about the lack of benefit of these projects.
mike
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, catherine <
[hidden email]> wrote:
Locked
