Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
Locked
123
123
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
 
|
A website budget isn't an open data budget. Are you saying governments should spend 10% of IT (Information Technology) budgets generally on effective use? That's orders of magnitude more. Anyway, we're again straying from what this has to do with open data specifically and more towards general issues of digital divide.
On 2012-05-15, at 2:04 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > Good to see this important discussion, all! > > A good budget outlines what is necessary and what it will cost. If cost-effective e-government and/or open government means that everyone has to have access to the internet and whatever help might be needed in accessing services, that should be just part of overall plans and specific budgets, not an add-on. > > I understand that we are still waiting for Canada's Digital Economy strategy. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). Trying to move forward in this area without an overall plan strikes me as a little like trying to build services that require transportation without transportation planning - a road here and there but no thought given to how they fit together. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > On 2012-05-15, at 10:48 AM, James McKinney wrote: > >> Given how difficult it is to convince many governments to do open data in the first place, do you think it's realistic for people in that position to add, "Oh, and another request, can you you increase the budget for your open data initiative by 11%"? >> >> An important question is, 10% of what? How much money is actually at stake? In Montreal, there is no formal budget for the open data initiative. My understanding is that it's all part/spare-time work by government employees. So 10% of $0 is still $0. In cities that do put some money into it, it's still such a tiny budget that 10% of it probably wouldn't even cover a single "how to use a computer" tutorial at a library... >> >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 1:31 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: >> >>> I think Michael's earlier idea that 10% of open gov data funds be earmarked to support effective use seems a reasonable proposal. >>> >>> From: Herb Lainchbury <[hidden email]> >>> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:51:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >>> >>> The current situation is that public data is available only to those with sufficient money and/or privilege. The open data position is that public data should be available to all. The article takes the position that we should be wary of opening up to those without sufficient money and/or privilege because because someone who knows how to use it, might actually use it, and that's not fair to those who won't. >>> >>> Not only does it ignore the fact that many beneficiaries of releasing open data are downstream users, but it also assumes that people won't or can't learn how to use data. I couldn't disagree more. I want to see students in high school using real open municipal data about their community in their class projects. I want to see anyone interested in how their governments work, learn to use a spreadsheet and pivot tables and maps. >>> >>> After having run over a dozen hackathons in BC with over 300 people from all walks of life I can tell you that there are many non-technical folks are both interested and capable of learning how to throw data around. >>> >>> No doubt when the printing press was invented the same argument was made. As James noted, it's simply attempt to prop up the status quo. >>> >>> H >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/2764 >>> >>> Suggestions at the bottom: 1... 7 >>> >>> From: Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen <[hidden email]> >>> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:45:31 AM >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >>> >>> I also share James perspective on the question. I understand the point the author is trying to make, but I am not sure it is a really good one. Is he saying that these corporations that have power will have more power now that anyone can see what they base their studies on? I mean, these are the same people that have lobbyists, that could pay for StatsCan info, for surveys, etc. They could produce obscure data that nobody could question. >>> >>> Now, it is obvious these same people with means will use this data at their advantage. But, with the same data available to everybody, it will be easier to question their objectives and the value of their propositions. The author argues that it's not everybody that will be able to mount a counter argument or even make sense of all that Open Data. That is true, but society can ask questions and pay people to answer those questions. Papers could get into the business. And, best of all, we can use that data to educate citizens about the benefits AND the limits of data. We can change peoples expectations and THAT is where I feel Open Data will be most beneficial. >>> >>> The only point that I agree with is that Open Data will not magically usher in a revolution of transparency and better government. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Not least see how we can use this opportunity to the fullest and not let this common risk become a reality. >>> >>> Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen >>> (514) 572-0692 >>> CitizenBudget.com Communications Coordinator / Responsable des communications BudgetCitoyen.com >>> OpenNorth.ca / NordOuvert.ca >>> Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 11:29, James McKinney a écrit : >>>> I understood the argument, and I'm well aware that it's thanks to governments that we have as much broadband access around the world as we do today. Perhaps my point wasn't very clear. >>>> >>>> My primary frustration with these articles is, "OK, so what's your proposal?" Not do open data? Slow down open data? I think both of those would be bad choices, and unlikely ones anyhow. So what it is? A call on the government to have Excel and GIS tutorials? I have no idea. Most of these articles come down to "Ooooh, 'open data' - watch out!" and then nothing in terms of solutions. I'm eager to be proven wrong! >>>> >>>> On 2012-05-15, at 11:17 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey James, >>>>> >>>>> This wasn't a very good version of this argument. Normally the >>>>> argument is not that we shouldn't exploit new technologies or that >>>>> they will not follow the normal distribution patterns. It is that the >>>>> benefits of the new technology are going to go primarily to the people >>>>> with power and only much later, if ever, to the people with less >>>>> power. During that time, the people with power will use this new >>>>> technology to increase the amount of power they have, thereby >>>>> disempowering further the others. In order to prevent that, steps >>>>> should be ensure adoption of this technology to the disempowered. This >>>>> is the only way that the impact of this technology on the poor won't >>>>> be relatively negative. >>>>> >>>>> I think that the normal counter argument is that the disempowered have >>>>> a net gain, as opposed to a relative gain. >>>>> >>>>> The example you brought up is actually not one that necessarily >>>>> supports your argument. The Federal gov spent a lot of cash on it's >>>>> "Connecting Canadians" programs which included funding to help >>>>> schools, community groups, and libraries get hooked up to the >>>>> internet. And there was a lot of funding and government intervention >>>>> to extend broadband to rural areas. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> If people had convincingly made the argument, "Let's be very careful with >>>>>> this new 'broadband Internet' technology, as it has a significant risk of >>>>>> benefiting the rich and the corporations more than the poor," then we would >>>>>> still be waiting for broadband Internet... I'm hard-pressed to find a new >>>>>> technology that doesn't follow this pattern. Of course, open data is not >>>>>> technology, but the tools needed to make use of the data are. It's expertise >>>>>> in (or access to expertise in) those tools that isn't evenly distributed >>>>>> throughout the population. If open data makes access to those >>>>>> tools/expertise much more important, I don't see how/why we wouldn't see the >>>>>> same pattern as with other technologies where broader access increases over >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2012-05-15, at 7:34 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Open Data and The New Divide >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tracey P. Lauriault >>>>>> 613-234-2805 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Herb Lainchbury >>> Dynamic Solutions Inc. >>> www.dynamic-solutions.com >>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > Heather G. Morrison > Coordinator > BC Electronic Library Network > [hidden email] > 778-855-5156 cell > http://www.eln.bc.ca > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
On 2012-05-15, at 2:19 PM, James McKinney wrote: > A website budget isn't an open data budget. Are you saying governments should spend 10% of IT (Information Technology) budgets generally on effective use? That's orders of magnitude more. Anyway, we're again straying from what this has to do with open data specifically and more towards general issues of digital divide. The thread got broken - to be clear, this is in response to Michael. |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
James,
That wasn't my determination of the OGD budget but seems to have come from the City of Vancouver itself... And as a matter of fact when I consulted on digitization/office automation issues with the Feds yo those many years ago--10% was the rule of thumb for training etc. of end users. When that wasn't made available (and even that was seriously inadequate since software design issues were generally left to the companies) the problems with implementing systems and downstream rejection of systems by end users was much much more costly than anything that was to have been spent at the front end. I think this started with a question as to whether there was an emerging "data divide" and that is what I think we've been addressing and something which I think has very much to do with open (government) data. M -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James McKinney Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:20 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide A website budget isn't an open data budget. Are you saying governments should spend 10% of IT (Information Technology) budgets generally on effective use? That's orders of magnitude more. Anyway, we're again straying from what this has to do with open data specifically and more towards general issues of digital divide. On 2012-05-15, at 2:04 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > Good to see this important discussion, all! > > A good budget outlines what is necessary and what it will cost. If > cost-effective e-government and/or open government means that everyone has to have access to the internet and whatever help might be needed in accessing services, that should be just part of overall plans and specific budgets, not an add-on. > > I understand that we are still waiting for Canada's Digital Economy > strategy. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). Trying to move forward in this area without an overall plan strikes me as a little like trying to build services that require transportation without transportation planning - a road here and there but no thought given to how they fit together. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > On 2012-05-15, at 10:48 AM, James McKinney wrote: > >> Given how difficult it is to convince many governments to do open >> data in the first place, do you think it's realistic for people in >> that position to add, "Oh, and another request, can you you increase >> the budget for your open data initiative by 11%"? >> >> An important question is, 10% of what? How much money is actually at >> stake? In Montreal, there is no formal budget for the open data >> initiative. My understanding is that it's all part/spare-time work by >> government employees. So 10% of $0 is still $0. In cities that do put >> some money into it, it's still such a tiny budget that 10% of it >> probably wouldn't even cover a single "how to use a computer" >> tutorial at a library... >> >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 1:31 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: >> >>> I think Michael's earlier idea that 10% of open gov data funds be >>> earmarked to support effective use seems a reasonable proposal. >>> >>> From: Herb Lainchbury <[hidden email]> >>> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:51:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >>> >>> The current situation is that public data is available only to those >>> with sufficient money and/or privilege. The open data position is >>> that public data should be available to all. The article takes the >>> position that we should be wary of opening up to those without >>> sufficient money and/or privilege because because someone who knows >>> how to use it, might actually use it, and that's not fair to those >>> who won't. >>> >>> Not only does it ignore the fact that many beneficiaries of >>> releasing open data are downstream users, but it also assumes that want to see students in high school using real open municipal data about their community in their class projects. I want to see anyone interested in how their governments work, learn to use a spreadsheet and pivot tables and maps. >>> >>> After having run over a dozen hackathons in BC with over 300 people >>> from all walks of life I can tell you that there are many >>> non-technical folks are both interested and capable of learning how >>> to throw data around. >>> >>> No doubt when the printing press was invented the same argument was >>> made. As James noted, it's simply attempt to prop up the status >>> quo. >>> >>> H >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/vi >>> ew/3316/2764 >>> >>> Suggestions at the bottom: 1... 7 >>> >>> From: Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen <[hidden email]> >>> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:45:31 AM >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >>> >>> I also share James perspective on the question. I understand the >>> point the author is trying to make, but I am not sure it is a really more power now that anyone can see what they base their studies on? I mean, these are the same people that have lobbyists, that could pay for StatsCan info, for surveys, etc. They could produce obscure data that nobody could question. >>> >>> Now, it is obvious these same people with means will use this data >>> at their advantage. But, with the same data available to everybody, >>> it will be easier to question their objectives and the value of >>> their propositions. The author argues that it's not everybody that >>> will be able to mount a counter argument or even make sense of all >>> that Open Data. That is true, but society can ask questions and pay >>> people to answer those questions. Papers could get into the >>> business. And, best of all, we can use that data to educate citizens >>> about the benefits AND the limits of data. We can change peoples >>> expectations and THAT is where I feel Open Data will be most >>> beneficial. >>> >>> The only point that I agree with is that Open Data will not >>> magically usher in a revolution of transparency and better >>> government. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Not least see how we can use >>> this opportunity to the fullest and not let this common risk become >>> a reality. >>> >>> Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen >>> (514) 572-0692 >>> CitizenBudget.com Communications Coordinator / Responsable des >>> communications BudgetCitoyen.com OpenNorth.ca / NordOuvert.ca Le >>> mardi 15 mai 2012 à 11:29, James McKinney a écrit : >>>> I understood the argument, and I'm well aware that it's thanks to >>>> governments that we have as much broadband access around the world >>>> as we do today. Perhaps my point wasn't very clear. >>>> >>>> My primary frustration with these articles is, "OK, so what's your >>>> proposal?" Not do open data? Slow down open data? I think both of >>>> those would be bad choices, and unlikely ones anyhow. So what it >>>> is? A call on the government to have Excel and GIS tutorials? I >>>> have no idea. Most of these articles come down to "Ooooh, 'open >>>> data' - watch out!" and then nothing in terms of solutions. I'm >>>> eager to be proven wrong! >>>> >>>> On 2012-05-15, at 11:17 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey James, >>>>> >>>>> This wasn't a very good version of this argument. Normally the >>>>> argument is not that we shouldn't exploit new technologies or that >>>>> they will not follow the normal distribution patterns. It is that >>>>> the benefits of the new technology are going to go primarily to >>>>> the people with power and only much later, if ever, to the people >>>>> with less power. During that time, the people with power will use >>>>> this new technology to increase the amount of power they have, >>>>> thereby disempowering further the others. In order to prevent >>>>> that, steps should be ensure adoption of this technology to the >>>>> disempowered. This is the only way that the impact of this >>>>> technology on the poor won't be relatively negative. >>>>> >>>>> I think that the normal counter argument is that the disempowered >>>>> have a net gain, as opposed to a relative gain. >>>>> >>>>> The example you brought up is actually not one that necessarily >>>>> supports your argument. The Federal gov spent a lot of cash on >>>>> it's "Connecting Canadians" programs which included funding to >>>>> help schools, community groups, and libraries get hooked up to the >>>>> internet. And there was a lot of funding and government >>>>> intervention to extend broadband to rural areas. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, James McKinney >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> If people had convincingly made the argument, "Let's be very >>>>>> careful with this new 'broadband Internet' technology, as it has >>>>>> a significant risk of benefiting the rich and the corporations >>>>>> more than the poor," then we would still be waiting for broadband >>>>>> Internet... I'm hard-pressed to find a new technology that >>>>>> doesn't follow this pattern. Of course, open data is not >>>>>> technology, but the tools needed to make use of the data are. >>>>>> It's expertise in (or access to expertise in) those tools that >>>>>> isn't evenly distributed throughout the population. If open data >>>>>> makes access to those tools/expertise much more important, I >>>>>> don't see how/why we wouldn't see the same pattern as with other >>>>>> technologies where broader access increases over time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2012-05-15, at 7:34 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Open Data and The New Divide >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tracey P. Lauriault >>>>>> 613-234-2805 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Herb Lainchbury >>> Dynamic Solutions Inc. >>> www.dynamic-solutions.com >>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > Heather G. Morrison > Coordinator > BC Electronic Library Network > [hidden email] > 778-855-5156 cell > http://www.eln.bc.ca > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by michael gurstein
To cite the city of Vancouver's website budget as part of this
strikes as problematic especially, as I've been in contact with the
city, and so far none of that budget is going towards the open data
component of the website, it is going towards buying and
implementing a CMS system. In fact, virtually all, if not all of the
open data work done by the city (and almost all the city's I know)
has been down off the side of the desk of various employees who
think it is important to do. So in most cases there simply is no
budget from which to pull even 10%. I agree, I'd love to see more
money being spent to educate people and foster open data use - this
is why people like Herb, James, myself and others spend so much time
trying to run events that attract new people and teach them how to
use open data. I also encourage funds be set aside to do this in
cities (and other levels of government). But I think many on this
thread are hearing (perhaps incorrectly) is that what Michael is
saying is that if you don't commit funds to do this (which,
presently, most governments will not, simple because funds are
tight) then you shouldn't do open data at all. I think that is what
people are reacting to. I know that if the choice breaks down to
only a) open data no with supporting funds or b) no open data, most
of the time, I'm going to choose (a).
I also think James's larger point is well taken. The open data advocates are trying to reduce the divide - it is often (although not always) about trying to data that is currently only available to a select group of people (be it those with selective access, or with money) and making it more available. On 12-05-15 11:03 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Herb Lainchbury
Herb,
That
is not the position taken in the paper. Rather the paper points to risks
involved in "opening" up data without at the same time taking measures (such as
those indicated at the end of the paper) to ensure that there is the widest
possible opportunity to take advantage of the data that is being made
available.
In the absence of those measures there is the strong
likelihood of further contributing to already unprecedented levels of (for
example) income inequality since those with the means to take advantage of the
open (government) data are most likely to
be the prime beneficiaries (as in the examples quoted). The intent with
the paper is simply to introduce some cautions into the current OGD discussion
which seems to focus completely on benefits while ignoring risks and thus
measures that could help to alleviate those
risks.
Hackathons are great for "hackers" and would be
"hackers", training programs for civil society advocates who might like to make
use of say housing infraction data as part of good housing campaigns would be I
think, of equal or greater "social" benefit.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:51 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
What I think Herb was saying, and that David expresses more clearly, is that cautions about OGD (however well intended) are interpreted as reasons not to do OGD, or problems with doing OGD, that ultimately discourage governments from doing OGD, who are desperately in need of encouragement from our point of view.
I think there is disagreement as to whether or not there is an emerging "data divide." I've already expressed my opinion on this: there is no new divide. It's just the same old divisions we're familiar with. OGD may make some divisions more poignant (effective use) while improving others (availability). But it's in no way creating a gap that wasn't already there. If we imagine a ladder with a truly open government at the top, then I think one of the first rungs is availability, which OGD addresses. As we climb the ladder, we shift the gap up the ladder - the goal being to get to the top and shift it over the top (so to speak). The cautions about OGD usually sound like reasons to not even get on that early OGD rung on the ladder, which is a great shame. Another point: Part of the OGD movement's success is due to its focus. I guess we're also disagreeing as to whether or not that focus is too limited. In principle, I sympathize with your criticisms, but in practice, I think it was the most effective strategy to make progress on these issues. On 2012-05-15, at 3:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
M On 2012-05-15, at 2:32 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
On 2012-05-15, at 2:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
On 2012-05-15, at 2:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
On 2012-05-15, at 3:00 PM, David Eaves wrote:
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
While
the issue of budgets for "Open Government Data" are perhaps arguable here in
Canada (pace Heather's point about the structure of budgets--presumably the CMS
system is at least in part to be directed toward making/managing Vancouver City
data "open"), the issue is very relevent in the Less Developed Country context
where the original paper and discussion was meant to make a contribution.
The World Bank for example is in the process of putting $50 million into
Open Data in Kenya alone, so the issue of a 10% set aside is very relevent
indeed.
I should say though that to my mind it isn't reasonable to argue as many
do (in many cases unconsciously) that OGD issues are the same and can be
addressed in the same way in OECD as compared to LDC countries. (I've
discussed this at some length in Two
Worlds of Open Government Data: Getting the Lowdown on Public Toilets in Chennai
and Other Matters).
And
for the record and as should be clear in anything I have written on this
subject, I am strongly in favour of Open Data as I believe it is a necessary
pre-condition for an effective democracy. My concern's are that the
opportunities for active participation in those democratic processes are as
widely available as possible and I would argue that processes towards the
"opening" up of data should necessarily include processes of "democratising"
data as well.
M
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by michael gurstein
>> Hackathons are great for "hackers" and would be "hackers"
I don't know of any hackers that think they are "great". Nor do I think that people attend hackthons to learn how to become hackers. I personally do it solely because I believe it is one way that I can contribute to something that I think will create exciting new possibilities for all people. Michael, There are many things that governments could be doing. If what you're suggesting is that any time a government does something for the public, they should also allocate 10% to their budget to provide training to go with it, then I would disagree.
If what you're suggesting is that "open data" is special and governments should provide training for that, but not everything else, then I wonder what criteria you are using to decide what government programs "should" provide this training and which ones don't have to.
H On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote:
Herb Lainchbury Dynamic Solutions Inc. www.dynamic-solutions.com http://twitter.com/herblainchbury |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What I think Herb was saying, and that David expresses more clearly, is that > cautions about OGD (however well intended) are interpreted as reasons not to > do OGD, or problems with doing OGD, that ultimately discourage governments > from doing OGD, who are desperately in need of encouragement from our point > of view. > > I think there is disagreement as to whether or not there is an emerging > "data divide." I've already expressed my opinion on this: there is no new > divide. It's just the same old divisions we're familiar with. OGD may make > some divisions more poignant (effective use) while improving others > (availability). But it's in no way creating a gap that wasn't already there. > If we imagine a ladder with a truly open government at the top, then I think > one of the first rungs is availability, which OGD addresses. As we climb the > ladder, we shift the gap up the ladder - the goal being to get to the top > and shift it over the top (so to speak). The cautions about OGD usually > sound like reasons to not even get on that early OGD rung on the ladder, > which is a great shame. > > > Another point: Part of the OGD movement's success is due to its focus. I > guess we're also disagreeing as to whether or not that focus is too limited. > In principle, I sympathize with your criticisms, but in practice, I think it > was the most effective strategy to make progress on these issues. > I agree on this last point. While I understand that proponents of general civil society (including myself), universal accessibility, and the digital divide want to tie their agenda's to the hot topic that is showing up in the news, I agree that the best way of moving open data forward is to keep it focused. My friends and colleagues are involved with the CAP program, and the Telecommunities organization has been a strong proponent of the need for it to continue to be funded. I have seen it tied to various issues in an attempt to retain funding, including literacy, unemployment and integration of immigrants. While I don't disagree with any of those associations, I think they point to the relative weakness of the necessary connection between Community Access and the merits of Open Data. As founder of a wireless community group which was developing mobile high-speed connectivity back in 2003, I had to defend our group from the same attacks that we should not receive support or funding because not everyone had a high-speed connection at home. I support a call for funding to help extend the use of open data and I think that a open data plan improves from incorporating effective use , but I disagree with attempts to tie the two together in such a way that funding for effective use becomes a handicap to achieving more success with open data (like Michael G.'s suggestion of adding 10% to every budget). In my mind, at this time in the development of open data, and at this moment of budgetary cutbacks, it is possible to have a successful open data plan that does not incorporate effective use provisions. On another note, Michael G., I don't mean this offensively, but I wish that you would stop referring to the people on this list as "you technical folks" or "data geeks". I don't mind the word "geek" (in fact, I enjoy it) but I do object to the representation. I think I'm representative of the people on this list in that I'm pretty geeky in that I work in the technology field, but I'm also a member of civil society and a passionate citizen. I serve on the boards of several organizations that have nothing to do with technology. As an example of the group that I'm closest to, Montreal Ouvert, one of our two "leads" is Jean-Noé and he had very little technical knowledge when he co-founded the group. Instead he had a vast (for his age) experience with domestic and international democracy and civil society. We're partially responsible for a Table de concertation that has members of civil society and institutions as members and through our hackathons we reach out to *and successfully engage* non-technical citizens, journalists, civil society organizations and institutions all the time. Check out the composition of the table: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/demarche/concertation/composition-table-de-concertation/ So, yes, admittedly, on the whole we're a pretty geeky bunch on this list, but it doesn't serve to reduce our thoughts to that of the geeks on these issues. A lot of us have put in more time and energy thinking about many aspects of these topics than the civil society and/or the community access folks and we bring a lot more to it than technical expertise and context. That said, I don't mean to suggest that you are being in any way disrespectful. I'm really glad that you're engaging with this list Michael. I think it's productive and I appreciate it. Thank you. Mike > On 2012-05-15, at 3:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Herb, > > That is not the position taken in the paper. Rather the paper points to > risks involved in "opening" up data without at the same time taking measures > (such as those indicated at the end of the paper) to ensure that there is > the widest possible opportunity to take advantage of the data that is being > made available. > > In the absence of those measures there is the strong likelihood of > further contributing to already unprecedented levels of (for example) income > inequality since those with the means to take advantage of the > open (government) data are most likely to be the prime beneficiaries (as in > the examples quoted). The intent with the paper is simply to introduce some > cautions into the current OGD discussion which seems to focus completely on > benefits while ignoring risks and thus measures that could help to alleviate > those risks. > > Hackathons are great for "hackers" and would be "hackers", training programs > for civil society advocates who might like to make use of say housing > infraction data as part of good housing campaigns would be I think, of equal > or greater "social" benefit. > > > M > > On 2012-05-15, at 2:32 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > James, > > That wasn't my determination of the OGD budget but seems to have come from > the City of Vancouver itself... > > And as a matter of fact when I consulted on digitization/office automation > issues with the Feds yo those many years ago--10% was the rule of thumb for > training etc. of end users. When that wasn't made available (and even that > was seriously inadequate since software design issues were generally left to > the companies) the problems with implementing systems and downstream > rejection of systems by end users was much much more costly than anything > that was to have been spent at the front end. > > I think this started with a question as to whether there was an emerging > "data divide" and that is what I think we've been addressing and something > which I think has very much to do with open (government) data. > > M > > > On 2012-05-15, at 2:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > James, > > I'm not suggesting that OGD folks have any more responsibility than > others--but certainly no less and in some ways given their specific area of > activity/interest they do have a special responsibility to help to > facilitate appropriate outcomes in areas where they are active. It isn't to > my mind sufficient to say that "you gave at the office" or that "where the > bomb comes down" is someone else's responsibiity when you folks are (or at > least helping) to "design the bomb" (if you looked at the Tom Lehrer clip... > > (That's why I'm suggesting the 10%, not as an "addition" but as a necessary > component--part of the standard suggested budget in these areas... Quite > honestly making a small allocation to help ensure that the 99% (who aren't > currently "data literate") can make use of something that is being paid for > by the 100% shouldn't be that much of an issue. > > M > > > On 2012-05-15, at 2:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > James, > > Your may or may not have seen this article on Open Data in the City > of Vancouer http://www.straight.com/article-346007/vancouver/vancouvers-open-data-holds-potential-empower-citizens "The > city has allocated $1.76 million of the 2010 capital budget to create a > content management system for city-funded Web sites". > > My colleagues who have been querying City of Vancouver officials on this > have told me that they were told that no budget was assigned to ensure > broader public access/use of the data being made available as part of this > process. $175,000 may not go all that far but my guess is that with a formal > assignment of those funds the funds could have been leveraged through > voluntary contributions/partnerships with universities or colleges that sort > of thing. The money is of course, important but in some ways the > acknowledgement of this as an issue and that public bodies are taking some > responsibility in this area is perhaps of equal or greater importance. > > M > > > On 2012-05-15, at 3:00 PM, David Eaves wrote: > > To cite the city of Vancouver's website budget as part of this strikes as > problematic especially, as I've been in contact with the city, and so far > none of that budget is going towards the open data component of the website, > it is going towards buying and implementing a CMS system. In fact, virtually > all, if not all of the open data work done by the city (and almost all the > city's I know) has been down off the side of the desk of various employees > who think it is important to do. So in most cases there simply is no budget > from which to pull even 10%. I agree, I'd love to see more money being spent > to educate people and foster open data use - this is why people like Herb, > James, myself and others spend so much time trying to run events that > attract new people and teach them how to use open data. I also encourage > funds be set aside to do this in cities (and other levels of government). > But I think many on this thread are hearing (perhaps incorrectly) is that > what Michael is saying is that if you don't commit funds to do this (which, > presently, most governments will not, simple because funds are tight) then > you shouldn't do open data at all. I think that is what people are reacting > to. I know that if the choice breaks down to only a) open data no with > supporting funds or b) no open data, most of the time, I'm going to choose > (a). > > I also think James's larger point is well taken. The open data advocates are > trying to reduce the divide - it is often (although not always) about trying > to data that is currently only available to a select group of people (be it > those with selective access, or with money) and making it more available. > > > > On 12-05-15 11:03 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > James, > > Your may or may not have seen this article on Open Data in the City > of Vancouer http://www.straight.com/article-346007/vancouver/vancouvers-open-data-holds-potential-empower-citizens "The > city has allocated $1.76 million of the 2010 capital budget to create a > content management system for city-funded Web sites". > > My colleagues who have been querying City of Vancouver officials on this > have told me that they were told that no budget was assigned to ensure > broader public access/use of the data being made available as part of this > process. $175,000 may not go all that far but my guess is that with a formal > assignment of those funds the funds could have been leveraged through > voluntary contributions/partnerships with universities or colleges that sort > of thing. The money is of course, important but in some ways the > acknowledgement of this as an issue and that public bodies are taking some > responsibility in this area is perhaps of equal or greater importance. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James > McKinney > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:49 AM > To: Mark Weiler; civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > Given how difficult it is to convince many governments to do open data in > the first place, do you think it's realistic for people in that position to > add, "Oh, and another request, can you you increase the budget for your open > data initiative by 11%"? > > An important question is, 10% of what? How much money is actually at stake? > In Montreal, there is no formal budget for the open data initiative. My > understanding is that it's all part/spare-time work by government employees. > So 10% of $0 is still $0. In cities that do put some money into it, it's > still such a tiny budget that 10% of it probably wouldn't even cover a > single "how to use a computer" tutorial at a library... > > > > On 2012-05-15, at 1:31 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: > > I think Michael's earlier idea that 10% of open gov data funds be earmarked > to support effective use seems a reasonable proposal. > > ________________________________ > From: Herb Lainchbury <[hidden email]> > To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:51:08 AM > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > The current situation is that public data is available only to those with > sufficient money and/or privilege. The open data position is that public > data should be available to all. The article takes the position that we > should be wary of opening up to those without sufficient money and/or > privilege because because someone who knows how to use it, might actually > use it, and that's not fair to those who won't. > > Not only does it ignore the fact that many beneficiaries of releasing open > data are downstream users, but it also assumes that people won't or can't > learn how to use data. I couldn't disagree more. I want to see students in > high school using real open municipal data about their community in their > class projects. I want to see anyone interested in how their governments > work, learn to use a spreadsheet and pivot tables and maps. > > After having run over a dozen hackathons in BC with over 300 people from all > walks of life I can tell you that there are many non-technical folks are > both interested and capable of learning how to throw data around. > > No doubt when the printing press was invented the same argument was made. > As James noted, it's simply attempt to prop up the status quo. > > H > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: > > http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/2764 > > Suggestions at the bottom: 1... 7 > > ________________________________ > From: Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen <[hidden email]> > To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:45:31 AM > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > I also share James perspective on the question. I understand the point the > author is trying to make, but I am not sure it is a really good one. Is he > saying that these corporations that have power will have more power now that > anyone can see what they base their studies on? I mean, these are the same > people that have lobbyists, that could pay for StatsCan info, for surveys, > etc. They could produce obscure data that nobody could question. > > Now, it is obvious these same people with means will use this data at their > advantage. But, with the same data available to everybody, it will be easier > to question their objectives and the value of their propositions. The author > argues that it's not everybody that will be able to mount a counter argument > or even make sense of all that Open Data. That is true, but society can ask > questions and pay people to answer those questions. Papers could get into > the business. And, best of all, we can use that data to educate citizens > about the benefits AND the limits of data. We can change peoples > expectations and THAT is where I feel Open Data will be most beneficial. > > The only point that I agree with is that Open Data will not magically usher > in a revolution of transparency and better government. Thank you, Captain > Obvious. Not least see how we can use this opportunity to the fullest and > not let this common risk become a reality. > > Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen > (514) 572-0692 > CitizenBudget.com Communications Coordinator / Responsable des > communications BudgetCitoyen.com > OpenNorth.ca / NordOuvert.ca > Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 11:29, James McKinney a écrit : > > I understood the argument, and I'm well aware that it's thanks to > governments that we have as much broadband access around the world as we do > today. Perhaps my point wasn't very clear. > > My primary frustration with these articles is, "OK, so what's your > proposal?" Not do open data? Slow down open data? I think both of those > would be bad choices, and unlikely ones anyhow. So what it is? A call on the > government to have Excel and GIS tutorials? I have no idea. Most of these > articles come down to "Ooooh, 'open data' - watch out!" and then nothing in > terms of solutions. I'm eager to be proven wrong! > > On 2012-05-15, at 11:17 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote: > > Hey James, > > This wasn't a very good version of this argument. Normally the > argument is not that we shouldn't exploit new technologies or that > they will not follow the normal distribution patterns. It is that the > benefits of the new technology are going to go primarily to the people > with power and only much later, if ever, to the people with less > power. During that time, the people with power will use this new > technology to increase the amount of power they have, thereby > disempowering further the others. In order to prevent that, steps > should be ensure adoption of this technology to the disempowered. This > is the only way that the impact of this technology on the poor won't > be relatively negative. > > I think that the normal counter argument is that the disempowered have > a net gain, as opposed to a relative gain. > > The example you brought up is actually not one that necessarily > supports your argument. The Federal gov spent a lot of cash on it's > "Connecting Canadians" programs which included funding to help > schools, community groups, and libraries get hooked up to the > internet. And there was a lot of funding and government intervention > to extend broadband to rural areas. > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: > > If people had convincingly made the argument, "Let's be very careful with > this new 'broadband Internet' technology, as it has a significant risk of > benefiting the rich and the corporations more than the poor," then we would > still be waiting for broadband Internet... I'm hard-pressed to find a new > technology that doesn't follow this pattern. Of course, open data is not > technology, but the tools needed to make use of the data are. It's expertise > in (or access to expertise in) those tools that isn't evenly distributed > throughout the population. If open data makes access to those > tools/expertise much more important, I don't see how/why we wouldn't see the > same pattern as with other technologies where broader access increases over > time. > > > On 2012-05-15, at 7:34 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > Open Data and The New Divide > > > > -- > Tracey P. Lauriault > 613-234-2805 > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > -- > Herb Lainchbury > Dynamic Solutions Inc. > www.dynamic-solutions.com > http://twitter.com/herblainchbury > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Herb Lainchbury
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by michael gurstein
>
> And for the record and as should be clear in anything I have written > on this subject, I am strongly in favour of Open Data as I believe it > is a necessary pre-condition for an effective democracy. My concern's > are that the opportunities for active participation in those > democratic processes are as widely available as possible and I would > argue that processes towards the "opening" up of data should > necessarily include processes of "democratising" data as well. > Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with is that you are advocating against open data, unless the pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? I know I'm wading into this debate late, but I only just had an opportunity to read this article. Even after pouring over the discussion, I'm really have a hard time wrapping my head around the conclusion that "open data" could increase the digital divide. This is like arguing that open source software is "against the poor" on the basis that, rather than only helping those who cannot otherwise afford proprietary software, it also helps us geeks in well-developed nations who simply want more freedom with our software. On the contrary, even though there may not be a ton of people in developing nations with the training and education to participate in open source community coding, free and open source software has greatly opened up the affordability of computing in many nations. Likewise, open data will only increases the accessibility of government data, not decrease it. Without any open data, we have the following groups with respect to access to government data: 1. Journalists, lawyers, civil society experts and others with the knowledge, time and monetary resources to file ATI requests. 2. Everybody else with no way to access government data themselves. When we bring in open data, we empower the huge mass of group #2, turning it into: 1. Hackers, geeks, computer-savvy citizens who can access the raw data. 2. Anyone with a computer (or access to a public library) and basic computer knowledge who can access the apps and websites built by group #1. 3. Those with no way to access a website. Even for the much, much smaller last group still without direct access, even their access to government data is still increased -- albeit in a mediated way -- through the news media. Journalists and civil society workers gain access to this information resource, thereby increasing everyone's access to it. Also, although I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that those working in this space have a "responsibility" to increase usability to the general public, I think many of us working in this space are doing a lot here already. The whole purpose of the web and phone apps that we create is to bring this data to a plethora of people who are not coders and who could not otherwise access the data. Kent |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
On 2012-05-15, at 1:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote:
open data will only increases the accessibility of government data, not decrease it. Comment: If governments make assumptions about open data meeting the needs of citizens and drop other methods of providing access to data and information, then there could easily be a loss of accessibility to government data. One example is the admittedly very neat apps for connecting with transit information. This is a great boon to the traveller with a smart phone, however if governments decide that things like phone lines, printed bus schedules, and even a decent government web site can be dispensed with because this is available, then the increased access to information enjoyed by the smart phone holder can easily be accompanied by a greater loss of access for anyone not holding a smart phone. This is not just a developing world problem - this could happen in Vancouver, and it could impact even the smart phone holder, for example if their service was temporarily unavailable, or their phone was lost or damaged. best, Heather Morrison |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
> If governments make assumptions about open data meeting the needs of citizens and drop other methods of providing access to data and information, then there could easily be a loss of accessibility to government data. One example is the admittedly very neat apps for connecting with transit information. This is a great boon to the traveller with a smart phone, however if governments decide that things like phone lines, printed bus schedules, and even a decent government web site can be dispensed with because this is available, then the increased access to information enjoyed by the smart phone holder can easily be accompanied by a greater loss of access for anyone not holding a smart phone. This is not just a developing world problem - this could happen in Vancouver, and it could impact even the smart phone holder, for example if their service was temporarily unavailable, or their phone was lost or damaged.
That's a lot of if's. What's the actual likelihood that any of those will come to pass? Wouldn't we have options to avoid their coming to pass? (Yes.) Is anyone currently marketing open data to government as a way to cut printed schedules, etc.? (Not significantly, that I know of.) We can either be paralyzed by the potential for negative consequences, or we can go ahead thoughtfully and carefully, while addressing whatever negative consequences arise. Smartphones aren't a great example, anyhow, because they are becoming increasingly affordable (a common pattern for a desirable technology), and smartphone penetration is increasing very quickly around the world. |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Heather Morrison-2
On 15/05/12 05:14 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
> On 2012-05-15, at 1:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: > > open data will only increases the accessibility of government data, not decrease it. > > Comment: > > If governments make assumptions about open data meeting the needs of citizens and drop other methods of providing access to data and information, then there could easily be a loss of accessibility to government data. One example is the admittedly very neat apps for connecting with transit information. This is a great boon to the traveller with a smart phone, however if governments decide that things like phone lines, printed bus schedules, and even a decent government web site can be dispensed with because this is available, then the increased access to information enjoyed by the smart phone holder can easily be accompanied by a greater loss of access for anyone not holding a smart phone. This is not just a developing world problem - this could happen in Vancouver, and it could impact even the smart phone holder, for example if their service was temporarily unavailable, or their phone was lost or damaged. I see this hypothetical example as more a problem with privatization, not with open data. Presumably, this transit smartphone app was created by a commercial developer. If the government stops publishing printed bus schedules in favour of this transit app, the government is effectively making a decision to outsource the publishing of bus schedules to a private company. Certainly, privatization in a context such as this can pose difficulties to accessibility. The government has an obligation to meet the needs of minorities and marginalized groups; a commercial company does not (at least to anywhere near the same extent). Thus, where a commercial company cannot or will not meet core obligations of the government, clearly the government needs to think twice about outsourcing its services. I think it's important to make this distinction between the data layer and the service layer...and I certainly agree that open data should not replace the government's service obligations. Given the limited budgets of government, a large expenditure on open data could admittedly leave a smaller financial pool for other services. I haven't seen any great breakdown on the actual cost of open data, but, as previously discussed, I don't think many governments are spending an amount on it now such that it's taking major resources away from other projects. Moreover, I think it's almost always great bang for the buck in terms of the public purse -- this is all data that citizens are paying for in the first place, and distribution on the internet is always going to be a fraction of the cost of producing the data. Kent |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
Hmmm... Not so hyptothetical I think... http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/10/is-there-a-government-app-for.html M -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James McKinney Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:29 PM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > If governments make assumptions about open data meeting the needs of > citizens and drop other methods of providing access to data and > information, then there could easily be a loss of accessibility to > government data. One example is the admittedly very neat apps for > connecting with transit information. This is a great boon to the > traveller with a smart phone, however if governments decide that > things like phone lines, printed bus schedules, and even a decent > government web site can be dispensed with because this is available, > then the increased access to information enjoyed by the smart phone > holder can easily be accompanied by a greater loss of access for > anyone not holding a smart phone. This is not just a developing world > problem - this could happen in Vancouver, and it could impact even the > smart phone holder, for example if their service was temporarily > unavailable, or their phone was lost or damaged. That's a lot of if's. What's the actual likelihood that any of those will come to pass? Wouldn't we have options to avoid their coming to pass? (Yes.) Is anyone currently marketing open data to government as a way to cut printed schedules, etc.? (Not significantly, that I know of.) We can either be paralyzed by the potential for negative consequences, or we can go ahead thoughtfully and carefully, while addressing whatever negative consequences arise. Smartphones aren't a great example, anyhow, because they are becoming increasingly affordable (a common pattern for a desirable technology), and smartphone penetration is increasing very quickly around the world. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lenczner-2
+1. Exceedingly well said Michael.
On 12-05-15 1:08 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM, James McKinney<[hidden email]> wrote: >> What I think Herb was saying, and that David expresses more clearly, is that >> cautions about OGD (however well intended) are interpreted as reasons not to >> do OGD, or problems with doing OGD, that ultimately discourage governments >> from doing OGD, who are desperately in need of encouragement from our point >> of view. >> >> I think there is disagreement as to whether or not there is an emerging >> "data divide." I've already expressed my opinion on this: there is no new >> divide. It's just the same old divisions we're familiar with. OGD may make >> some divisions more poignant (effective use) while improving others >> (availability). But it's in no way creating a gap that wasn't already there. >> If we imagine a ladder with a truly open government at the top, then I think >> one of the first rungs is availability, which OGD addresses. As we climb the >> ladder, we shift the gap up the ladder - the goal being to get to the top >> and shift it over the top (so to speak). The cautions about OGD usually >> sound like reasons to not even get on that early OGD rung on the ladder, >> which is a great shame. >> >> >> Another point: Part of the OGD movement's success is due to its focus. I >> guess we're also disagreeing as to whether or not that focus is too limited. >> In principle, I sympathize with your criticisms, but in practice, I think it >> was the most effective strategy to make progress on these issues. >> > Sorry to continue for those of you who are getting a bit tired of this thread. > > I agree on this last point. While I understand that proponents of > general civil society (including myself), universal accessibility, and > the digital divide want to tie their agenda's to the hot topic that is > showing up in the news, I agree that the best way of moving open data > forward is to keep it focused. My friends and colleagues are involved > with the CAP program, and the Telecommunities organization has been a > strong proponent of the need for it to continue to be funded. I have > seen it tied to various issues in an attempt to retain funding, > including literacy, unemployment and integration of immigrants. While > I don't disagree with any of those associations, I think they point to > the relative weakness of the necessary connection between Community > Access and the merits of Open Data. As founder of a wireless community > group which was developing mobile high-speed connectivity back in > 2003, I had to defend our group from the same attacks that we should > not receive support or funding because not everyone had a high-speed > connection at home. > > I support a call for funding to help extend the use of open data and I > think that a open data plan improves from incorporating effective use > , but I disagree with attempts to tie the two together in such a way > that funding for effective use becomes a handicap to achieving more > success with open data (like Michael G.'s suggestion of adding 10% to > every budget). In my mind, at this time in the development of open > data, and at this moment of budgetary cutbacks, it is possible to have > a successful open data plan that does not incorporate effective use > provisions. > > On another note, Michael G., I don't mean this offensively, but I wish > that you would stop referring to the people on this list as "you > technical folks" or "data geeks". I don't mind the word "geek" (in > fact, I enjoy it) but I do object to the representation. I think I'm > representative of the people on this list in that I'm pretty geeky in > that I work in the technology field, but I'm also a member of civil > society and a passionate citizen. I serve on the boards of several > organizations that have nothing to do with technology. As an example > of the group that I'm closest to, Montreal Ouvert, one of our two > "leads" is Jean-Noé and he had very little technical knowledge when he > co-founded the group. Instead he had a vast (for his age) experience > with domestic and international democracy and civil society. We're > partially responsible for a Table de concertation that has members of > civil society and institutions as members and through our hackathons > we reach out to *and successfully engage* non-technical citizens, > journalists, civil society organizations and institutions all the > time. > > Check out the composition of the table: > http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/demarche/concertation/composition-table-de-concertation/ > > So, yes, admittedly, on the whole we're a pretty geeky bunch on this > list, but it doesn't serve to reduce our thoughts to that of the geeks > on these issues. A lot of us have put in more time and energy thinking > about many aspects of these topics than the civil society and/or the > community access folks and we bring a lot more to it than technical > expertise and context. > > That said, I don't mean to suggest that you are being in any way > disrespectful. I'm really glad that you're engaging with this list > Michael. I think it's productive and I appreciate it. Thank you. > > Mike > >> On 2012-05-15, at 3:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Herb, >> >> That is not the position taken in the paper. Rather the paper points to >> risks involved in "opening" up data without at the same time taking measures >> (such as those indicated at the end of the paper) to ensure that there is >> the widest possible opportunity to take advantage of the data that is being >> made available. >> >> In the absence of those measures there is the strong likelihood of >> further contributing to already unprecedented levels of (for example) income >> inequality since those with the means to take advantage of the >> open (government) data are most likely to be the prime beneficiaries (as in >> the examples quoted). The intent with the paper is simply to introduce some >> cautions into the current OGD discussion which seems to focus completely on >> benefits while ignoring risks and thus measures that could help to alleviate >> those risks. >> >> Hackathons are great for "hackers" and would be "hackers", training programs >> for civil society advocates who might like to make use of say housing >> infraction data as part of good housing campaigns would be I think, of equal >> or greater "social" benefit. >> >> >> M >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 2:32 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> James, >> >> That wasn't my determination of the OGD budget but seems to have come from >> the City of Vancouver itself... >> >> And as a matter of fact when I consulted on digitization/office automation >> issues with the Feds yo those many years ago--10% was the rule of thumb for >> training etc. of end users. When that wasn't made available (and even that >> was seriously inadequate since software design issues were generally left to >> the companies) the problems with implementing systems and downstream >> rejection of systems by end users was much much more costly than anything >> that was to have been spent at the front end. >> >> I think this started with a question as to whether there was an emerging >> "data divide" and that is what I think we've been addressing and something >> which I think has very much to do with open (government) data. >> >> M >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 2:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> James, >> >> I'm not suggesting that OGD folks have any more responsibility than >> others--but certainly no less and in some ways given their specific area of >> activity/interest they do have a special responsibility to help to >> facilitate appropriate outcomes in areas where they are active. It isn't to >> my mind sufficient to say that "you gave at the office" or that "where the >> bomb comes down" is someone else's responsibiity when you folks are (or at >> least helping) to "design the bomb" (if you looked at the Tom Lehrer clip... >> >> (That's why I'm suggesting the 10%, not as an "addition" but as a necessary >> component--part of the standard suggested budget in these areas... Quite >> honestly making a small allocation to help ensure that the 99% (who aren't >> currently "data literate") can make use of something that is being paid for >> by the 100% shouldn't be that much of an issue. >> >> M >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 2:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> James, >> >> Your may or may not have seen this article on Open Data in the City >> of Vancouer http://www.straight.com/article-346007/vancouver/vancouvers-open-data-holds-potential-empower-citizens "The >> city has allocated $1.76 million of the 2010 capital budget to create a >> content management system for city-funded Web sites". >> >> My colleagues who have been querying City of Vancouver officials on this >> have told me that they were told that no budget was assigned to ensure >> broader public access/use of the data being made available as part of this >> process. $175,000 may not go all that far but my guess is that with a formal >> assignment of those funds the funds could have been leveraged through >> voluntary contributions/partnerships with universities or colleges that sort >> of thing. The money is of course, important but in some ways the >> acknowledgement of this as an issue and that public bodies are taking some >> responsibility in this area is perhaps of equal or greater importance. >> >> M >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 3:00 PM, David Eaves wrote: >> >> To cite the city of Vancouver's website budget as part of this strikes as >> problematic especially, as I've been in contact with the city, and so far >> none of that budget is going towards the open data component of the website, >> it is going towards buying and implementing a CMS system. In fact, virtually >> all, if not all of the open data work done by the city (and almost all the >> city's I know) has been down off the side of the desk of various employees >> who think it is important to do. So in most cases there simply is no budget >> from which to pull even 10%. I agree, I'd love to see more money being spent >> to educate people and foster open data use - this is why people like Herb, >> James, myself and others spend so much time trying to run events that >> attract new people and teach them how to use open data. I also encourage >> funds be set aside to do this in cities (and other levels of government). >> But I think many on this thread are hearing (perhaps incorrectly) is that >> what Michael is saying is that if you don't commit funds to do this (which, >> presently, most governments will not, simple because funds are tight) then >> you shouldn't do open data at all. I think that is what people are reacting >> to. I know that if the choice breaks down to only a) open data no with >> supporting funds or b) no open data, most of the time, I'm going to choose >> (a). >> >> I also think James's larger point is well taken. The open data advocates are >> trying to reduce the divide - it is often (although not always) about trying >> to data that is currently only available to a select group of people (be it >> those with selective access, or with money) and making it more available. >> >> >> >> On 12-05-15 11:03 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> James, >> >> Your may or may not have seen this article on Open Data in the City >> of Vancouer http://www.straight.com/article-346007/vancouver/vancouvers-open-data-holds-potential-empower-citizens "The >> city has allocated $1.76 million of the 2010 capital budget to create a >> content management system for city-funded Web sites". >> >> My colleagues who have been querying City of Vancouver officials on this >> have told me that they were told that no budget was assigned to ensure >> broader public access/use of the data being made available as part of this >> process. $175,000 may not go all that far but my guess is that with a formal >> assignment of those funds the funds could have been leveraged through >> voluntary contributions/partnerships with universities or colleges that sort >> of thing. The money is of course, important but in some ways the >> acknowledgement of this as an issue and that public bodies are taking some >> responsibility in this area is perhaps of equal or greater importance. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James >> McKinney >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:49 AM >> To: Mark Weiler; civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> Given how difficult it is to convince many governments to do open data in >> the first place, do you think it's realistic for people in that position to >> add, "Oh, and another request, can you you increase the budget for your open >> data initiative by 11%"? >> >> An important question is, 10% of what? How much money is actually at stake? >> In Montreal, there is no formal budget for the open data initiative. My >> understanding is that it's all part/spare-time work by government employees. >> So 10% of $0 is still $0. In cities that do put some money into it, it's >> still such a tiny budget that 10% of it probably wouldn't even cover a >> single "how to use a computer" tutorial at a library... >> >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 1:31 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: >> >> I think Michael's earlier idea that 10% of open gov data funds be earmarked >> to support effective use seems a reasonable proposal. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Herb Lainchbury<[hidden email]> >> To: civicaccess discuss<[hidden email]> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:51:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> The current situation is that public data is available only to those with >> sufficient money and/or privilege. The open data position is that public >> data should be available to all. The article takes the position that we >> should be wary of opening up to those without sufficient money and/or >> privilege because because someone who knows how to use it, might actually >> use it, and that's not fair to those who won't. >> >> Not only does it ignore the fact that many beneficiaries of releasing open >> data are downstream users, but it also assumes that people won't or can't >> learn how to use data. I couldn't disagree more. I want to see students in >> high school using real open municipal data about their community in their >> class projects. I want to see anyone interested in how their governments >> work, learn to use a spreadsheet and pivot tables and maps. >> >> After having run over a dozen hackathons in BC with over 300 people from all >> walks of life I can tell you that there are many non-technical folks are >> both interested and capable of learning how to throw data around. >> >> No doubt when the printing press was invented the same argument was made. >> As James noted, it's simply attempt to prop up the status quo. >> >> H >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Weiler<[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/2764 >> >> Suggestions at the bottom: 1... 7 >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen<[hidden email]> >> To: civicaccess discuss<[hidden email]> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:45:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> I also share James perspective on the question. I understand the point the >> author is trying to make, but I am not sure it is a really good one. Is he >> saying that these corporations that have power will have more power now that >> anyone can see what they base their studies on? I mean, these are the same >> people that have lobbyists, that could pay for StatsCan info, for surveys, >> etc. They could produce obscure data that nobody could question. >> >> Now, it is obvious these same people with means will use this data at their >> advantage. But, with the same data available to everybody, it will be easier >> to question their objectives and the value of their propositions. The author >> argues that it's not everybody that will be able to mount a counter argument >> or even make sense of all that Open Data. That is true, but society can ask >> questions and pay people to answer those questions. Papers could get into >> the business. And, best of all, we can use that data to educate citizens >> about the benefits AND the limits of data. We can change peoples >> expectations and THAT is where I feel Open Data will be most beneficial. >> >> The only point that I agree with is that Open Data will not magically usher >> in a revolution of transparency and better government. Thank you, Captain >> Obvious. Not least see how we can use this opportunity to the fullest and >> not let this common risk become a reality. >> >> Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen >> (514) 572-0692 >> CitizenBudget.com Communications Coordinator / Responsable des >> communications BudgetCitoyen.com >> OpenNorth.ca / NordOuvert.ca >> Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 11:29, James McKinney a écrit : >> >> I understood the argument, and I'm well aware that it's thanks to >> governments that we have as much broadband access around the world as we do >> today. Perhaps my point wasn't very clear. >> >> My primary frustration with these articles is, "OK, so what's your >> proposal?" Not do open data? Slow down open data? I think both of those >> would be bad choices, and unlikely ones anyhow. So what it is? A call on the >> government to have Excel and GIS tutorials? I have no idea. Most of these >> articles come down to "Ooooh, 'open data' - watch out!" and then nothing in >> terms of solutions. I'm eager to be proven wrong! >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 11:17 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote: >> >> Hey James, >> >> This wasn't a very good version of this argument. Normally the >> argument is not that we shouldn't exploit new technologies or that >> they will not follow the normal distribution patterns. It is that the >> benefits of the new technology are going to go primarily to the people >> with power and only much later, if ever, to the people with less >> power. During that time, the people with power will use this new >> technology to increase the amount of power they have, thereby >> disempowering further the others. In order to prevent that, steps >> should be ensure adoption of this technology to the disempowered. This >> is the only way that the impact of this technology on the poor won't >> be relatively negative. >> >> I think that the normal counter argument is that the disempowered have >> a net gain, as opposed to a relative gain. >> >> The example you brought up is actually not one that necessarily >> supports your argument. The Federal gov spent a lot of cash on it's >> "Connecting Canadians" programs which included funding to help >> schools, community groups, and libraries get hooked up to the >> internet. And there was a lot of funding and government intervention >> to extend broadband to rural areas. >> >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, James McKinney<[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> If people had convincingly made the argument, "Let's be very careful with >> this new 'broadband Internet' technology, as it has a significant risk of >> benefiting the rich and the corporations more than the poor," then we would >> still be waiting for broadband Internet... I'm hard-pressed to find a new >> technology that doesn't follow this pattern. Of course, open data is not >> technology, but the tools needed to make use of the data are. It's expertise >> in (or access to expertise in) those tools that isn't evenly distributed >> throughout the population. If open data makes access to those >> tools/expertise much more important, I don't see how/why we wouldn't see the >> same pattern as with other technologies where broader access increases over >> time. >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 7:34 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: >> >> Open Data and The New Divide >> >> >> >> -- >> Tracey P. Lauriault >> 613-234-2805 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Herb Lainchbury >> Dynamic Solutions Inc. >> www.dynamic-solutions.com >> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Kent Mewhort
Kent,
In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously documented how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I said "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of income and power. In the paper as well I wasn't making a case that open data contributes specifically to the "digital divide" (I don't think it does in fact) but rather to make a case for the possibility of the emergence of a "data divide" between the data enriched and the data deprived. As one example, the World Bank has already spent a rather large amount of money on Open Data in Kenya (hiring outside consultants to do the projects). One problem is that all of the work to date has been done in English so only those with a significant proficiency in English (roughly 7% of the population) are able to take advantage of what has been done. I have no idea what percentage of journalists (or those working for national NGO's) in Kenya read English, although probably fairly high, but I can't imagine that there is a very large group of journalists or NGO folks who both speak English and have sufficient numeracy/data literacy to take advantage of the "Open Government Data" initiatives being launched without some interventions being launched to ensure opportunities for "effective use". M -----Original Message----- From: Kent Mewhort [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:46 PM To: civicaccess discuss Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > And for the record and as should be clear in anything I have written > on this subject, I am strongly in favour of Open Data as I believe it > is a necessary pre-condition for an effective democracy. My concern's > are that the opportunities for active participation in those > democratic processes are as widely available as possible and I would > argue that processes towards the "opening" up of data should > necessarily include processes of "democratising" data as well. > Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with is that you are advocating against open data, unless the pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? I know I'm wading into this debate late, but I only just had an opportunity to read this article. Even after pouring over the discussion, I'm really have a hard time wrapping my head around the conclusion that "open data" could increase the digital divide. This is like arguing that open source software is "against the poor" on the basis that, rather than only helping those who cannot otherwise afford proprietary software, it also helps us geeks in well-developed nations who simply want more freedom with our software. On the contrary, even though there may not be a ton of people in developing nations with the training and education to participate in open source community coding, free and open source software has greatly opened up the affordability of computing in many nations. Likewise, open data will only increases the accessibility of government data, not decrease it. Without any open data, we have the following groups with respect to access to government data: 1. Journalists, lawyers, civil society experts and others with the knowledge, time and monetary resources to file ATI requests. 2. Everybody else with no way to access government data themselves. When we bring in open data, we empower the huge mass of group #2, turning it into: 1. Hackers, geeks, computer-savvy citizens who can access the raw data. 2. Anyone with a computer (or access to a public library) and basic computer knowledge who can access the apps and websites built by group #1. 3. Those with no way to access a website. Even for the much, much smaller last group still without direct access, even their access to government data is still increased -- albeit in a mediated way -- through the news media. Journalists and civil society workers gain access to this information resource, thereby increasing everyone's access to it. Also, although I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that those working in this space have a "responsibility" to increase usability to the general public, I think many of us working in this space are doing a lot here already. The whole purpose of the web and phone apps that we create is to bring this data to a plethora of people who are not coders and who could not otherwise access the data. Kent |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
On 12-05-15 06:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> In the paper as well I wasn't making a case that open data contributes > specifically to the "digital divide" (I don't think it does in fact) but > rather to make a case for the possibility of the emergence of a "data > divide" between the data enriched and the data deprived. As one example, the > World Bank has already spent a rather large amount of money on Open Data in > Kenya (hiring outside consultants to do the projects). One problem is that > all of the work to date has been done in English so only those with a > significant proficiency in English (roughly 7% of the population) are able > to take advantage of what has been done. I have no idea what percentage of > journalists (or those working for national NGO's) in Kenya read English, > although probably fairly high, but I can't imagine that there is a very > large group of journalists or NGO folks who both speak English and have > sufficient numeracy/data literacy to take advantage of the "Open Government > Data" initiatives being launched without some interventions being launched > to ensure opportunities for "effective use". > allocated to open data, it would be highly beneficial to allocate resources towards training and "effective use". I think my point of contention is that I wouldn't want to see an open data initiative not implemented merely because the resources for further infrastructure building and/or training do not exist. I'm reasonably confident (perhaps overly so) that citizens and data hackers can help fill in any such a void in building and promoting effective use of data. However, citizens cannot get raw data out in the public sphere in the first place. For example, as a hobbiest hacker, I can build an app to display a visualization of a dataset to help others understand the data. I can write a blog article analyzing data I retrieve from an open data portal. I cannot, however, go into a government office and take the data I need in order to perform any of these activities. There's a benefit to the data coming first, even if the infrastructure to maximize its effectiveness isn't in place. In my opinion, even where data and technology-literate citizens are few and far between, it doesn't take many citizens stepping up to the plate to start seeing beneficial results. We've already seen many geeks, hacktivists and others step up to the plate to help bring open hardware and open source software to developing nations (though not yet successfully to the the least well off nations). Moreover, if open standards are used for data, it'll be easier and easier to export the software infrastructures that sit on top of data. It'll also become easier for journalists and researchers internationally to pull in and report on data from any nation that follows the same metadata and formatting standards. Kent |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Kent Mewhort
I really did not choose my day to remain "unconnected"! Thank you
all for this interesting discussion.
The service and the data layers seem to be too intertwined, at least at the political level, to make sure that they can be treated separately. In a period of budget cut, it would be easy for a gov to argue for cuts in data analysis while opening the data as a sort of compensation. It's more or less what the U.K is doing and we are not far from that here (cuts in StatsCan while release its data).I think it's important to make this distinction between the data layer and the service layer...and I certainly agree that open data should not replace the government's service obligations. Even if we have more and more data journalists, hacktivits and community people that are able to handle data, they are still far from what experts in a field can do. To me, that point is the closest one to the "new divide" idea as it could erase some of the existing analysis coming from the govs. (Obviously, cuts in data analysis could be made without any open data initiative... it just make the pill a little easier to swallow) This should not be seen as an argument against open data but it's something that we, as pro-open data people, should watch for. Steph Le 12-05-15 17:30, Kent Mewhort a écrit : On 15/05/12 05:14 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:On 2012-05-15, at 1:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: open data will only increases the accessibility of government data, not decrease it. Comment: If governments make assumptions about open data meeting the needs of citizens and drop other methods of providing access to data and information, then there could easily be a loss of accessibility to government data. One example is the admittedly very neat apps for connecting with transit information. This is a great boon to the traveller with a smart phone, however if governments decide that things like phone lines, printed bus schedules, and even a decent government web site can be dispensed with because this is available, then the increased access to information enjoyed by the smart phone holder can easily be accompanied by a greater loss of access for anyone not holding a smart phone. This is not just a developing world problem - this could happen in Vancouver, and it could impact even the smart phone holder, for example if their service was temporarily unavailable, or their phone was lost or damaged.I see this hypothetical example as more a problem with privatization, not with open data. Presumably, this transit smartphone app was created by a commercial developer. If the government stops publishing printed bus schedules in favour of this transit app, the government is effectively making a decision to outsource the publishing of bus schedules to a private company. Certainly, privatization in a context such as this can pose difficulties to accessibility. The government has an obligation to meet the needs of minorities and marginalized groups; a commercial company does not (at least to anywhere near the same extent). Thus, where a commercial company cannot or will not meet core obligations of the government, clearly the government needs to think twice about outsourcing its services. I think it's important to make this distinction between the data layer and the service layer...and I certainly agree that open data should not replace the government's service obligations. Given the limited budgets of government, a large expenditure on open data could admittedly leave a smaller financial pool for other services. I haven't seen any great breakdown on the actual cost of open data, but, as previously discussed, I don't think many governments are spending an amount on it now such that it's taking major resources away from other projects. Moreover, I think it's almost always great bang for the buck in terms of the public purse -- this is all data that citizens are paying for in the first place, and distribution on the internet is always going to be a fraction of the cost of producing the data. Kent _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss . |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Kent Mewhort
"I cannot, however, go into a government office and take the data I need in order to perform any of these activities." Unless there was something like a "Freedom of Data Sets Act". From: Kent Mewhort <[hidden email]> To: michael gurstein <[hidden email]> Cc: 'civicaccess discuss' <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 12-05-15 06:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > In the paper as well I wasn't making a case that open data contributes > specifically to the "digital divide" (I don't think it does in fact) but > rather to make a case for the possibility of the emergence of a "data > divide" between the data enriched and the data deprived. As one example, the > World Bank has already spent a rather large amount of money on Open Data in > Kenya (hiring outside consultants to do the projects). One problem is that > all of the work to date has been done in English so only those with a > significant proficiency in English (roughly 7% of the population) are able > to take advantage of what has been done. I have no idea what percentage of > journalists (or those working for national NGO's) in Kenya read English, > although probably fairly high, but I can't imagine that there is a very > large group of journalists or NGO folks who both speak English and have > sufficient numeracy/data literacy to take advantage of the "Open Government > Data" initiatives being launched without some interventions being launched > to ensure opportunities for "effective use". > allocated to open data, it would be highly beneficial to allocate resources towards training and "effective use". I think my point of contention is that I wouldn't want to see an open data initiative not implemented merely because the resources for further infrastructure building and/or training do not exist. I'm reasonably confident (perhaps overly so) that citizens and data hackers can help fill in any such a void in building and promoting effective use of data. However, citizens cannot get raw data out in the public sphere in the first place. For example, as a hobbiest hacker, I can build an app to display a visualization of a dataset to help others understand the data. I can write a blog article analyzing data I retrieve from an open data portal. I cannot, however, go into a government office and take the data I need in order to perform any of these activities. There's a benefit to the data coming first, even if the infrastructure to maximize its effectiveness isn't in place. In my opinion, even where data and technology-literate citizens are few and far between, it doesn't take many citizens stepping up to the plate to start seeing beneficial results. We've already seen many geeks, hacktivists and others step up to the plate to help bring open hardware and open source software to developing nations (though not yet successfully to the the least well off nations). Moreover, if open standards are used for data, it'll be easier and easier to export the software infrastructures that sit on top of data. It'll also become easier for journalists and researchers internationally to pull in and report on data from any nation that follows the same metadata and formatting standards. Kent _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |