Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
Locked
123
123
Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
 
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
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:
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
I know a lot of community organizations that would be happy to get
funding to provide Excel tutorials. That's why the Atwater library was set up in the first place, as a non-profit organization to provide training to blue-collar workers. Molson and Papineau thought that it was a good idea. http://www.westmountexaminer.com/Living/Community/2012-03-26/article-2939593/Mechanics-Institute-morphed-into-the-Atwater-Library/1 More realistically, there could be a lot of funding for civil society groups to upgrade their capacity to be able to use this information. If we weren't in an era of "budgetary restraint" than I would be pushing strongly for this. And maybe we should be pushing strongly for it nonetheless. You're right that there should be more clear proposals to accompany the criticism. It's just that everyone knows that it's futile (and possibly ridiculous) in a US context to argue for new funding programs from the federal / state / municipal governments. Cuz apparently they're all broke. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: > 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
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 :
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lenczner-2
Further to what Michael L. says below...
Among the goals of Open (Government) Data is the use of Open Data to enhance and extend democracy. So the issue of a "Data Divide" is not to restrict some from gaining access to the benefits of OGD but rather to ensure that those benefits are equally accessible to(and usable) by all. MG -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Lenczner Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:17 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen
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 :
_______________________________________________ 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 James McKinney-2
James,
I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that should be taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one good example of such a program. And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities to ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket science, or to my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to recognize that there is an issue, for someone to take some responsibility for this (and to my mind it has to be government) and then to implement some useful programs/activities in response. (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some length in an article I've pointed to in the past on this list http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/ 2764 MG -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James McKinney Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
Those seven suggestions in the First Monday article are great, but they aren't specific to open data. Those suggestions are for reducing the digital divide generally. I can replace "open data" with just plain "data" and the arguments are the same.
We all acknowledge that there is a digital divide. Is open data creating a new divide? Is it creating a divide that requires unique solutions? The only difference I can think of is that open data has some specific governance/policy issues. But within open data, those issues tend to be the kind that are either solved for everyone or no one (is the license an open data license or not) - they aren't the kind that benefits one group more than others. I think we also agree that governments should try to close the digital divide. Open data, being digital, falls somewhere within that issue. But I don't see why this digital divide is in any way specifically relevant to open data. I think it's a shame that programs like CAP (Community Access Program) are being cut. But It seems to me that proponents of community access are pointing the finger at open data because it's a hot topic, not because there's anything special about open data within the issue of the digital divide. If that serves their policy goals, then great, but it's a practice that's getting tiring as an insider. On 2012-05-15, at 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > James, > > I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that should be > taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one good example of > such a program. > > And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) > http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C > > As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources > assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities to > ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket science, or to > my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to recognize that there > is an issue, for someone to take some responsibility for this (and to my > mind it has to be government) and then to implement some useful > programs/activities in response. > > (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some length in > an article I've pointed to in the past on this list > http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/ > 2764 > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James > McKinney > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > > 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen
To follow-up on Alex's thoughts, open data is about making data free and open which was once costly or closed. Those with the most power could no doubt afford the data or gain access to it. Open data is about making that data available to people with less power. I think that's a win in terms of the digital divide. Yes, there are still lots of people who can't make use of the data, but that doesn't make open data a step back. I fail to see how it's anything but a step forward. And, yes, there are still problems to solve, but they aren't specific to open data.
I think people are misinterpreting open data's impact. Open data hasn't created a new divide. It's only moved an old divide. Instead of the problem being access to data, the problem is becoming effective use of the available data. I think moving old divides closer to resolution is a plus.
James On 2012-05-15, at 11:45 AM, Alexandre Cayla-Irigoyen wrote:
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
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:
Herb Lainchbury Dynamic Solutions Inc. www.dynamic-solutions.com http://twitter.com/herblainchbury |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
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:
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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
That is a good argument James, let me deal with it point by point...
-----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James McKinney Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:36 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide Those seven suggestions in the First Monday article are great, but they aren't specific to open data. Those suggestions are for reducing the digital divide generally. I can replace "open data" with just plain "data" and the arguments are the same. THIS ISN'T QUITE TRUE SINCE THE ARGUMENTS FOR "OPEN (GOVERNMENT) DATA" (AND THE POLICY CHANGES/RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS BEING ADVOCATED FOR) GENERALLY INCLUDE ISSUES ABOUT EXTENDING DEMOCRACY, EXTENDING PARTICIPATION, ENHANCING CITIZENSHIP THAT SORT OF THING. THERE IS NO SIMILAR ARGUMENT MADE CONCERNING GENERAL "DATA" I BELIEVE. IF THOSE ARE THE ARGUMENTS (AND OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHERS) THEN ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF EQUITY OF ACCESS AND USE BECOME QUESTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN (AS WITH THE EMERGING "RIGHT TO THE INTERNET"). We all acknowledge that there is a digital divide. Is open data ceating a new divide? Is it creating a divide that requires unique solutions? The only difference I can think of is that open data has some specific governance/policy issues. But within open data, those issues tend to be the kind that are either solved for everyone or no one (is the license an open data license or not) - they aren't the kind that benefits one group more than others. THE ISSUE WITH OPEN DATA ISN'T THE ACCESS FOR WHICH YOU TECHNICAL FOLKS ARE RESPONSIBLE BUT RATHER ENSURING THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE WHICH IS WHAT THE FOLKS AT THE RECEIVING END ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE BASIC ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT YOU AS DATA HANDLERS/DESIGNERS SHOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN, AND A DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE END USER. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro (TO INTRODUCE YOU YOUNGUN'S TO ONE OF THE MASTERFUL CREATORS OF MY GENERATION :) IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT, I GUESS, IS YOUR CHOICE BUT HOPEFULLY THOSE WITH A STRONGER SENSE OF THE NEEDS AND RESPONSILITIES FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATA ENRICHED DEMOCRACY WILL PREVAIL AT LEAST AT THE POLICY LEVEL. I think we also agree that governments should try to close the digital divide. Open data, being digital, falls somewhere within that issue. But I don't see why this digital divide is in any way specifically relevant to open data. SEE ABOVE... AND I BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OPEN "GOVERNMENT" DATA... ISSUES AROUND "OPEN DATA" OVERALL ARE MATTERS FOR CONSUMER POLICY (CURRENTLY SEVERELY INADEQUATE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WAYS, BUT YES, A DIFFERENT ISSUE... I think it's a shame that programs like CAP (Community Access Program) are being cut. But It seems to me that proponents of community access are pointing the finger at open data because it's a hot topic, not because there's anything special about open data within the issue of the digital divide. If that serves their policy goals, then great, but it's a practice that's getting tiring as an insider. PARTLY THIS IS TRUE, BUT THOSE INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS HAVE LONG ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR USES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS IS PROVIDING AN ENTRY POINT TO E-GOVERNMENT WHICH OF COURSE, IS, IN CANADA AT LEAST, THE FUNDAMENTAL (AND NOT INCIDENTALLY FUNDING) FRAMING STRUCTURE FOR OPEN (GOVERNMENT) DATA. I'M SORRY THAT YOU FIND THIS DISCUSSION TIRING... PERHAPS IF THERE WAS A STRONGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA FOLKS THERE COULD BE A CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP--OF VALUE TO BOTH SIDES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY ACCESS ADVOCATES AND PRACTITIONERS AND THE OPEN DATA GEEKS (AND WONKS)... MIKE On 2012-05-15, at 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > James, > > I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that > should be taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one > good example of such a program. > > And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) > http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C > > As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources > assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities > to ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket > science, or to my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to > recognize that there is an issue, for someone to take some > responsibility for this (and to my mind it has to be government) and > then to implement some useful programs/activities in response. > > (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some > length in an article I've pointed to in the past on this list > http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view > /3316/ > 2764 > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James > McKinney > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New > Divide > > > 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
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:
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by michael gurstein
Michael, please take advantage of indentation instead of writing in all-capital letters. All mail programs I know of have this facility.
I think my response is summed up in my follow-up (which perhaps you didn't have an opportunity to read while writing your own response): "I think people are misinterpreting open data's impact. Open data hasn't created a new divide. It's only moved an old divide. Instead of the problem being access to data, the problem is becoming effective use of the available data. I think moving old divides closer to resolution is a plus." If I understand, your argument is that open government data folks shouldn't be focused on solving just the first divide (availability) but all the others that follow (effective use, etc.). I think that's going to be impossible/unworkable. Also, there are already groups working on effective use and the digital divide more generally. Yet governments around the world see fit to close libraries, end broadband access programs, etc. Are you saying OGD should pick up everyone else's fights? (That's asking a lot.) Do you expect OGD to have some special success, convince California to reverse its cuts to libraries, etc.? I don't think OGD has any magic powers to rescue those other communities. On 2012-05-15, at 1:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > That is a good argument James, let me deal with it point by point... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James > McKinney > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:36 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > Those seven suggestions in the First Monday article are great, but they > aren't specific to open data. Those suggestions are for reducing the digital > divide generally. I can replace "open data" with just plain "data" and the > arguments are the same. > > THIS ISN'T QUITE TRUE SINCE THE ARGUMENTS FOR "OPEN (GOVERNMENT) DATA" (AND > THE POLICY CHANGES/RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS BEING ADVOCATED FOR) GENERALLY > INCLUDE ISSUES ABOUT EXTENDING DEMOCRACY, EXTENDING PARTICIPATION, ENHANCING > CITIZENSHIP THAT SORT OF THING. THERE IS NO SIMILAR ARGUMENT MADE CONCERNING > GENERAL "DATA" I BELIEVE. IF THOSE ARE THE ARGUMENTS (AND OF COURSE THERE > ARE OTHERS) THEN ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF EQUITY OF ACCESS AND USE BECOME > QUESTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN (AS WITH THE EMERGING "RIGHT > TO THE INTERNET"). > > > We all acknowledge that there is a digital divide. Is open data ceating a > new divide? Is it creating a divide that requires unique solutions? The only > difference I can think of is that open data has some specific > governance/policy issues. But within open data, those issues tend to be the > kind that are either solved for everyone or no one (is the license an open > data license or not) - they aren't the kind that benefits one group more > than others. > > THE ISSUE WITH OPEN DATA ISN'T THE ACCESS FOR WHICH YOU TECHNICAL FOLKS ARE > RESPONSIBLE BUT RATHER ENSURING THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE WHICH IS WHAT THE > FOLKS AT THE RECEIVING END ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE BASIC ARGUMENT HERE IS > THAT YOU AS DATA HANDLERS/DESIGNERS SHOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN, AND A DEGREE > OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE END USER. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro (TO INTRODUCE YOU YOUNGUN'S TO > ONE OF THE MASTERFUL CREATORS OF MY GENERATION :) > > IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT, I GUESS, IS YOUR CHOICE > BUT HOPEFULLY THOSE WITH A STRONGER SENSE OF THE NEEDS AND RESPONSILITIES > FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATA ENRICHED DEMOCRACY WILL PREVAIL AT LEAST AT THE POLICY > LEVEL. > > > I think we also agree that governments should try to close the digital > divide. Open data, being digital, falls somewhere within that issue. But I > don't see why this digital divide is in any way specifically relevant to > open data. > > SEE ABOVE... AND I BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OPEN "GOVERNMENT" DATA... > ISSUES AROUND "OPEN DATA" OVERALL ARE MATTERS FOR CONSUMER POLICY (CURRENTLY > SEVERELY INADEQUATE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WAYS, BUT YES, A DIFFERENT ISSUE... > > > I think it's a shame that programs like CAP (Community Access Program) are > being cut. But It seems to me that proponents of community access are > pointing the finger at open data because it's a hot topic, not because > there's anything special about open data within the issue of the digital > divide. If that serves their policy goals, then great, but it's a practice > that's getting tiring as an insider. > > PARTLY THIS IS TRUE, BUT THOSE INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS HAVE LONG > ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR USES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS IS PROVIDING AN ENTRY > POINT TO E-GOVERNMENT WHICH OF COURSE, IS, IN CANADA AT LEAST, THE > FUNDAMENTAL (AND NOT INCIDENTALLY FUNDING) FRAMING STRUCTURE FOR OPEN > (GOVERNMENT) DATA. > > I'M SORRY THAT YOU FIND THIS DISCUSSION TIRING... PERHAPS IF THERE WAS A > STRONGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA > FOLKS THERE COULD BE A CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP--OF VALUE TO BOTH SIDES BETWEEN > THE COMMUNITY ACCESS ADVOCATES AND PRACTITIONERS AND THE OPEN DATA GEEKS > (AND WONKS)... > > MIKE > > > > On 2012-05-15, at 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> James, >> >> I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that >> should be taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one >> good example of such a program. >> >> And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) >> http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C >> >> As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources >> assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities >> to ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket >> science, or to my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to >> recognize that there is an issue, for someone to take some >> responsibility for this (and to my mind it has to be government) and >> then to implement some useful programs/activities in response. >> >> (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some >> length in an article I've pointed to in the past on this list >> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view >> /3316/ >> 2764 >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James >> McKinney >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New >> Divide >> >> >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 James McKinney-2
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
+1
:-) On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: > Michael, please take advantage of indentation instead of writing in all-capital letters. All mail programs I know of have this facility. > > I think my response is summed up in my follow-up (which perhaps you didn't have an opportunity to read while writing your own response): > > "I think people are misinterpreting open data's impact. Open data hasn't created a new divide. It's only moved an old divide. Instead of the problem being access to data, the problem is becoming effective use of the available data. I think moving old divides closer to resolution is a plus." > > If I understand, your argument is that open government data folks shouldn't be focused on solving just the first divide (availability) but all the others that follow (effective use, etc.). I think that's going to be impossible/unworkable. Also, there are already groups working on effective use and the digital divide more generally. Yet governments around the world see fit to close libraries, end broadband access programs, etc. Are you saying OGD should pick up everyone else's fights? (That's asking a lot.) Do you expect OGD to have some special success, convince California to reverse its cuts to libraries, etc.? I don't think OGD has any magic powers to rescue those other communities. > > > > On 2012-05-15, at 1:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> That is a good argument James, let me deal with it point by point... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James >> McKinney >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:36 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> Those seven suggestions in the First Monday article are great, but they >> aren't specific to open data. Those suggestions are for reducing the digital >> divide generally. I can replace "open data" with just plain "data" and the >> arguments are the same. >> >> THIS ISN'T QUITE TRUE SINCE THE ARGUMENTS FOR "OPEN (GOVERNMENT) DATA" (AND >> THE POLICY CHANGES/RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS BEING ADVOCATED FOR) GENERALLY >> INCLUDE ISSUES ABOUT EXTENDING DEMOCRACY, EXTENDING PARTICIPATION, ENHANCING >> CITIZENSHIP THAT SORT OF THING. THERE IS NO SIMILAR ARGUMENT MADE CONCERNING >> GENERAL "DATA" I BELIEVE. IF THOSE ARE THE ARGUMENTS (AND OF COURSE THERE >> ARE OTHERS) THEN ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF EQUITY OF ACCESS AND USE BECOME >> QUESTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN (AS WITH THE EMERGING "RIGHT >> TO THE INTERNET"). >> >> >> We all acknowledge that there is a digital divide. Is open data ceating a >> new divide? Is it creating a divide that requires unique solutions? The only >> difference I can think of is that open data has some specific >> governance/policy issues. But within open data, those issues tend to be the >> kind that are either solved for everyone or no one (is the license an open >> data license or not) - they aren't the kind that benefits one group more >> than others. >> >> THE ISSUE WITH OPEN DATA ISN'T THE ACCESS FOR WHICH YOU TECHNICAL FOLKS ARE >> RESPONSIBLE BUT RATHER ENSURING THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE WHICH IS WHAT THE >> FOLKS AT THE RECEIVING END ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE BASIC ARGUMENT HERE IS >> THAT YOU AS DATA HANDLERS/DESIGNERS SHOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN, AND A DEGREE >> OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE END USER. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro (TO INTRODUCE YOU YOUNGUN'S TO >> ONE OF THE MASTERFUL CREATORS OF MY GENERATION :) >> >> IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT, I GUESS, IS YOUR CHOICE >> BUT HOPEFULLY THOSE WITH A STRONGER SENSE OF THE NEEDS AND RESPONSILITIES >> FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATA ENRICHED DEMOCRACY WILL PREVAIL AT LEAST AT THE POLICY >> LEVEL. >> >> >> I think we also agree that governments should try to close the digital >> divide. Open data, being digital, falls somewhere within that issue. But I >> don't see why this digital divide is in any way specifically relevant to >> open data. >> >> SEE ABOVE... AND I BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OPEN "GOVERNMENT" DATA... >> ISSUES AROUND "OPEN DATA" OVERALL ARE MATTERS FOR CONSUMER POLICY (CURRENTLY >> SEVERELY INADEQUATE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WAYS, BUT YES, A DIFFERENT ISSUE... >> >> >> I think it's a shame that programs like CAP (Community Access Program) are >> being cut. But It seems to me that proponents of community access are >> pointing the finger at open data because it's a hot topic, not because >> there's anything special about open data within the issue of the digital >> divide. If that serves their policy goals, then great, but it's a practice >> that's getting tiring as an insider. >> >> PARTLY THIS IS TRUE, BUT THOSE INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS HAVE LONG >> ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR USES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS IS PROVIDING AN ENTRY >> POINT TO E-GOVERNMENT WHICH OF COURSE, IS, IN CANADA AT LEAST, THE >> FUNDAMENTAL (AND NOT INCIDENTALLY FUNDING) FRAMING STRUCTURE FOR OPEN >> (GOVERNMENT) DATA. >> >> I'M SORRY THAT YOU FIND THIS DISCUSSION TIRING... PERHAPS IF THERE WAS A >> STRONGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA >> FOLKS THERE COULD BE A CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP--OF VALUE TO BOTH SIDES BETWEEN >> THE COMMUNITY ACCESS ADVOCATES AND PRACTITIONERS AND THE OPEN DATA GEEKS >> (AND WONKS)... >> >> MIKE >> >> >> >> On 2012-05-15, at 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> James, >>> >>> I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that >>> should be taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one >>> good example of such a program. >>> >>> And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) >>> http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C >>> >>> As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources >>> assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities >>> to ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket >>> science, or to my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to >>> recognize that there is an issue, for someone to take some >>> responsibility for this (and to my mind it has to be government) and >>> then to implement some useful programs/activities in response. >>> >>> (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some >>> length in an article I've pointed to in the past on this list >>> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view >>> /3316/ >>> 2764 >>> >>> MG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James >>> McKinney >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM >>> To: civicaccess discuss >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New >>> Divide >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
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 -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James McKinney Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:00 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide Michael, please take advantage of indentation instead of writing in all-capital letters. All mail programs I know of have this facility. I think my response is summed up in my follow-up (which perhaps you didn't have an opportunity to read while writing your own response): "I think people are misinterpreting open data's impact. Open data hasn't created a new divide. It's only moved an old divide. Instead of the problem being access to data, the problem is becoming effective use of the available data. I think moving old divides closer to resolution is a plus." If I understand, your argument is that open government data folks shouldn't be focused on solving just the first divide (availability) but all the others that follow (effective use, etc.). I think that's going to be impossible/unworkable. Also, there are already groups working on effective use and the digital divide more generally. Yet governments around the world see fit to close libraries, end broadband access programs, etc. Are you saying OGD should pick up everyone else's fights? (That's asking a lot.) Do you expect OGD to have some special success, convince California to reverse its cuts to libraries, etc.? I don't think OGD has any magic powers to rescue those other communities. On 2012-05-15, at 1:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > That is a good argument James, let me deal with it point by point... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James > McKinney > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:36 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New > Divide > > Those seven suggestions in the First Monday article are great, but > they aren't specific to open data. Those suggestions are for reducing > the digital divide generally. I can replace "open data" with just > plain "data" and the arguments are the same. > > THIS ISN'T QUITE TRUE SINCE THE ARGUMENTS FOR "OPEN (GOVERNMENT) DATA" > (AND THE POLICY CHANGES/RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS BEING ADVOCATED FOR) > GENERALLY INCLUDE ISSUES ABOUT EXTENDING DEMOCRACY, EXTENDING > PARTICIPATION, ENHANCING CITIZENSHIP THAT SORT OF THING. THERE IS NO > SIMILAR ARGUMENT MADE CONCERNING GENERAL "DATA" I BELIEVE. IF THOSE > ARE THE ARGUMENTS (AND OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHERS) THEN ISSUES AND > OPPORTUNITIES OF EQUITY OF ACCESS AND USE BECOME QUESTIONS OF > FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN (AS WITH THE EMERGING "RIGHT TO THE > INTERNET"). > > > We all acknowledge that there is a digital divide. Is open data > ceating a new divide? Is it creating a divide that requires unique > solutions? The only difference I can think of is that open data has > some specific governance/policy issues. But within open data, those > issues tend to be the kind that are either solved for everyone or no > one (is the license an open data license or not) - they aren't the > kind that benefits one group more than others. > > THE ISSUE WITH OPEN DATA ISN'T THE ACCESS FOR WHICH YOU TECHNICAL > FOLKS ARE RESPONSIBLE BUT RATHER ENSURING THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE WHICH > IS WHAT THE FOLKS AT THE RECEIVING END ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE BASIC > ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT YOU AS DATA HANDLERS/DESIGNERS SHOULD HAVE AN > INTEREST IN, AND A DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE END USER. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro (TO INTRODUCE YOU YOUNGUN'S > TO ONE OF THE MASTERFUL CREATORS OF MY GENERATION :) > > IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT, I GUESS, IS YOUR > CHOICE BUT HOPEFULLY THOSE WITH A STRONGER SENSE OF THE NEEDS AND > RESPONSILITIES FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATA ENRICHED DEMOCRACY WILL PREVAIL > AT LEAST AT THE POLICY LEVEL. > > > I think we also agree that governments should try to close the digital > divide. Open data, being digital, falls somewhere within that issue. > But I don't see why this digital divide is in any way specifically > relevant to open data. > > SEE ABOVE... AND I BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OPEN "GOVERNMENT" > DATA... ISSUES AROUND "OPEN DATA" OVERALL ARE MATTERS FOR CONSUMER > POLICY (CURRENTLY SEVERELY INADEQUATE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WAYS, BUT > YES, A DIFFERENT ISSUE... > > > I think it's a shame that programs like CAP (Community Access Program) > are being cut. But It seems to me that proponents of community access > are pointing the finger at open data because it's a hot topic, not > because there's anything special about open data within the issue of > the digital divide. If that serves their policy goals, then great, but > it's a practice that's getting tiring as an insider. > > PARTLY THIS IS TRUE, BUT THOSE INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS HAVE > LONG ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR USES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS IS > PROVIDING AN ENTRY POINT TO E-GOVERNMENT WHICH OF COURSE, IS, IN > CANADA AT LEAST, THE FUNDAMENTAL (AND NOT INCIDENTALLY FUNDING) > FRAMING STRUCTURE FOR OPEN > (GOVERNMENT) DATA. > > I'M SORRY THAT YOU FIND THIS DISCUSSION TIRING... PERHAPS IF THERE WAS > A STRONGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT > DATA FOLKS THERE COULD BE A CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP--OF VALUE TO BOTH > SIDES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY ACCESS ADVOCATES AND PRACTITIONERS AND THE > OPEN DATA GEEKS (AND WONKS)... > > MIKE > > > > On 2012-05-15, at 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> James, >> >> I've provided quite detailed suggestions as to the directions that >> should be taken http://wp.me/pJQl5-3b and Michael L. has given one >> good example of such a program. >> >> And I've identified some useful and concrete approaches (from Canada) >> http://wp.me/pJQl5-7C >> >> As a specific proposal, as I've said elsewhere, 10% of any resources >> assigned to OGD projects/activities should be assigned to activities >> to ensure "effective use". What is being suggested isn't rocket >> science, or to my mind particularly expensive. What is needed is to >> recognize that there is an issue, for someone to take some >> responsibility for this (and to my mind it has to be government) and >> then to implement some useful programs/activities in response. >> >> (And for anyone interested I've made discussed the issue at some >> length in an article I've pointed to in the past on this list >> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view >> /3316/ >> 2764 >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >> James >> McKinney >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:29 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New >> Divide >> >> >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |