http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/maybe-OT-values-of-CivicAccess-tp1420p1422.html
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I think it's a linked chain: open government data will lead to increased citizen involvement, which will lead to improvements in efficiency almost by definition.
> From: Hugh McGuire <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <
[hidden email]>
> Received: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:59 PM
> mike,
>
> one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's
> police chief
> promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all
> crime by
> 40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such
> success? By
> changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies
> became
> robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a
> data-shell
> game, but murders did not go down because you can't
> hide the bodies.
> In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were
> recorded.
>
> Re justice: I think broadly I would equate
> "justice" with good
> decision-making. That is, when societies make more of the
> kinds of
> decisions that improve people's lives, it makes for a
> more just
> society. And by opening up data to people I expect us to
> have "better"
> decisions, hence more justice.
>
> The thing about opening up data is that people who care can
> and will
> look at the data, at the methods, at the background, and I
> think/hope
> it will be harder to hide bullshit behind numbers if the
> data is open,
> and the methodologies are known.
>
> It would be interesting to track this particular hypothesis
> though ...
>
> Right now, if all you get is a police statement that crime
> is going
> down, and a pdf with "stats" to prove it ... you
> don't have much to go
> on. If you get the whole dataset, it's a different
> matter.
>
> So if you open things up, you are likely to have more
> statistical
> damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is
> that the
> checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.
>
> But it's an interesting caution.
>
> h.
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Since we started CA, the question of common goals /
> values has been a
> > question. I'm don't think it needs to be
> 100% clear but I'm glad we
> > haven't assumed consensus on issues that
> haven't been explored, and
> > I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have
> the same values or
> > strategies for social change. I think everyone is
> pretty cool with
> > the idea that there's people from different places
> on the political
> > spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to
> work on this
> > specific goal of access to civic info and data.
> >
> > I wanted to share my concern about another issue.
> I've been picking up
> > on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited
> about data-driven
> > decision making. I wonder how true that is.
> Personally I get
> > concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around
> access to data.
> > There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it
> that kinda freaks
> > me out.
> >
> > I can imagine us often making better decisions with
> access to more
> > data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions
> by relying too
> > much on that practice. The reason I'm here is
> that access to
> > information is a justice issue. I don't think it
> is just that we
> > don't have access to our own civic information,
> and I think that we
> > would have a more just society if access to these
> resources were
> > opened up. Redressing that injustice is a goal in
> itself for me and
> > secondarily I'm excited about issues of
> transparency in terms of the
> > relation between citizen and government. Data-driven
> decision making
> > (ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority
> for me. Down
> > further still is the goal of increased efficiency.
> >
> > I don't necessarily respect the evaluation +
> management tools that are
> > currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I
> would not be
> > comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of
> those tools by
> > our public bodies. There's too many difficulties
> around the
> > production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of
> it for me not to
> > be ambivalent about encouraging their use.
> >
> > That being said, I respect that there are others that
> have a different
> > set of priorities for being here and I'm not
> trying to convince
> > anybody. I'm glad that we are here to work
> together on the question
> > of access and possibilities for disseminating and
> using that
> > info/data.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this for a while, but
> Hugh posted a video by
> > the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.
> It points to
> > some difficulties of making decisions from a
> distanced, solely
> > quantitative knowledge of an issue.
> > via Hugh's blog
> >
http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml> >
> > Hope that made sense.
> >
> > Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that
> we've developed a respectful
> > culture here. No flaming and there's a good
> dialogue between new
> > people, technical experts and policy experts.
> Congrats for us. :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-discussBe smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at