Are Citizens Ready for Open Government ?

[Michael Hardner]

MLW members have to answer this - since they're the same people that Open Government counts on to make the system work. Open Gov blogger Marco Fioretti points out in his blog that far more is expected from citizens with the Open Gov model, than with mass communication.

I have seen some interest in looking more closely at operational issues, around healthcare, but would you be willing to do so across the board - to keep government honest ?

Discuss.

[Bonam]

Are Citizens Ready for Open Government ?

Not a very well posed question I think. Some portion of citizens care enough about government to be interested and participate actively in such a thing, some portion of citizens do not, and some are probably too busy with other things to spend much time on it.

My prediction is that most people would have a very polarized opinion on a "pet issue" or two and spend all their time on those.

[Michael Hardner]

Not a very well posed question I think. Some portion of citizens care enough about government to be interested and participate actively in such a thing, some portion of citizens do not, and some are probably too busy with other things to spend much time on it.

My prediction is that most people would have a very polarized opinion on a "pet issue" or two and spend all their time on those.

The point is that you need a critical mass of people to participate to make it work, even if it's only on some pet issues here and there.

[Shwa]

The point is that you need a critical mass of people to participate to make it work, even if it's only on some pet issues here and there.

What is that "critical mass" do you know? Is it 5 people, 50, 50,000, 500,000? What is it?

[Michael Hardner]

What is that "critical mass" do you know? Is it 5 people, 50, 50,000, 500,000? What is it?

I do not know.

I would guess that perhaps 5-10% of politically interested parties in a jurisdiction participating in some regard (which means paying attention to open government information) would do it. Just a rough guess.

Why is that number so low ? Because those who would participate would be opinion-makers, and local influence points who vote and discuss politics. I don't know if the term intelligensia applies, but the intelligensia would have to be at least aware of these initiatives.

The sharpest minds - who today might watch "political" shows on CNN - are currently given lots of information on political strategy, polling numbers and so on. But very little discussion is done on the actual matter of government.

[Michael Hardner]

A nice editorial from Nat Torkington shows that Geeks CAN think about politics too.

Nat is known for writing something called the 'Perl Cookbook', i.e. he is a programmer. But this piece shows how open government (like open software) is a goal that serves both the right- and left- agendas.

You can see how government-as-cost and government-as-investment thinking comes out in the difference in rhetoric between the Obama and Cameron administrations. Obama and his staff, coming from the investment mindset, are building a Gov 2.0 infrastructure that creates a space for economic opportunity, informed citizens, and wider involvement in decision making so the government better reflects the community's will. Cameron and his staff, coming from a cost mindset, are building a Gov 2.0 infrastructure that suggests it will be more about turning government-provided services over to the private sector:

We're still waiting for Canada to start get excited about Open Gov....

Edited August 12, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shwa]

We're still waiting for Canada to start get excited about Open Gov....

The federal government has built roads on speculation of use before, based on business plans of potential need.

I recall years ago that employment centres began to offer services on-line long before internet access for households was commonplace. In fact, it was more of a 'widespread phenomenon' and most people accessed unemployment insurance services through in-person or telephone. UI offices had 'kiosks' where the public could access these services along with in-person or telephone. However they encouraged clients to use the kiosks or internet, if they had it at home.

So, using this as the guiding philosophy, I believe that the government should go ahead and make at least rudimentary forms of open government accessible to their citizens even though it might only be a 'widespread phenomenon' and not quite the household concept we wish it was. In fact, with the concept of 'Service Canada' or Post Offices, the government already has the means to deliver open government on a national scale.

And while "Canada" might not be too excited about open government, it will take political will to make this happen. So which party will have the balls?

[Michael Hardner]

So, using this as the guiding philosophy, I believe that the government should go ahead and make at least rudimentary forms of open government accessible to their citizens even though it might only be a 'widespread phenomenon' and not quite the household concept we wish it was. In fact, with the concept of 'Service Canada' or Post Offices, the government already has the means to deliver open government on a national scale.

That's a good point. I don't know how much Open Data will be used either.

That being the case, they could just release raw data and see what the public does with it. I know of at least one group that was looking for this information years ago.

The concept of 'Service Canada' actually increases the chance of success of such a venture, in that much of the data around service will be with that one organization.

And while "Canada" might not be too excited about open government, it will take political will to make this happen. So which party will have the balls?

The Conservatives, point blank. They have the political capital to be able to criticize the government bureaucracy and not have it reflect upon themselves. This would go something like this:

"Look at all the waste the Liberals did !!!"

To be honest and non-cynical, as much as I would probably never vote for Harper, I would be surprised if he took the low road like that. He wouldn't have to. If he initiated a system that highlighted wastefulness, many people would assume that the responsibility was with previous governments.

But... if Harper really implemented this in a positive, meaningful and effective way... it's strange to type it but I really would consider voting Conservative for the first time.

[Shwa]

But... if Harper really implemented this in a positive, meaningful and effective way... it's strange to type it but I really would consider voting Conservative for the first time.

The cynical approach would be a limited implementation - adequate to shut up most people in order to ignore the critics of a limited release. But any implementation would have to be limited for the first while anyway, especially if it part of a comprehensive approach of which it is only a component.

[Michael Hardner]

The cynical approach would be a limited implementation - adequate to shut up most people in order to ignore the critics of a limited release. But any implementation would have to be limited for the first while anyway, especially if it part of a comprehensive approach of which it is only a component.

Yes, this is exactly what the city of Toronto did. They released useless data that nobody cared about. As we've seen with the UK and US governments, the best hope is a newly elected government that wants a fresh start.

[Shwa]

Yes, this is exactly what the city of Toronto did. They released useless data that nobody cared about.

But useless to whom or, rather, how was "useless" defined? I think that one of the problems facing government and citizens is that there is a mismatch between definition of particular datasets. Thus the citizen might want to see dataset A, which is something they understand to mean, and the gov gives them dataset A based on their own internal definitions which do not correspond to what the citizen believes dataset A should contain.

We have a data match - a common defintiion - for weather data for instance; even to a degree mapping and GPS datasets are beginning to synch up (even though some of the software to display them are big $$$). Which is another problem - system incompatibility. Then there is volume. For instance, when was the last time you were at public archives to review - for example - legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Dealing with accession numbers, box references, indexing schemata, surly records clerks...

[Michael Hardner]

But useless to whom or, rather, how was "useless" defined? I think that one of the problems facing government and citizens is that there is a mismatch between definition of particular datasets. Thus the citizen might want to see dataset A, which is something they understand to mean, and the gov gives them dataset A based on their own internal definitions which do not correspond to what the citizen believes dataset A should contain.

Let's see... geo location of parks with latitude and longitude, ward boundries, garbage districts. Lots of static geographical data.

Ho. Hum.

We have a data match - a common defintiion - for weather data for instance; even to a degree mapping and GPS datasets are beginning to synch up (even though some of the software to display them are big $$$). Which is another problem - system incompatibility. Then there is volume. For instance, when was the last time you were at public archives to review - for example - legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Dealing with accession numbers, box references, indexing schemata, surly records clerks...

They publish these things to XML which is a standard. There is nothing as dynamic as weather or real-time data. They don't go back to 1950 but they will give you the 2003 election results, if you're still wondering how Barbara Hall did.

[Shwa]

Let's see... geo location of parks with latitude and longitude, ward boundries, garbage districts. Lots of static geographical data.

Ho. Hum.

Exactly. But in the case of the Geoscience Data Repository, one man's ho-hum is another's clue to diamonds, gold, silver, oil... I guess it is a matter of definitions.

They publish these things to XML which is a standard. There is nothing as dynamic as weather or real-time data. They don't go back to 1950 but they will give you the 2003 election results, if you're still wondering how Barbara Hall did.

Yes and how do you propose they publish the material for the legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Is there a magic scanner than will convert this stuff to XML or something?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and how do you propose they publish the material for the legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Is there a magic scanner than will convert this stuff to XML or something?

They`d probably love to publish that, as they can do so and count it as an Open Government initiative.

We need standardized, measured, independent assessments of service levels and costs. Businesses have to do it for their management, but our government`s management is assessed differently. One of the measures that we have mentioned is `success by the lack of gotcha stories in the newspaper`.

Generally, an organization can only pay attention to so many things. So if onr measure is given to much priority then other measures are not and - in our example - costs go up while services don`t improve.

[Michael Hardner]

Strange coincidences abound !

Linked data is opening 800 years of UK legal info

Earlier this month, the National Archives of the United Kingdom launched legislation.gov.uk to provide public access to a primary source of legal information for citizens. Legislation.gov.uk covers more than 800 years of legal history in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Shwa]

Strange coincidences abound !

Linked data is opening 800 years of UK legal info

I don't think that it is a coincidence at all Michael. For one I heard that some British government officials monitor this site on a regular basis and they probably relayed your o-gov & e-gov concerns to the senior bureaucrats at the UK National Archives who rushed this service into action. I can almost hear them now:

"Lord Burley, a Mr. Hardner in Canada wants to see more open government initiatives, shall we release the new legislation website soon and further embarass the Canadians over their tardiness in enacting e-government services?"

Lord Burley, sips his tea and thoughtfully replies, "Canada you say? Pity."

Edited August 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Smallc]

This has to be one of the most boring topics on the entire planet.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it is. That's why things are so messed up - there's nobody paying attention.

[Michael Hardner]

Blogging on this topic 5 years or more later...

Open Data proponents aren't going anywhere

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/31/265694831/can-the-open-data-revolution-change-our-democracies

Beth Noveck articulates the ideas around Open Gov far better than I could...

[GostHacked]

Blogging on this topic 5 years or more later...

Open Data proponents aren't going anywhere

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/31/265694831/can-the-open-data-revolution-change-our-democracies

Beth Noveck articulates the ideas around Open Gov far better than I could...

I think the issue is that people expected an open government to come about. Often when we see open gov initiatives, it results in the opposite.

[Michael Hardner]

Often when we see open gov initiatives, it results in the opposite.

I kind of agree, except for your use of 'often'. It's really only being adopted now but I'll give you this: right after Tony Clement opted Canada in to the OGP we started seeing stonewalling on access.

Here's Canada's plan BTW:

http://data.gc.ca/eng/canadas-action-plan-open-government#toc3

[Michael Hardner]

Peter Schuck was on The Daily Show last week - talking about his book:

Why Government Fails So Often:
And How It Can Do Better

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10192.html

Schuck argues that Washington's failures are due not to episodic problems or partisan bickering, but rather to deep structural flaws that undermine every administration, Democratic and Republican. These recurrent weaknesses include unrealistic goals, perverse incentives, poor and distorted information, systemic irrationality, rigidity and lack of credibility, a mediocre bureaucracy, powerful and inescapable markets, and the inherent limits of law. To counteract each of these problems, Schuck proposes numerous achievable reforms, from avoiding moral hazard in student loan, mortgage, and other subsidy programs, to empowering consumers of public services, simplifying programs and testing them for cost-effectiveness, and increasing the use of "big data." The book also examines successful policies--including the G.I. Bill, the Voting Rights Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and airline deregulation--to highlight the factors that made them work.

On the show, though, he referred to the lack of attention and oversight from "the" public, which prompted John Stewart to ironically note that the "TV Networks" should be covering things to a better level of detail.

It's yet another rationale with designing publics to oversee government, including citizens, bureaucrats, the press/new media, and consumers of government services.