Stefaan Verhulst
Hanna Kozlowska and Heather TimmonsNextGov: “Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is on the verge of adulthood. It’s the world’s fifth-most popular website, with 46 million articles in 300 languages, while having less than 300 full-time employees. What makes it successful is the 200,000 volunteers who create it, said Katherine Maher, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent-organization for Wikipedia and its sister sites.
Unlike other tech companies, Wikipedia has avoided accusations of major meddling from malicious actors to subvert elections around the world. Part of this is because of the site’s model, where the creation process is largely transparent, but it’s also thanks to its community of diligent editors who monitor the content…
Somewhat unwittingly, Wikipedia has become the internet’s fact-checker. Recently, both YouTube and Facebook started using the platform to show more context about videos or posts in order to curb the spread of disinformation—even though Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, and can be manipulated as well….
While no evidence of organized, widespread election-related manipulation on the platform has emerged so far, Wikipedia is not free of malicious actors, or people trying to grab control of the narrative. In Croatia, for instance, the local-language Wikipedia was completely taken over by right-wing ideologues several years ago.
The platform has also been battling the problem of “black-hat editing”— done surreptitiously by people who are trying to push a certain view—on the platform for years….
About 200,000 editors contribute to Wikimedia projects every month, and together with AI-powered bots they made a total of 39 million edits in February of 2018. In the chart below, group-bots are bots approved by the community, which do routine maintenance on the site, looking for examples of vandalism, for example. Name-bots are users who have “bot” in their name.
Like every other tech platform, Wikimedia is looking into how AI could help improve the site. “We are very interested in how AI can help us do things like evaluate the quality of articles, how deep and effective the citations are for a particular article, the relative neutrality of an article, the relative quality of an article,” said Maher. The organization would also like to use it to catch gaps in its content….(More)”.
OpenGovIntelligence: “Imagine an executive Government Department that needs to manage resources and make decisions on a daily basis without possessing any data to support them. This is the case in the supervising department of Government Vehicles, which is part of the Greek Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction. This department is in charge of the supervision and management of the whole fleet of Greek Government Vehicles….In an attempt to solve this problem, the Greek Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction joined the OpenGovernmentIntelligence project as a pilot partner to exploit statistical data for this purpose. Preliminary findings of the project team were very encouraging, to the surprise of Greek Ministry executives. There was a plethora of Government Vehicle data owned by other governmental and non-governmental bodies. Interestingly, the Ministry of Transport even had record level data of all vehicles, including governmental ones. Other data providers included the Hellenic Statistical Authority and the Hellenic Association of Motor Vehicle Importers-Representatives that provided fuel consumption and gas emissions data. Even more impressively, before the end of the first year of the project, a new web-based platform was built by means of the OGI toolkit. Its goal was to provide visualisations and statistical metrics to enhance executive decision making. For the first time, decision makers could acquire knowledge on metrics such as the average age, cubic capacity or daily fuel consumptions of a Government Agency fleet.
However, a lot still needs to be done. The primary concern of the Greek Pilot team members is now data quality, as the Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction does not own any of these data. Next steps include data validation and cleansing, as well as collaboration with other agencies serving as intermediates for government fleet management regarding service co-production. Executives in the Greek Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction are now pleased to have access to data that will enhance their ability to make rational decisions regarding Government Vehicles. This is a small, but at the same time essential, step for a country struggling with economic recession….(More)”.
Book by Andrew Greenway et al: “Companies that grew up on the web have changed our expectations of the services we rely on. We demand simplicity, speed and low cost. Organizations founded before the Internet aren’t keeping up – despite spending millions on IT, marketing and “innovation”.
This book is a guide to building a digital institution. It explains how a growing band of reformers in businesses and governments around the world have helped their organisations pivot to this new way of working, and what lessons others can learn from their experience.
It is based on the authors’ experience designing and helping to deliver the UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS). The GDS was a new institution made responsible for the digital transformation of government, designing public services for the Internet era. It snipped £4 billion off the government’s technology bill, opened up public sector contracts to thousands of new suppliers, and delivered online services so good that citizens chose to use them over the offline alternatives, without a big marketing campaign. Other countries and companies noticed, with the GDS model now being copied around the world….(More)”.
Open Access book by Riel Miller: “People are using the future to search for better ways to achieve sustainability, inclusiveness, prosperity, well-being and peace. In addition, the way the future is understood and used is changing in almost all domains, from social science to daily life.
This book presents the results of significant research undertaken by UNESCO with a number of partners to detect and define the theory and practice of anticipation around the world today. It uses the concept of ‘Futures Literacy’ as a tool to define the understanding of anticipatory systems and processes – also known as the Discipline of Anticipation. This innovative title explores:
- new topics such as Futures Literacy and the Discipline of Anticipation;
- the evidence collected from over 30 Futures Literacy Laboratories and presented in 14 full case studies;
- the need and opportunity for significant innovation in human decision-making systems.
This book will be of great interest to scholars, researchers, policy-makers and students, as well as activists working on sustainability issues and innovation, future studies and anticipation studies….(More)”.
Press Release: “Data-Smart City Solutions, a program of Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, today launched a searchable public database comprising cutting-edge examples of public sector data use. The “Solutions Search” indexes interactive maps and visualizations, spanning civic issue areas such as transportation, public health, and housing, that are helping data innovators more accurately understand and illustrate challenges, leading to optimized solutions.
The new user-friendly public database includes 200 data-driven models for civic technologists, community organizations, and government employees. “By showcasing successful data-driven initiatives from across the country, we have the opportunity to help city leaders learn from each other and avoid reinventing the wheel,” noted Stephen Goldsmith, Daniel Paul Professor of the Practice of Government and faculty director of the Innovations in Government Program at the Ash Center, who also leads the Civic Analytics Network, a national network of municipal chief data officers.
This new Harvard database spans city, county, state, and federal levels, and features a wide variety of interventions and initiatives, including maps, data visualizations, and dashboards. Examples include the California Report Card and GradeDC.gov, dashboards that measurecommunity health – and run on citizen input, allowing residents to rank various city services and agencies. Users can also find Redlining Louisville: The History of Race, Class, and Real Estate, a visualization that explores the impact of disinvestment in Louisville neighborhoods….(More)”.
Joint Paper by Privacy International and ARTICLE 19: “Artificial Intelligence (AI) is part of our daily lives. This technology shapes how people access information, interact with devices, share personal information, and even understand foreign languages. It also transforms how individuals and groups can be tracked and identified, and dramatically alters what kinds of information can be gleaned about people from their data. AI has the potential to revolutionise societies in positive ways. However, as with any scientific or technological advancement, there is a real risk that the use of new tools by states or corporations will have a negative impact on human rights. While AI impacts a plethora of rights, ARTICLE 19 and Privacy International are particularly concerned about the impact it will have on the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression and information. This scoping paper focuses on applications of ‘artificial narrow intelligence’: in particular, machine learning and its implications for human rights.
The aim of the paper is fourfold:
1. Present key technical definitions to clarify the debate;
2. Examine key ways in which AI impacts the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy and outline key challenges;
3. Review the current landscape of AI governance, including various existing legal, technical, and corporate frameworks and industry-led AI initiatives that are relevant to freedom of expression and privacy; and
4. Provide initial suggestions for rights-based solutions which can be pursued by civil society organisations and other stakeholders in AI advocacy activities….(More)”.
ScienceMag: “In a move few scientists anticipated, the Chinese government has decreed that all scientific data generated in China must be submitted to government-sanctioned data centers before appearing in publications. At the same time, the regulations, posted last week, call for open access and data sharing.
The possibly conflicting directives puzzle researchers, who note that the yet-to-be-established data centers will have latitude in interpreting the rules. Scientists in China can still share results with overseas collaborators, says Xie Xuemei, who specializes in innovation economics at Shanghai University. Xie also believes that the new requirements to register data with authorities before submitting papers to journals will not affect most research areas. Gaining approval could mean publishing delays, Xie says, but “it will not have a serious impact on scientific research.”
The new rules, issued by the powerful State Council, apply to all groups and individuals generating research data in China. The creation of a national data center will apparently fall to the science ministry, though other ministries and local governments are expected to create their own centers as well. Exempted from the call for open access and sharing are data involving state and business secrets, national security, “public interest,” and individual privacy… (More)”
Discussion Paper by Benoit Guerin, Julian McCrae and Marcus Shepheard: “…Accountability lies at the heart of democratic government. It enables people to know how the Government is doing and how to gain redress when things go wrong. It ensures ministers and civil servants are acting in the interests of the people they serve.
Accountability is a part of good governance and it can increase the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the public. Every day, 5.4 million public sector workers deliver services ranging from health care to schools to national defence.1 A host of bodies hold them to account – whether the National Audit Office undertaking around 60 value for money inquiries a year,2 Ofsted inspecting more than 5,000 schools per year, or the main Government ombudsman services dealing with nearly 80,000 complaints from the public in 2016/17 alone. More than 21,000 elected officials, ranging from MPs to local councillors, scrutinise these services on behalf of citizens.
When that accountability works properly, it helps the UK’s government to be among the best in the world. For example, public spending is authorised by Parliament and routinely stays within the limits set. The accountability that surrounds this – provided through oversight by the Treasury, audit by the National Audit Office and scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee – is strong and dates back to the 19th century. However, in areas where that accountability is weak, the risk of failure – whether financial mismanagement, the collapse of services or chronic underperformance – increases. …
There are three factors underpinning the weak accountability that is perpetuating failure. They are: fundamental gaps in accountability in Whitehall; a failure of accountability beyond Whitehall to keep pace with an increasingly complex public sector landscape; and a pervading culture of blame….
This paper suggests potential options for strengthening accountability, based on our analysis. These involve changes to structures, increased transparency and moves to improve the culture. These options are meant to elicit discussion rather than to set the Institute for Government’s position at this stage….(More)”
Pew Research Center: “Most say ‘design and structure’ of government need big changes…
At a time of growing stress on democracy around the world, Americans generally agree on democratic ideals and values that are important for the United States. But for the most part, they see the country falling well short in living up to these ideals, according to a new study of opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of key aspects of American democracy and the political system.
The public’s criticisms of the political system run the gamut, from a failure to hold elected officials accountable to a lack of transparency in government. And just a third say the phrase “people agree on basic facts even if they disagree politically” describes this country well today.
The perceived shortcomings encompass some of the core elements of American democracy. An overwhelming share of the public (84%) says it is very important that “the rights and freedoms of all people are respected.” Yet just 47% say this describes the country very or somewhat well; slightly more (53%) say it does not.
Despite these criticisms, most Americans say democracy is working well in the United States – though relatively few say it is working very well. At the same time, there is broad support for making sweeping changes to the political system: 61% say “significant changes” are needed in the fundamental “design and structure” of American government to make it work for current times.
The public sends mixed signals about how the American political system should be changed, and no proposals attract bipartisan support. Yet in views of how many of the specific aspects of the political system are working, both Republicans and Democrats express dissatisfaction.
To be sure, there are some positives. A sizable majority of Americans (74%) say the military leadership in the U.S. does not publicly support one party over another, and nearly as many (73%) say the phrase “people are free to peacefully protest” describes this country very or somewhat well.
In general, however, there is a striking mismatch between the public’s goals for American democracy and its views of whether they are being fulfilled. On 23 specific measures assessing democracy, the political system and elections in the United States – each widely regarded by the public as very important – there are only eight on which majorities say the country is doing even somewhat well….(More)”.
OECD Report: “This report looks at how behavioural insights can be used to improve online information disclosures for consumers. The report is the latest contribution to work by the OECD’s Committee on Consumer Policy on improving consumer policy with behavioural insights. Behavioural insights incorporate findings from economics, psychology, neuroscience and marketing to better understand how individuals and businesses actually behave in the marketplace. While the role of information disclosure policies is clear in empowering consumers to make informed decisions when shopping online, findings from behavioural insights raise questions about the usefulness of certain forms of information disclosure. This report looks at these concerns and the subsequent policy implications….(More)”.