“The mAgri Design Toolkit is a collection of instructions, tools, and stories to help develop and scale mobile agriculture products by applying a user-centered design approach.
Many mAgri services that have launched in emerging markets have suffered from low user adoption, despite coming from leading mobile network operators and value-added service (VAS) providers. This toolkit is one of the outcomes of a partnership between the GSMA mAgri Programme and frog, and provides operational guidance on how to bring the user-centred design approach into the product development process to better connect mAgri services with the needs of farmers and other key actors in the ecosystem….(More)”
Coming soon: The Conversation Global
“The Conversation, an independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists, launches its Global edition this month.
The Conversation Global will publish commentary, analysis and research from the academic community worldwide. We will engage scholars from across the world, featuring perspectives from the Global South and North on the most pressing international issues. All content will be published under Creative Commons.
The site is open and free for everyone to read.
Data and Analytics Innovation
GAO report from the Data and Analytics Innovation Forum Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States: “….discussions considered the implications of new data-related technologies and developments that are revolutionizing the basic three-step innovation process in the figure below. As massive amounts of varied data become available in many fields, data generation (step 1 in the process) is transformed. Continuing technological advances are bringing more powerful analytics and changing analysis possibilities (step 2 in the process). And approaches to new decision making include intelligent machines that may, for example, guide human decision makers. Additionally, data may be automatically generated on actions taken in response to data analytic results, creating an evaluative feedback loop.
Forum participants:
• saw the newly revolutionized and still-evolving process of data and analytics innovation (DAI) as generating far-reaching new economic opportunities, including a new Industrial Revolution based on combining data-transmitting cyber systems and physical systems, resulting in cyber-physical systems—which have alternatively been termed the Industrial Internet, also the Internet of Things;
• warned of an ongoing and potentially widening mismatch between the kinds of jobs that are or will be available and the skill levels of the U.S. labor force;
• identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as
• saw the newly revolutionized and still-evolving process of data and analytics innovation (DAI) as generating far-reaching new economic opportunities, including a new Industrial Revolution based on combining data-transmitting cyber systems and physical systems, resulting in cyber-physical systems—which have alternatively been termed the Industrial Internet, also the Internet of Things;
• warned of an ongoing and potentially widening mismatch between the kinds of jobs that are or will be available and the skill levels of the U.S. labor force; • identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as
• identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as health care, transportation, financial markets, and “smart cities,” among others; and
• outlined areas of data-privacy concern, including for example, possible threats to personal autonomy, which could occur as data on individual persons are collected and used without their knowledge or against their will.
The overall goal of the forum’s discussions and of this report is to help lay the groundwork for future efforts to maximize DAI benefits and minimize potential drawbacks. As such, the forum was not directed toward identifying a specific set of policies relevant to DAI. However, participants suggested that efforts to help realize the promise of DAI opportunities would be directed toward improving data access, assessing the validity of new data and models, creating a welcoming DAI ecosystem, and more generally, raising awareness of DAI’s potential among both policymakers and the general public. Participants also noted a likely need for higher U.S. educational achievement and a measured approach to privacy issues that recognizes both their import and their complexity….(More)”
Crowdsource Europe wants people to write their own constitution
Deutsche Welle: “A public interest organization called Crowdsource Europe wants citizens to formulate their own constitution. If successful, the document could even replace the Lisbon treaty, the campaign’s organizers say.
“Crowdsource Europe is building a platform to work together with all Europeans to create a People’s Constitution, by the people, for the people,” the organizers said on their website. The goal is to create a document that captures the shared values and collective ideas for the future of Europe.
“We launched the project in May 2016. The motivation was to let the people of Europe decide what the EU should be about. Cooperation within Europe is important, but too often people don’t feel connected with the EU where technocrats decide from their ivory tower,” the project’s organizers Thomas de Groot, Mathijs Pontier and Melissa Koutouzis told DW.
De Groot, Pontier and Koutouzis, who are members of the Amsterdam Pirate Party, want to show the European Parliament that people can work together to shape a European future.
“In the current representative democracy, people have the ability to vote once every several years (five years in the case of the European Parliament). After that, the possibilities for participation are very limited. As a result, many people don’t feel represented, and many people don’t even make the effort to vote for the European Parliament,” they told DW.
Crowdsource Europe’s idea of “interactive democracy” helps bridge that gap. In this concept, everyone has the ability to propose ideas and discuss them….Writing a constitution, especially the way de Groot and his partners Pontier and Koutouzis envisage it, is very easy. Interested people can log on to the People’s Constitution website (https://peoplesconstitution.eu/). A “How-to” tab explains users the ways in which they can enter their details and descriptions of laws they want added into the “constitution.”…The idea of writing a people’s constitution for all of Europe was inspired by
The idea of writing a people’s constitution for all of Europe was inspired by Iceland’s experiment in redrafting the document….(More)”
The Internet for farmers without Internet
Project Breakthrough: “Mobile Internet is rapidly becoming a primary source of knowledge for rural populations in developing countries. But not every one of the world’s 500 million smallholder farmers is connected to the Internet – which means they can struggle to solve daily agricultural challenges. With no way to access to information on things like planting, growing and selling, farmers in Asia, Latin America and Africa simply cannot grow. Many live on less than a dollar a day and don’t have smartphones to ask Google what to do.
London-based startup WeFarm is the world’s first free peer-to-peer network that spreads crowdsourced knowledge via SMS messages, which only need simple mobile phones. Since launching in November 2015, its aim has been to give remote, offline farmers access to the vital innovative insight, such as crop diversification, tackling soil erosion or changing climatic conditions. Billing itself as ‘The internet for people without the internet’, WeFarm strongly believes in the power of grassroots information. That’s why it costs nothing.
“With WeFarm we want all farmers in the world to be able to search for and access the information they need to improve their livelihoods,” Kenny Ewan, CEO tells us. The seeds for his idea were planted after many years working with indigenous communities in Latin America, based in Peru. “To me it makes perfect sense to allow farmers to connect with other farmers in order to find solutions to their problems. These farmers are experts in agriculture, and they come up with low-cost, innovative solutions, that are easy to implement.”
Farmers send questions by SMS to a local WeFarm number. Then they are connected to a huge crowdsourcing platform. The network’s back-end uses machine-learning algorithms to match them to farmers with answers. This data creates a sort of Google for agriculture…(More)”
The Wisdom of the Crowd is what science really needs
Science/Disrupt: “In a world where technology allows for global collaboration, and in a time when we’re finally championing diversity of thought, there are few barriers to getting the right people together to work on some of our most pressing problems. Governments and research labs are attempting to apply this mentality to science through what is known as ‘Citizen Science’ – research conducted in part by the public (amateur scientists) in partnership with the professionals.
The concept of Citizen Science is brilliant: moving science forward, faster, by utilising the wisdom and volume of the crowd. …
But Citizen Science goes beyond working directly with people with specific data to share. Zooniverse – the home of Citizen Science online – lists hundreds of projects which anyone can get involved with to help advance science. From mapping the galaxy and looking for comets, to seeking outAustralian wildlife and helping computers understand animal faces, the projects span across many subjects.
But when you dig deeper into the tasks being asked of these CitizenScientists, you find that – really – it’s a simple data capture activity. There’s no skill involved other than engaging your eyes to see and fingers to click and type. It’s not the wisdom of the crowd which is being tapped into.
You could argue that people are interested purely in being a part of important research – which of course is true for many – but it misses the point that scientists are simply missing out on a great resource of intellect at their fingertips.
There has been a rise of crowdsourced solutions over the last few years. rLoopis an organisation formed over Reddit to propose a Hyperloop transportation capsule; Techfugees is a Global community of technologists who team up to propose and build solutions to problems facing the increasing numbers of refugees around the world; and XPRIZE is an open competition offering winning teams large sums of money and support to solve the global problems they select each year.
The difference between crowdsourcing and Citizen Science is that in the former, a high value is placed on ideas. There’s a general understanding that‘two minds are better than one’ and that by empowering a larger, more diverse pool of people to engage with important and purposeful work, a better solution will be found faster.
With Citizen Science, the mood is that of the public only being capable of playing hide and seek with pictures and completing menial, time consuming work that the scientists are simply too busy to do. …(More)”
Open Government Implementation Model
KDZ: “The City of Vienna was the first public agency in a German speaking country to develop an Open Government Initative and to commit itself to the concept of Open Data – an open and transparent system that makes city data available to citizens for their further use. Vienna’s first Open Data catalogue has been presented to the public.The KDZ – Centre for Public Administration Research was contracted by the Chief Executive Office of Vienna to contribute to the Open Government strategy of the City of Vienna. In order to bring the insights and propositions gained to the attention of a wider public, the Open Government Implementation Model has been translated into English.
The KDZ Implementation Model is based on and significantly elaborates the “Open Government Implementation Model” by Lee/Kwak (2011). …(More)
See also:
International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers’ code of principles
Poynter: “…The following document is the result of consultations among fact-checkers from around the world. It offers conscientious practitioners principles to aspire to in their everyday work.
(1) A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.
(2) A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES
We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.
(3) A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION
We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.
(4) A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.
(5) A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version….(More)”
Responsible Data in Agriculture
Report by Lindsay Ferris and Zara Rahman for GODAN: “The agriculture sector is creating increasing amounts of data, from many different sources. From tractors equipped with GPS tracking, to open data released by government ministries, data is becoming ever more valuable, as agricultural business development and global food policy decisions are being made based upon data. But the sector is also home to severe resource inequality. The largest agricultural companies make billions of dollars per year, in comparison with subsistence farmers growing just enough to feed themselves, or smallholder farmers who grow enough to sell on a year-by-year basis. When it comes to data and technology, these differences in resources translate to stark power imbalances in data access and use. The most well resourced actors are able to delve into new technologies and make the most of those insights, whereas others are unable to take any such risks or divert any of their limited resources. Access to and use of data has radically changed the business models and behaviour of some of those well resourced actors, but in contrast, those with fewer resources are receiving the same, limited access to information that they always have.
In this paper, we have approached these issues from a responsible data perspective, drawing upon the experience of the Responsible Data community1 who over the past three years have created tools, questions and resources to deal with the ethical, legal, privacy and security challenges that come from new uses of data in various sectors. This piece aims to provide a broad overview of some of the responsible data challenges facing these actors, with a focus on the power imbalance between actors, and looking into how that inequality affects behaviour when it comes to the agricultural data ecosystem. What are the concerns of those with limited resources, when it comes to this new and rapidly changing data environment? In addition, what are the ethical grey areas or uncertainties that we need to address in the future? As a first attempt to answer these questions, we spoke to 14 individuals with various perspectives on the sector to understand what the challenges are for them and for the people they work with. We also carried out desk research to dive deeper into these issues, and we provide here an analysis of our findings and responsible data challenges….(More)”
The government technology pitch
Luke Fretwell at TechCrunch: “Crisis has a history of dictating government technology disruption. We’ve seen this with the anticipation of Soviet Union aerospace and military dominance that sparked the emergence of DARPA, as well as with the response to 9/11 and subsequent establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
And, of course, there’s the ongoing, seemingly invisible crisis around security that’s expediting an infusion of public sector funding, particularly in the wake of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management breach that exposed the personal records of millions of federal employees and government contractors.
The Healthcare.gov launch debacle is the most recent and referenced example of crisis spawning government technology progress. The federal government woke to the issues surrounding outdated digital practices — from procurement to technical — and quickly launched two startups of its own: 18F and the U.S. Digital Service (USDS).
The failings of Healthcare.gov and subsequent creation of 18F and USDS has inspired others — such as the state of California, large cities and local governments — to fund a surge in attention to digital — from web to data to security — to address outdated technologies powering the technological infrastructure that runs our governments.
But innovators don’t wait for crises.
They imagine a different path, whether it’s a new approach to solving an old problem or a moonshot that leapfrogs business as usual. They observe the world, realize potential and fund and build engines of change — and forward-thinking, optimistic entrepreneurs and investors are starting to do this with government technology….(More)”