These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Karen Yourish et al: “As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.

In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.

The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.

All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration…(More)”

How to Win a War Against Reality

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Review by Abby Smith Rumsey: “How does a democracy work if its citizens do not have a shared sense of reality? Not very well. A country whose people cannot agree on where they stand now will not agree on where they are going. This is where Americans find themselves in 2025, and they did not arrive at this juncture yesterday. The deep divisions that exist have grown over the decades, dating at least to the end of the Cold War in 1991, and are now metastasizing at an alarming rate. These divisions have many causes, from climate change to COVID-19, unchecked migration to growing wealth inequality, and other factors. People who live with chronic division and uncertainty are vulnerable. It may not take much to get them to sign on to a politics of certainty…

Take the United States. By this fractured logic, Make America Great Again (MAGA) means that America once was great, is no longer, but can be restored to its prelapsarian state, when whites sat firmly at the top of the ethnic hierarchy that constitutes the United States. Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy and self-identified liberal, is deeply troubled that many liberal democracies across the globe are morphing into illiberal democracies before our very eyes. In “Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future,” he argues that all authoritarian regimes know the value of a unified, if largely mythologized, view of past, present, and future. He wrote his book to warn us that we in the United States are on the cusp of becoming an authoritarian nation or, in Stanley’s account, fascist. By explaining “the mechanisms by which democracy is attacked, the ways myths and lies are used to justify actions such as wars, and scapegoating of groups, we can defend against these attacks, and even reverse the tide.”…

The fabrication of the past is also the subject of Steve Benen’s book “Ministry of Truth. Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.” Benen, a producer on the Rachel Maddow Show, keeps his eye tightly focused on the past decade, still fresh in the minds of readers. His account tracks closely how the Republican Party conducted “a war on the recent past.” He attempts an anatomy of a very unsettling phenomenon: the success of a gaslighting campaign Trump and his supporters perpetrated against the American public and even against fellow Republicans who are not MAGA enough for Trump…(More)”

Artificial intelligence for digital citizen participation: Design principles for a collective intelligence architecture

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Nicolas Bono Rossello, Anthony Simonofski, and Annick Castiaux: “The challenges posed by digital citizen participation and the amount of data generated by Digital Participation Platforms (DPPs) create an ideal context for the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions. However, current AI solutions in DPPs focus mainly on technical challenges, often neglecting their social impact and not fully exploiting AI’s potential to empower citizens. The goal of this paper is thus to investigate how to design digital participation platforms that integrate technical AI solutions while considering the social context in which they are implemented. Using Collective Intelligence as kernel theory, and through a literature review and a focus group, we generate design principles for the development of a socio-technically aware AI architecture. These principles are then validated by experts from the field of AI and citizen participation. The principles suggest optimizing the alignment of AI solutions with project goals, ensuring their structured integration across multiple levels, enhancing transparency, monitoring AI-driven impacts, dynamically allocating AI actions, empowering users, and balancing cognitive disparities. These principles provide a theoretical basis for future AI-driven artifacts, and theories in digital citizen participation…(More)”.

Research Handbook on Open Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Handbook edited by Edited by Mila Gascó-Hernandez, Aryamala Prasad , J. Ramon Gil-Garcia , and Theresa A. Pardo: “In the past decade, open government has received renewed attention. It has increasingly been acknowledged globally as necessary to enhance democratic governance by building on the pillars of transparency, participation, and collaboration (Gil-Garcia et al., 2020). Transnational multistakeholder initiatives, such as the Open Government Partnership, have fostered the development of open government by raising awareness about the concept and encouraging reforms in member countries. In this respect, many countries at the local, state, and federal levels have implemented open government initiatives in different policy domains and government functions, such as procurement, policing, education, and public budgeting. More recently, the emergence of digital technologies to facilitate innovative and collaborative approaches to open government is setting these new efforts apart from previous ones, designed to strengthen information access and transparency. Building a new shared understanding of open government, how various contexts shape the perceptions of open government by different stakeholders, and the ways in which digital technologies can advance open government is important for both research and practice…

the Handbook is structured into five sections, each dedicated to highlighting important facets of open government. Part I delves into the historical evolution of open government, setting the stage for the rest of the Handbook. In Part II, the Handbook presents research on the core components of open government, offering invaluable insights on transparency, participation, and collaboration. Part III focuses on the application of open government across diverse policy domains. Shifting focus, Part IV discusses open government implementation within different geographical and national contexts. Finally, Part V introduces emerging trends in open government research. As a whole, the Handbook offers a comprehensive view of open government, from its origins to its contemporary progress and future trends…(More)”.

Announcing the Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse: An Innovative Methodology for the Future of Data-Driven Services

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Elena Murray, Moiz Shaikh, and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Young people seeking essential services — whether mental health support, education, or government benefits — often face a critical challenge: they are asked to share their data without having a say in how it is used or for what purpose. While the responsible use of data can help tailor services to better meet their needs and ensure that vulnerable populations are not overlooked, a lack of trust in data collection and usage can have the opposite effect.

When young people feel uncertain or uneasy about how their data is being handled, they may adopt privacy-protective behaviors — choosing not to seek services at all or withholding critical information out of fear of misuse. This risks deepening existing inequalities rather than addressing them.

To build trust, those designing and delivering services must engage young people meaningfully in shaping data practices. Understanding their concerns, expectations, and values is key to aligning data use with their preferences. But how can this be done effectively?

This question was at the heart of a year-long global collaboration through the NextGenData project, which brought together partners worldwide to explore solutions. Today, we are releasing a key deliverable of that project: The Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse:

Based on a methodology developed and piloted during the NextGenData project, the Toolkit describes an innovative methodology for engaging young people on responsible data reuse practices, to improve services that matter to them…(More)”.

Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Margaret Talbot: “If you have spent time on Wikipedia—and especially if you’ve delved at all into the online encyclopedia’s inner workings—you will know that it is, in almost every aspect, the inverse of Trumpism. That’s not a statement about its politics. The thousands of volunteer editors who write, edit, and fact-check the site manage to adhere remarkably well, over all, to one of its core values: the neutral point of view. Like many of Wikipedia’s s principles and procedures, the neutral point of view is the subject of a practical but sophisticated epistemological essay posted on Wikipedia. Among other things, the essay explains, N.P.O.V. means not stating opinions as facts, and also, just as important, not stating facts as opinions. (So, for example, the third sentence of the entry titled “Climate change” states, with no equivocation, that “the current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.”)…So maybe it should come as no surprise that Elon Musk has lately taken time from his busy schedule of dismantling the federal government, along with many of its sources of reliable information, to attack Wikipedia. On January 21st, after the site updated its page on Musk to include a reference to the much-debated stiff-armed salute he made at a Trump inaugural event, he posted on X that “since legacy media propaganda is considered a ‘valid’ source by Wikipedia, it naturally simply becomes an extension of legacy media propaganda!” He urged people not to donate to the site: “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!” It’s worth taking a look at how the incident is described on Musk’s page, quite far down, and judging for yourself. What I see is a paragraph that first describes the physical gesture (“Musk thumped his right hand over his heart, fingers spread wide, and then extended his right arm out, emphatically, at an upward angle, palm down and fingers together”), goes on to say that “some” viewed it as a Nazi or a Roman salute, then quotes Musk disparaging those claims as “politicized,” while noting that he did not explicitly deny them. (There is also now a separate Wikipedia article, “Elon Musk salute controversy,” that goes into detail about the full range of reactions.)

This is not the first time Musk has gone after the site. In December, he posted on X, “Stop donating to Wokepedia.” And that wasn’t even his first bad Wikipedia pun. “I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia,” he wrote, in an October, 2023, post. It seemed to be an ego thing at first. Musk objected to being described on his page as an “early investor” in Tesla, rather than as a founder, which is how he prefers to be identified, and seemed frustrated that he couldn’t just buy the site. But lately Musk’s beef has merged with a general conviction on the right that Wikipedia—which, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source that relies on original reporting and research done by other media and scholars—is biased against conservatives.

The Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind the Project 2025 policy blueprint, has plans to unmask Wikipedia editors who maintain their privacy using pseudonyms (these usernames are displayed in the article history but don’t necessarily make it easy to identify the people behind them) and whose contributions on Israel it deems antisemitic…(More)”.

Citizen participation and technology: lessons from the fields of deliberative democracy and science and technology studies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Julian “Iñaki” Goñi: “Calls for democratising technology are pervasive in current technological discourse. Indeed, participating publics have been mobilised as a core normative aspiration in Science and Technology Studies (STS), driven by a critical examination of “expertise”. In a sense, democratic deliberation became the answer to the question of responsible technological governance, and science and technology communication. On the other hand, calls for technifying democracy are ever more pervasive in deliberative democracy’s discourse. Many new digital tools (“civic technologies”) are shaping democratic practice while navigating a complex political economy. Moreover, Natural Language Processing and AI are providing novel alternatives for systematising large-scale participation, automated moderation and setting up participation. In a sense, emerging digital technologies became the answer to the question of how to augment collective intelligence and reconnect deliberation to mass politics. In this paper, I explore the mutual shaping of (deliberative) democracy and technology (studies), highlighting that without careful consideration, both disciplines risk being reduced to superficial symbols in discourses inclined towards quick solutionism. This analysis highlights the current disconnect between Deliberative Democracy and STS, exploring the potential benefits of fostering closer links between the two fields. Drawing on STS insights, the paper argues that deliberative democracy could be enriched by a deeper engagement with the material aspects of democratic processes, the evolving nature of civic technologies through use, and a more critical approach to expertise. It also suggests that STS scholars would benefit from engaging more closely with democratic theory, which could enhance their analysis of public participation, bridge the gap between descriptive richness and normative relevance, and offer a more nuanced understanding of the inner functioning of political systems and politics in contemporary democracies…(More)”.

Legitimacy: Working hypotheses

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by TIAL: “Today more than ever, legitimacy is a vital resource for institutions seeking to lead and sustain impactful change. Yet, it can be elusive.

What does it truly mean for an institution to be legitimate? This publication delves into legitimacy as both a practical asset and a dynamic process, offering institutional entrepreneurs the tools to understand, build, and sustain it over time.

Legitimacy is not a static quality, nor is it purely theoretical. Instead, it’s grounded in the beliefs of those who interact with or are governed by an institution. These beliefs shape whether people view an institution’s authority as rightful and worth supporting. Drawing from social science research and real-world insights, this publication provides a framework to help institutional entrepreneurs address one of the most important challenges of institutional design: ensuring their legitimacy is sufficient to achieve their goals.

The paper emphasizes that legitimacy is relational and contextual. Institutions gain it through three primary sources: outcomes (delivering results), fairness (ensuring just processes), and correct procedures (following accepted norms). However, the need for legitimacy varies depending on the institution’s size, scope, and mission. For example, a body requiring elite approval may need less legitimacy than one relying on mass public trust.

Legitimacy is also dynamic—it ebbs and flows in response to external factors like competition, crises, and shifting societal narratives. Institutional entrepreneurs must anticipate these changes and actively manage their strategies for maintaining legitimacy. This publication highlights actionable steps for doing so, from framing mandates strategically to fostering public trust through transparency and communication.

By treating legitimacy as a resource that evolves over time, institutional entrepreneurs can ensure their institutions remain relevant, trusted, and effective in addressing pressing societal challenges.

Key takeaways

  • Legitimacy is the belief by an audience that an institution’s authority is rightful.
  • Institutions build legitimacy through outcomes, fairness, and correct procedures.
  • The need for legitimacy depends on an institution’s scope and mission.
  • Legitimacy is dynamic and shaped by external factors like crises and competition.
  • A portfolio approach to legitimacy—balancing outcomes, fairness, and procedure—is more resilient.
  • Institutional entrepreneurs must actively manage perceptions and adapt to changing contexts.
  • This publication offers practical frameworks to help institutional entrepreneurs build and sustain legitimacy…(More)”.

China wants tech companies to monetize data, but few are buying in

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lizzi C. Lee: “Chinese firms generate staggering amounts of data daily, from ride-hailing trips to online shopping transactions. A recent policy allowed Chinese companies to record data as assets on their balance sheets, the first such regulation in the world, paving the way for data to be traded in a marketplace and boost company valuations. 

But uptake has been slow. When China Unicom, one of the world’s largest mobile operators, reported its earnings recently, eagle-eyed accountants spotted that the company had listed 204 million yuan ($28 million) in data assets on its balance sheet. The state-owned operator was the first Chinese tech giant to take advantage of the Ministry of Finance’s new corporate data policy, which permits companies to classify data as inventory or intangible assets. 

“No other country is trying to do this on a national level. It could drive global standards of data management and accounting,” Ran Guo, an affiliated researcher at the Asia Society Policy Institute specializing in data governance in China, told Rest of World. 

In 2023 alone, China generated 32.85 zettabytes — more than 27% of the global total, according to a government survey. To put that in perspective, storing this volume on standard 1-terabyte hard drives would require more than 32 billion units….Tech companies that are data-rich are well-positioned tobenefit from logging data as assets to turn the formalized assets into tradable commodities, said Guo. But companies must first invest in secure storage and show that the data is legally obtained in order to meet strict government rules on data security. 

“This can be costly and complex,” he said. “Not all data qualifies as an asset, and companies must meet stringent requirements.” 

Even China Unicom, a state-owned enterprise, is likely complying with the new policy due to political pressure rather than economic incentive, said Guo, who conducted field research in China last year on the government push for data resource development. The telecom operator did not respond to a request for comment. 

Private technology companies in China, meanwhile, tend to be protective of their data. A Chinese government statement in 2022 pushed private enterprises to “open up their data.” But smaller firms could lack the resources to meet the stringent data storage and consumer protection standards, experts and Chinese tech company employees told Rest of World...(More)”.

Redesigning Public Organizations: From “what” to “how

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by the Transition Collective: “Government organizations and their leaders are in a pinch. They are caught between pressures from politicians, citizens and increasingly complex external environments on the one hand — and from civil servants calling for new ways of working, thriving and belonging on the other hand. They have to enable meaningful, joined-up and efficient services for people, leveraging digital and physical resources, while building an attractive organizational culture. Indeed, the challenge is to build systems as human as the people they are intended to serve.

While this creates massive challenges for public sector organizations, this is also an opportunity to reimagine our institutions to meet the challenges of today and the future. To succeed, we must not only think about other models of organization — we also have to think of other ways of changing them.

Traditionally, we think of the organization as something static, a goal we arrive at or a fixed model we decide upon. If asked to describe their organization, most civil servants will point to an organigram — and more often than not it will consist of a number of boxes and lines, ordered in a hierarchy.

But in today’s world of complex challenges, accelerated frequency of change and dynamic interplay between the public sector and its surroundings, such a fixed model is less and less fit for the purposes it must fulfill. Not only does it not allow the collective intelligence and creativity of the organization’s members to be fully unleashed, it also does not allow for the speed and adaptability required by today’s turbulent environment. It does not allow for truly joined up, meaningful human services.

Unfreezing the organization

Rather than thinking mainly about models and forms, we should think of organizational design as an act or a series of actions. In other words, we should think about the organization not just as a what but also as a how: Less as a set of boxes describing a power hierarchy, and more as a set of living, organic roles and relationships. We need to thaw up our organizations from their frozen state — and keep them warmer and more fluid.

In this piece, we suggest that many efforts to reimagine public sector organizations have failed because the challenge of transforming an organization has been underestimated. We draw on concrete experiences from working with international and Danish public sector institutions, in particular in health and welfare services.

We propose a set of four approaches which, taken together, can support the work of redesigning organizations to be more ambitious, free, human, creative and self-managing — and thus better suited to meet the ever more complex challenges they are faced with…(More)”.