Suvodeep Mazumdar, Stuart Wrigley and Fabio Ciravegna in Remote Sense: “The impact of Crowdsourcing and citizen science activities on academia, businesses, governance and society has been enormous. This is more prevalent today with citizens and communities collaborating with organizations, businesses and authorities to contribute in a variety of manners, starting from mere data providers to being key stakeholders in various decision-making processes. The “Crowdsourcing for observations from Satellites” project is a recently concluded study supported by demonstration projects funded by European Space Agency (ESA). The objective of the project was to investigate the different facets of how crowdsourcing and citizen science impact upon the validation, use and enhancement of Observations from Satellites (OS) products and services. This paper presents our findings in a stakeholder analysis activity involving participants who are experts in crowdsourcing, citizen science for Earth Observations. The activity identified three critical areas that needs attention by the community as well as provides suggestions to potentially help in addressing some of the challenges identified….(More)”.
The Open Data Movement: Young Activists between Data Disclosure and Digital Reputation
Davide Arcidiacono and Giuseppe Reale in PArtecipazione e COnflitto: “Young citizens show an increasing interest for direct democracy tools and for the building of a new relationship with public administration through the use of digital platforms. The Open Data issue is part of this transformation. The paper analyzes the Open Data issue from the perspective of a spontaneous and informal group of digital activists with the aim of promoting data disclosure. The study is focused mainly on the case of a specific local movement, named Open Data Sicilia (ODS), combining traditional ethnographic observation with an ethnographic approach. The aim of the study is to detect the social profile of the Open Data movement activists, understanding how is it organized their network, what are the common purposes and solidarity models embodied by this type of movement, what are the resources mobilized and their strategies between on-line and off-line. The ODS case appears interesting for its evolution, its strategy and organizational structure: an elitist and technocratic movement that aspires to a broad constituency. It is an expressive or a reformist movement, rather than an anti-system actor, with features that are similar to a lobby. The case study also shows all the typical characteristics of digital activism, with its fluid boundaries between ethical inspiration of civic engagement and individual interests….(More)”
Using GitHub in Government: A Look at a New Collaboration Platform
Justin Longo at the Center for Policy Informatics: “…I became interested in the potential for using GitHub to facilitate collaboration on text documents. This was largely inspired by the 2012 TED Talk by Clay Shirky where he argued that open source programmers could teach us something about how to do open governance:
Somebody put up a tool during the copyright debate last year in the Senate, saying, “It’s strange that Hollywood has more access to Canadian legislators than Canadian citizens do. Why don’t we use GitHub to show them what a citizen-developed bill might look like?” …
For this research, we undertook a census of Canadian government and public servant accounts on GitHub and surveyed those users, supplemented by interviews with key government technology leaders.
This research has now been published in the journal Canadian Public Administration. (If you don’t have access to the full document through the publisher, you can also find it here).
Despite the growing enthusiasm for GitHub (mostly from those familiar with open source software development), and the general rhetoric in favour of collaboration, we suspected that getting GitHub used in public sector organizations for text collaboration might be an uphill battle – not least of which because of the steep learning curve involved in using GitHub, and its inflexibility when being used to edit text.
The history of computer-supported collaborative work platforms is littered with really cool interfaces that failed to appeal to users. The experience to date with GitHub in Canadian governments reflects this, as far as our research shows.
We found few government agencies having an active presence on GitHub compared to social media presence in general. And while federal departments and public servants on GitHub are rare, provincial, territorial, First Nations and local governments are even rarer.
For individual accounts held by public servants, most were found in the federal government at higher rates than those found in broader society (see Mapping Collaborative Software). Within this small community, the distribution of contributions per user follows the classic long-tail distribution with a small number of contributors responsible for most of the work, a larger number of contributors doing very little on average, and many users contributing nothing.
GitHub is still resisted by all but the most technically savvy. With a peculiar terminology and work model that presupposes a familiarity with command line computer operations and the language of software coding, using GitHub presents many barriers to the novice user. But while it is tempting to dismiss GitHub, as it currently exists, as ill-suited as a collaboration tool to support document writing, it holds potential as a useful platform for facilitating collaboration in the public sector.
As an example, to help understand how GitHub might be used within governments for collaboration on text documents, we discuss a briefing note document flow in the paper (see the paper for a description of this lovely graphic).
A few other finding are addressed in the paper, from why public servants may choose not to collaborate even though they believe it’s the right thing to do, to an interesting story about what propelled the use of GitHub in the government of Canada in the first place….(More)”
Empirical data on the privacy paradox
Benjamin Wittes and Emma Kohse at Brookings: “The contemporary debate about the effects of new technology on individual privacy centers on the idea that privacy is an eroding value. The erosion is ongoing and takes place because of the government and big corporations that collect data on us all: In the consumer space, technology and the companies that create it erode privacy, as consumers trade away their solitude either unknowingly or in exchange for convenience and efficiency.
On January 13, we released a Brookings paper that challenges this idea. Entitled, “The Privacy Paradox II: Measuring the Privacy Benefits of Privacy Threats,” we try to measure the extent to which this focus ignores the significant privacy benefits of the technologies that concern privacy advocates. And we conclude that quantifiable effects in consumer behavior strongly support the reality of these benefits.
In 2015, one of us, writing with Jodie Liu, laid out the basic idea last year in a paper published by Brookings called “The Privacy Paradox: the Privacy Benefits of Privacy Threats.” (The title, incidentally, became the name of Lawfare’s privacy-oriented subsidiary page.) Individuals, we argued, might be more concerned with keeping private information from specific people—friends, neighbors, parents, or even store clerks—than from large, remote corporations, and they might actively prefer to give information remote corporations by way of shielding it from those immediately around them. By failing to associate this concern with the concept of privacy, academic and public debates tends to ignore countervailing privacy benefits associated with privacy threats, and thereby keeps score in a way biased toward the threats side of the ledger.To cite a few examples, an individual may choose to use a Kindle e-reader to read Fifty Shades of Grey precisely because she values the privacy benefit of hiding her book choice from the eyes of people on the bus or the store clerk at the book store, rather than for reasons of mere convenience. This privacy benefit, for many consumers, can outweigh the privacy concern presented by Amazon’s data mining. At the very least, the privacy benefits of the Kindle should enter into the discussion.
To cite a few examples, an individual may choose to use a Kindle e-reader to read Fifty Shades of Grey precisely because she values the privacy benefit of hiding her book choice from the eyes of people on the bus or the store clerk at the book store, rather than for reasons of mere convenience. This privacy benefit, for many consumers, can outweigh the privacy concern presented by Amazon’s data mining. At the very least, the privacy benefits of the Kindle should enter into the discussion.
In this paper, we tried to begin the task for measuring the effect and reasoning that supported the thesis in the “Privacy Paradox” using Google Surveys, an online survey tool….(More)”.
Fighting Ebola with information
Larissa Fast and Adele Waugaman at Global Innovation Exchange: What can be learned from the use of data, information, and digital technologies, such as mobile-based systems and internet connectivity, during the Ebola outbreak response in West Africa? What worked, what didn’t, and how can we apply these lessons to improve data and information flows in the future? This report details key findings and recommendations about the collection, management, analysis, and use of paper-based and digital data and information, drawing upon the insights of more than 130 individuals and organizations who worked tirelessly to end the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014 and 2015….(More)”
Governing with Collective Intelligence
Tom Saunders and Geoff Mulgan at Nesta: “This paper provides an introduction to collective intelligence in government. It aims to be useful and relevant to governments of countries at very different levels of development. It highlights the ways in which governments are better understanding the world around them, drawing on ideas and expertise from their citizens, and encouraging greater scrutiny of their actions.
Collective intelligence is a new term to describe something which is in some respects old, but in other respects changing dramatically thanks to advances in digital technologies. It refers to the ability of large groups – a community, region, city or nation – to think and act intelligently in a way that amounts to more than the sum of their parts.
Key findings
Our analysis of government use of collective intelligence initiatives around the world finds that activities fall into four broad categories:
1. Better understanding facts and experiences: using new digital tools to gather data from many more sources.
2. Better development of options and ideas: tapping into the collective brainpower of citizens to come up with better ideas and options for action.
3. Better, more inclusive decision-making: involving citizens in decision making, from policymaking to planning and budgeting.
4. Better oversight of what is done: encouraging broader involvement in the oversight of government activity, from monitoring corruption to scrutinising budgets, helping to increase accountability and transparency….(More)”
Data Collaboratives as a New Frontier of Cross-Sector Partnerships in the Age of Open Data: Taxonomy Development
Paper by Iryna Susha, Marijn Janssen and Stefaan Verhulst: “Data collaboratives present a new form of cross-sector and public-private partnership to leverage (often corporate) data for addressing a societal challenge. They can be seen as the latest attempt to make data accessible to solve public problems. Although an increasing number of initiatives can be found, there is hardly any analysis of these emerging practices. This paper seeks to develop a taxonomy of forms of data collaboratives. The taxonomy consists of six dimensions related to data sharing and eight dimensions related to data use. Our analysis shows that data collaboratives exist in a variety of models. The taxonomy can help organizations to find a suitable form when shaping their efforts to create public value from corporate and other data. The use of data is not only dependent on the organizational arrangement, but also on aspects like the type of policy problem, incentives for use, and the expected outcome of data collaborative….(More)”
Open or Closed? Open Licensing of Real-Time Public Sector Transit Data
Teresa Scassa and Alexandra Diebel in Journal of e-Democracy: “This paper explores how real-time data are made available as “open data” using municipal transit data as a case study. Many transit authorities in North America and elsewhere have installed technology to gather GPS data in real-time from transit vehicles. These data are in high demand in app developer communities because of their use in communicating predicted, rather than scheduled, transit vehicle arrival times. While many municipalities have chosen to treat real-time GPS data as “open data,” the particular nature of real-time GPS data requires a different mode of access for developers than what is needed for static data files. This, in turn, has created a conflict between the “openness” of the underlying data and the sometimes restrictive terms of use which govern access to the real-time data through transit authority Application Program Interfaces (APIs). This paper explores the implications of these terms of use and considers whether real-time data require a separate standard for openness. While the focus is on the transit data context, the lessons from this area will have broader implications, particularly for open real-time data in the emerging smart cities environment….(More)”
Big Data and the Paradox of Diversity
Bernhard Rieder at Digital Culture & Society: “This paper develops a critique of Big Data and associated analytical techniques by focusing not on errors – skewed or imperfect datasets, false positives, underrepresentation, and so forth – but on data mining that works. After a quick framing of these practices as interested readings of reality, I address the question of how data analytics and, in particular, machine learning reveal and operate on the structured and unequal character of contemporary societies, installing “economic morality” (Allen 2012) as the central guiding principle. Rather than critiquing the methods behind Big Data, I inquire into the way these methods make the many differences in decentred, non-traditional societies knowable and, as a consequence, ready for profitable distinction and decision-making. The objective, in short, is to add to our understanding of the “profound ideological role at the intersection of sociality, research, and commerce” (van Dijck 2014: 201) the collection and analysis of large quantities of multifarious data have come to play. Such an understanding needs to embed Big Data in a larger, more fundamental critique of the societal context it operates in….(More)”.
Why We Misjudge the Nudge
Paper by Adam Hill: “Critics frequently argue that nudges are more covert, less transparent, and more difficult to monitor than traditional regulatory tools. Edward Glaeser, for example, argues that “[p]ublic monitoring of soft paternalism is much more difficult than public monitoring of hard paternalism.” As one of the leading proponents of soft paternalism, Cass Sunstein, acknowledges, while “[m]andates and commands are highly visible,” soft paternalism, “and some nudges in particular[,] may be invisible.” In response to this challenge, proponents of nudging argue that invisibility for any given individual in a particular choice environment is compatible with “careful public scrutiny” of the nudge. This paper offers first of its kind experimental evidence that tests whether nudges are, in fact, compatible with careful public scrutiny. Using two sets of experiments, the paper argues that, even when made visible, nudges attract less scrutiny than their “hard law” counterparts….(More)”