[wdmmg-discuss] Does anyone have any thoughts for this post on open data?

[K Corrick]

Quick update:

I've got touch with Dan McQuillan and meeting him next Monday for tea :-)

Kathryn


____________________________
Kathryn Corrick - Digital Media Consultant

Mobile: 07901 914190
Skype: kathryncorrick
Web/blog: www.kathryncorrick.co.uk
Email: kathryn.corrick at gmail.com
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/kcorrick
Twitter: www.twitter.com/kcorrick



On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:54 PM, K Corrick
<kathryn.corrick at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Cool.
> Thanks Dan, thanks Francis. Really helpful. I'm also getting my head around
> the issues so this is just good for me too. This technocratic argument is
> one that I can see becoming wider, and it's a tempting one to hold to in
> this area, as it has an air of intellectual rigour about it. However, I can
> also see that potentially what Dan is saying is that there needs to be
> people who bridge the gap between the raw messy data and helping people to
> understand, interpret, use and create tools that make it useful, as well as
> the areas that Rufus, Dan and Francis have highlighted, which is clearly
> what WDMMG is doing.
>
> I've invited Dan McQuillan to the Hacks and Hackers event that Rufus and
> Becky are speaking at for the Online News Association on 13 July
> http://onajulymeetup.eventbrite.com/ (all welcome), as I know him quite
> well.
>
> Meanwhile... and separately, I've got meetings with Tim Bradshaw at the FT
> and Emma Mulqueeny set up for the next few weeks, and will be setting others
> up too. Any thoughts most welcome. Will also send separate update with links
> of where I'm at.
>
> Kathryn
> ____________________________
>
> Kathryn Corrick - Digital Media Consultant
>
> Mobile: 07901 914190
> Skype: kathryncorrick
> Web/blog: www.kathryncorrick.co.uk
> Email: kathryn.corrick at gmail.com
> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/kcorrick
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/kcorrick
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri at danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM, K Corrick
>> <kathryn.corrick at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > This article by Dan McQuillan:
>> >
>> > Open data doesn't empower communities
>> >
>> > http://www.internetartizans.co.uk/open_data_does_not_empower
>> > "Open data doesn't empower communities. I'm not saying open data is a
>> bad
>> > thing, but we need to highlight the gap between the semantic web and
>> social
>> > impact. Otherwise we'll continue to get swept along on a tide of
>> > technocratic enthusiasm where hope lies in 'a flood of data to create a
>> > data-literate citizenry'...."
>> > Its currently getting a lot of attention on Twitter and some interesting
>> > feeback. I was just wondering if anyone from the WDMMG team like to post
>> a
>> > comment to give our take on what he's saying?
>>
>> It has some affinity with Lessig's more detailed "against
>> transparency" (
>> http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/10/12/lessigs-against-transparency-a-walkthrough/
>> http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0
>> )
>>
>> The post strikes me as a recycled-in-radical-dress version of the
>> technocrat objection to openness, ie. that the masses couldn't really
>> understand this stuff anyway, and that any attempt to make bulky raw
>> data accessible necessarily introduces perspective and distortion, so
>> better to leave such things in the hands of professionals.
>>
>> The simplest answer is modesty, to note that open data (of all
>> flavours, not just govt) is only part of the path towards helping
>> people understand the world around them. Some understanding will come
>> from raw facts, more may come from eg. video and documentary
>> materials. In RDF terms, triples are a means to an end not an end in
>> themselves.
>>
>> If visualisations of the raw data can be embedded in eg. blogs and
>> wikis, and those who disagree about their proper interpretation given
>> mechanisms to air those disagreements in some structured form, to me
>> it still feels like progress...
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openspending/attachments/20100621/c2b87641/attachment.html>