[wdmmg-discuss] Open Misinformation and the Illusion of Transparency

[Jonathan Gray]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:51 PM, William Waites <ww at styx.org> wrote:
> Friedrich, I am not suggesting a conspiracy. But I am suggesting a
> tendency on the government's public information department to put as
> positive a spin on things as possible and a tendency on OKF's part
> and to some extent the "open data movement" generally to be
> surprisingly uncritical of government data intended to promote
> transparency.

I think that generally when we receive some data in OpenSpending.org -
we could start to blog more about, e.g.:

  * our impressions of the data,
  * questions about the data,
  * analysis of the data quality,
  * comments on the data,
  * suggestions for how the data could be improved,
  * requests for further information about the data.

I think this would be an extremely useful exercise - and really
interesting to compile this sort of information and to link to it on
CKAN and elsewhere. This would also (crucially!) help to encourage
more people to look at and understand the data, and the processes
involved in working with it. I.e. building literacy around some of our
most important information assets.

Something else which you flag up, which I think too many of us take
for granted, is that "data does not fall out of the sky". It is not
some perfect reflection of a neat, ordered world. It is often complex,
ugly, messy and difficult to understand and interpret. It reflects the
complexity of the official institutions and processes by which it was
produced. Classifications change, data may be patchy, bits may be
missing, bits may be weird. Public bodies often can't say "data should
be like this", throw money at it and make it so. Public bodies often
know the quality of their data is sub-optimal. Changing practises
around the production of official information is a massive
undertaking.

Ultimately we want to create better data literacy so that more people
can derive some kind of value from this data, and to encourage more
institutions to implement measures which will gradually increase the
quality of their data. I definitely consider it part of the OKF's
mission to create more conversations around important datasets. I
think we have made a good start at starting more conversations around
financial data in the UK that have led to, and hopefully will continue
to lead to change. But this is still just a start and there is lots
more to be done!

Finally - I think the "raw data now" thing means that we ask for data
*despite* the fact that it is often imperfect. I.e. we'd rather have
more access to more data sooner, warts and all, rather than wait for
the data quality to be improved before it is released (e.g. through
expensive consultants and IT projects). On the "raw data now" front,
the UK government have been doing reasonably well, I believe, but I am
not an expert and would be happy to be corrected.

I was definitely an optimist when I brought a one page proposal for
the 'Where Does My Money Go?' project to the OKF - as I thought the
data would all already be there and ready to go, so we could focus on
creating useful, intuitive interfaces to explore and analyse it to
*solve problems* and *help researchers, policy makers and NGOs to use
information on public spending*. Unfortunately this was simply not the
case, and we're still working to get access to the data we need, and
to get the data in a useful shape. To do this we need lots of pairs of
eyes to scrutinise data, and lots of pairs of hands to help fix it,
request improvements and write to more people saying what we need.


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, William Waites <ww at styx.org> wrote:
> At the risk of drawing accusations of engaging in conspiracy theories
> from Friedrich, I might wonder if the OKF, accepting a significant
> amount of money from the UK and other governments might be averse to
> criticism out of worry for their funding. Just a thought, there may or
> may not be anything to it. (and just to be extra clear, averse means
> discouraging and disapproving and not taking any positive action on
> that basis)

Just to be utterly clear on this point: the OKF is an independent
not-for-profit organisation, and we are absolutely not averse to
criticising any public body regardless of any professional or
financial relationship we may have with them. Personally speaking, if
I did not think this was true, I would not work with the OKF!


-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg