My somewhat off the cuff comments/reflections on the recent OKCon(ference), the annual event of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) seems to have caused a bit of a stir among certain of the more senior members of the latter group. The result has been a series of comments on my original blog post and now a blogpost on a separate blog by Peter Murray-Rust an OKF Board Member, taking considerable issue with my comments.
Since the discussion now has moved down to #29 or so in the breadcrumb trail of comments and responses it’s probably worthwhile to reprise and refocus the discussion a bit and hence this new blogpost taking off from the end point of the latter discussion thread.
To start, as I said in a parallel discussion concerning the original post: “It is a measure I think, of the success of a blogpost if it elicits comments which exceed the original in passion, knowledge and intelligence and this one I think, succeeded in spades.”
So where are we… First let me state FWIW as clearly as possible my own position—I am strongly in favour of “openness” both in the somewhat trivial sense of an “open everything” meme where not being “open” is equated with supporting the darkside AND in the rather more thoughtful and constructive definition given to the term by the OKF on their website “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.”
A wee bit of biography might be relevant here. I’ve spent much of the last 15 years or so working in and around what has come to be known as Community Informatics (CI)—the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) to enable and empower communities. There are several thousand people world wide who would in some way consider themselves as working within that overall discipline/strategy/approach. There is an open access open archive peer reviewed journal (which I edit), a wiki, several elists, conferences, several blogs (including this one), even university courses etc.etc. I mention this because CI to some extent grew up in the broad context of local, technical, policy, advocacy based responses to the Digital Divide (DD)—broadly understood as the divide between those who have access to ICTs and those do not.
CI however, added a key component to the mix which was that while “access” to ICTs were a “necessary” condition for over-coming the DD, access alone was “insufficient” to make available (and operational) the range of opportunities for economic and social advance on the broadest possible basis of which ICTs are capable and which have so massively transformed (and enabled, enriched and empowered) business and governments. Hence the need for additional steps and interventions/supports to transform “access” into the opportunity for what I call “effective use“.
I see a direct parallel between the issues that I and my colleagues (and many many other people) have been addressing over the last 15 years or so in the context of the DD and what I am now seeing with respect to the Open Data and related movements.
I most certainly am not against Open Data/Open Government (OD/OG) in the same way as I am not (and as has been the focus of my work for much of the last 15 years) against the broadest possible distribution of access to the Internet and all of the associated ICT tools. However, I do see Open Data as defined above as not being sufficient to effect the positive changes in government, science, democracy itself as is being indicated as the overall goal of the OD/OG movement.
In some ways the argument here is even clearer than it was concerning the efforts to overcome the DD. Egon Willighagen commenting on Peter Murray-Rusk response to my blogpost writes:
Open Data is *not* about how to present (governmental) data in a human readable way to the general public to take advantage of (though I understand why he got that idea), but Open Data is about making this technically and legally *possible*. He did not get that point, unfortunately.
To respond to Egon (and Peter), I did understand that very well about “Open Data”; and it is precisely that of which I am being critical. I am arguing that “Open Data” as presented in this way is sufficient only (as argued in the original post) to provide additional resources to the Sheriff of Nottingham rather than to Robin Hood.
“Open Data” as articulated above by Willighagen has the form of a private club—open “technically” (and “legally”) to all to join but whose membership requires a degree of education, ressources, technical skill such as to put it out of the reach of any but a very select group.
Allison Powell in her thoughtful comments on my blogpost talks (in the context of “Open Hardware”) about those who are in a position through pre-existing conditions of wealth, technical knowledge and power to “appropriate” the outcome of “(hardware) Openness” for their own private corporate purposes.
Parminder Jeet Singh in his own comments contrasts Open Data with Public Data—a terminology and conceptual shift with which I am coming to agree—where Public Data is data which is not only “open” but also is designed and structured so as to be usable by the broad “public” (“the people”).
Originally in the context of the Digital Divide I articulated notions around what I called “effective use” that is the factors that need to be in place for “access” to be translated into “use” by those at the grassroots level. In an earlier blogpost I transferred these concepts and updated them into an “Open Data/Open Knowledge” context and I would modestly suggest that it is through the implementation of a strategy incorporating “effective (data) use” that the full measure and value of Open Data/Open Knowledge can be achieved and the parallel dangers of a very damaging and socially divisive “Data Divide” avoided.
Robin Rice
July 6, 2011
Thanks for showing me this blog update, Mike. I appreciate the attempt to update the Digital Divide discourse with open data and vice versa. Two concepts worth some kind of blend. As an invited speaker you were no doubt a ‘foreigner’ at the conference (which I did not attend, but have done) and therefore your first impressions are valuable, though I’m not sure that excuses you from not looking up the open definition before blogging about the lack of definition. 😉
I see from your tags you may be from Canada; there’s an inspirational (by audience accounts) video of a keynote speech at last month’s IASSIST 2011 conference by Andrea Reimer – Councillor, City of Vancouver
Open Data in Vancouver: The Inspiration and the Vision
which may be of interest to yourself and your readers.
Michael Gurstein
July 6, 2011
Thanks for this Robin, I’ll follow up…
Mike
Robin Rice
July 6, 2011
Forgot to add the URL to the inspiring Vancouver talk – you have to wait for 2 people to introduce first. http://www.rdl.sfu.ca/IASSIST/index.php/Program/category/plenary_iii/
jwyg
July 6, 2011
For what its worth I (and many others at the OKF) *fully* agree that the legal/technical openness of information is not *in itself* sufficient for value to be derived from this information.
There are all kinds of other factors and ingredients involved here. For example, access and ability to use ICTs, basic data literacy (which often even the most technically literate computer users may not possess), prerequisite contextual knowledge to interpret official documents and datasets (e.g. when the UK government released fine grained spending information, several journalists published articles saying it was ‘secrecy via transparency’ as the data was so hard to make sense of), etc.
The process of deriving value from information is not straightforward – and I don’t think there are any easy answers. I also don’t think that responsibility for catalysing/supporting the process of deriving value from information lies solely with the ‘open data movement’. It probably lies with society (e.g. media, NGOs, you and me) and with the state (e.g. via the education system, state funded data literacy initiatives, etc). But I do think that making sure we all have realistic expectations about what open data does and doesn’t do, and who is in a position to benefit from it, and what we have to do to enable more people to benefit from it, is probably a Good Thing. Hence my inviting Michael to OKCon 2011 to kick off discussions – which he seems to have succeeded in doing – both offline at the conference, and online here! 🙂
For several years I’ve wanted to write an article called something like “Open Data is not a Panacea”. I discussed this more recently with Rufus Pollock. Perhaps now we have a good excuse to do that!
Michael Gurstein
July 6, 2011
Excellent Jonathan! Thanks again for the invitation and for your wise contribution here with which I completely agree in both spirit and detail. I hope that my comments do contribute to further discussion within OKF and to what I guess we both agree is a desirable evolution in its role and understanding of its mandate.
I’ll look forward to seeing your article (we might even publish it in the Journal of Community Informatics :-)) and thanks again for including me into what was a very stimulating and provocative occasion and good fellowship.
Mike
timgdavies
July 7, 2011
Hey Jonathan,
A good comment. The article you suggest sounds really key: how from the perspective of advocating for open data, open information and open knowledge can a community be sensitive about the space between rhetoric and reality, and balance pushing against systems/cultures that are clearly wrong, with recognising that creating new systems/cultures involves more than the push-back. Would be happy to contribute/collaborate if at all useful…
Tim
Egon Willighagen
July 7, 2011
Michael, thanx for your elaborate response.
I think “Open” – “Necessary” but not “Sufficient” is a fairly good summary.
But, when you write:
““Open Data” as articulated above by Willighagen has the form of a private club—open “technically” (and “legally”) to all to join but whose membership requires a degree of education, ressources, technical skill such as to put it out of the reach of any but a very select group.”
I do like to point out that this is part of the story only. These requirements are practically driven, because many of us do not have enough resources to do everything. Really, Open Data is very much outside of what academics get payed for. I love to make Open Data as easy to use, and in fact, this is the whole scope of the Bioclipse project I work on (e.g. check Figure 4 of [0] where we remove a lot of technicalities, though I would not dare to claim this is optimal yet). It is not that these nerds do not want to; it’s much more like the are only humans and need sleep too.
In fact, the Open Data community is working very much with others to make all that data easy to access, by anyone. So, I think it is good that some focus on the technical stuff that are capable, and leave the GUI, data extraction and visualization to those capable in that area. That’s just how mankind has specialized.
Michael Gurstein
July 22, 2011
(Apologies, a belated response–your message got caught in the blogger spam filter?!
Thanks for your reply Egon and yes, I understand that there are only so many hours in the day. However, I think it would be useful (and that is the ultimate point of my post) if those most active in the “Open” Movement were to acknowledge the need for attention to be paid to the user issues. The issue I was pointing to was that this seemed to be more or less completely ignored with the result being that where applicable the default position was to be more rather than less exclusive and that in many cases this exclusivity was a matter of inattention or unawareness rather than a lack of resources.
Michael Gurstein
July 7, 2011
PETER MURRAY-RUST, A BOARD MEMBER OF THE OPEN KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION HAS REPLIED (ON HIS BLOG http://bit.ly/rhgldR ) TO MY MOST RECENT BLOGPOST. I WILL TAKE THE LIBERTY OF REPLYING TO HIS COMMENTS AND COPYING MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS, HIS REPLIES AND MY REPLIES TO HIM AS BELOW.
Clearly Michael and I are not communicating and I will have to leave it there. He has clearly got a group of people who understand him and I hope they will also try to understand my position. I will respond to specific points
MG: YES, I DON’T THINK WE ARE COMMUNICATING AND I TOO WILL CLOSE HERE AFTER I COMMENT ON PETER’S COMMENTS.
Posted on July 6, 2011 by Michael Gurstein
>>My somewhat off the cuff comments/reflections on the recent OKCon(ference), the annual event of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) seems to have caused a bit of a stir among certain of the more senior members of tpost where he latter group. The result has been a series of comments on my original blog post and now a blogpost on a separate blog by Peter Murray-Rust an OKF Board Member, taking considerable issue with my comments.
PM-R: If you make a post which is effectively a blanket critcism of a wide and varied community you can expect that issue is taken. I have replied in unemotional terms outlining what a number of us in the OKF do and why your comments do not relate to these activities.
MG: I DON’T THINK THAT MY REFLECTIONS WERE A “BLANKET CRITICISM” OF THE OPEN KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY, THEY CERTAINLY WEREN’T MEANT AS SUCH AND WHILE PROBABLY NOT A FULLY PAID UP MEMBER OF THAT COMMUNITY I WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER MYSELF A SYMPATHETIC BUT NOT UNCRITICAL, FELLOW TRAVELER.
THE FIRST LINES IN THE BLOGPOST OF MINE IN WHICH I FIRST ADDRESS THESE BROAD ISSUES STATES “I’m personally a very strong supporter of “Open Access” (OA) . I feel that information should be freely accessible and particularly information that has been produced with public funding” http://wp.me/pJQl5-1
>>>To start, as I said in a parallel discussion concerning the original post: “It is a measure I think, of the success of a blogpost if it elicits comments which exceed the original in passion, knowledge and intelligence and this one I think, succeeded in spades.”
PM-R: I do not regard a blanket criticism, couched in picturesque but not useful terms, as a success activity (other than it has prompted me and others to restate the purposes and orientations of the OKF.
MG: AS I SAID I DON’T BELIEVE MY COMMENTS WERE A “BLANKET CRITICISM”. OF THE 30 OR SO COMMENTS ON THE ORIGINAL BLOGPOST (INCLUDING SEVERAL OTHERS WHO WERE AT OKCon 2011) ONLY YOURS AND YOUR FELLOW OKF BOARD MEMBER JORDAN HATCHER TOOK THEM AS SUCH. AS YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTED MOST OTHER COMMENTS AGREED WITH MY OVERALL COMMENTS, SOME QUITE ENTHUSIASTICALLY (AND DARE I SAY QUITE CONSTRUCTIVELY…
…
>>>I see a direct parallel between the issues that I and my colleagues (and many many other people) have been addressing over the last 15 years or so in the context of the DD and what I am now seeing with respect to the Open Data and related movements.
PM-R: I accept that you campaign for access to the Internet and that access alone is not sufficient.
>>>I most certainly am not against Open Data/Open Government (OD/OG) in the same way as I am not (and as has been the focus of my work for much of the last 15 years) against the broadest possible distribution of access to the Internet and all of the associated ICT tools. However, I do see Open Data as defined above as not being sufficient to effect the positive changes in government, science, democracy itself as is being indicated as the overall goal of the OD/OG movement.
PM-R: I do not really understand what you and your community’s main message(s) are. You appear to have substituted “Open Data” for “Internet” in your philosophy and concluded that Open Data is not enough. If so your argument is fallacious.
>>>To respond to Egon (and Peter), I did understand that very well about “Open Data”; and it is precisely that of which I am being critical. I am arguing that “Open Data” as presented in this way is sufficient only (as argued in the original post) to provide additional resources to the Sheriff of Nottingham rather than to Robin Hood.
PM-R: I do not understand how you could have spent 2 days with OKCon and got the impression of Open Data as a holy cow. We are the Open Knowledge Foundation. In academia I am campaigning for Open Scholarship – a many faceted process of which Open Data is only one part.
MG: I DON’T THINK I SUGGESTED THAT OPEN DATA WAS A “HOLY COW”, I DID HOWEVER COMMENT AS I DID MANY MANY YEARS AGO AS AN MIS CONSULTANT THAT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ACTUAL AND ANTICIPATED USER WAS CRUCIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF ANY PROJECT IN DIGITAL DESIGN. IN THAT I SEE NO DIFFERENCE WITH OPEN DATA DESIGN. AND AGAIN I WOULD BE (AND HAVE BEEN) A STRONG (BUT NOT UNCRITICAL) COLLABORATOR ON ANY AND EVERY CAMPAIGN FOR OPEN SCHOLARSHIP.
>>>“Open Data” as articulated above by Willighagen has the form of a private club—open “technically” (and “legally”) to all to join but whose membership requires a degree of education, ressources, technical skill such as to put it out of the reach of any but a very select group.
PM-R: I cannot understand this at all. There are people on the planet who cannot write or read, but that does not mean that reading and writing should be abandoned until everyone is literate.
MG: AND HERE IS THE NUB OF OUR LACK OF COMMUNICATION. I NEITHER SAID NOR MEANT (NOR CAN I SEE HOW YOU EXTRAPOLATED THIS FROM WHAT I DID SAY) THAT BECAUSE OPEN DATA WAS NOT CURRENTLY USABLE BY ALL THAT THE ACTIVITY IN SUPPORT OF OPEN DATA SHOULD BE CURTAILED. RATHER I SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE–THAT THE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE EXTENDED SO THAT THOSE FOR WHOM THE USE OF OPEN DATA IS CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE MAY (AT LEAST IN PART) BE PROVIDED FOR THROUGH A VARIETY OF IDENTIFIABLE MEASURES WHICH WOULD ASSIST THE BROADEST POSSIBLE PUBLIC IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT DATA/INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE. (I DON’T WANT TO ABOLISH THE CLUB, I WANT TO MAKE IT SUCH THAT ALL WHO WISH TO CAN BE MEMBERS.)
>>>Allison Powell in her thoughtful comments on my blogpost talks (in the context of “Open Hardware”) about those who are in a position through pre-existing conditions of wealth, technical knowledge and power to “appropriate” the outcome of “(hardware) Openness” for their own private corporate purposes.
>>>Parminder Jeet Singh in his own comments contrasts Open Data with Public Data—a terminology and conceptual shift with which I am coming to agree—where Public Data is data which is not only “open” but also is designed and structured so as to be usable by the broad “public” (“the people”).
PM-R: I do not know where you got the impreesion that the OKF creates some ivory tower repository of information. The OKF is deeply committed to getting data/knowledge to as many on the planet as possible. Yes, the Internet is often and prerequisite but that is the reality of the world.
MG: I’M DELIGHTED TO HEAR THIS AND I’M SURE THAT ON THIS BASIS WAYS CAN BE FOUND TO COLLABORATE IN DESIGNING MEASURES FOR getting data/knowledge to as many on the planet as possible HOPEFULLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL ELMENT OF INCLUDING MEASURES TO MAKE THE DATA/KNOWLEDGE USEFUL AND USABLE BY AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
>>>Originally in the context of the Digital Divide I articulated notions around what I called “effective use” that is the factors that need to be in place for “access” to be translated into “use” by those at the grassroots level. In an earlier blogpost I transferred these concepts and updated them into an “Open Data/Open Knowledge” context and I would modestly suggest that it is through the implementation of a strategy incorporating “effective (data) use” that the full measure and value of Open Data/Open Knowledge can be achieved.
PM-R: The OKF is already doing this – it writes software that anyone with access to the Internet can use trivially. It sounds as if your community is concerned with creating specific labels which may or may not be valuaable.
MG: TO PUT THIS AS GENTLY AS POSSIBLE “software that anyone with access to the Internet can use trivially” MAY FOR MANY (THOSE LACKING COMPUTERS, ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO USE EVEN “TRIVIALLY” COMPLICATED SOFTWARE AND SO ON) BE AN IMMEDIATELY AND NON-TRIVIAL INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER. BUT THEY TOO HAVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL, MAKE USE OF MEDICAL CARE. PAY TAXES AND SO ON AND THEY TOO MIGHT BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO USE THE DATA CURRENTLY BEING MADE OPEN, OFTEN THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
THE CHALLENGE, AND IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT SOLELY (OR PERHAPS EVEN LARGELY) THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OPEN DATA MOVEMENT, IS TO ENSURE THAT THE DATA IS USABLE BY THIS BROADER GROUP. AND INSOFAR AS THE OPEN DATA MOVEMENT/OKF HAS A ROLE AND INFLUENCE IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS I THINK THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO RECOGNIZE THESE NEEDS FOR THE BROADEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR USE, AND TO, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, RESPOND TO THEM.
PM-R: I reiterate that much of our work is nothing to do with the digital divide. You appear to suggesst that “opening data” is dangerous because someone might control and misuse. It’s far worse if it all remains closed. Would you rather that the genome race had been won by a commercial company which now controlled access to research and dictated what could and could not be done? Opening the genome does not make misappropropriation and control easier, it acts in large (but not sufficient) part to prevent it.
MG: I DID NOT SUGGEST THAT OPEN DATA HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AS SUCH. NOR, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A SOMEWHAT IRRESPONSIBLE MISATTRIBUTION, DID I ANYWHERE SAY OR IMPLY that “opening data” is dangerous because someone might control and misuse AS I’M SURE YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE READ ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT MY POSITION IS THAT OPENING DATA IS NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF MEASURES TO ENSURE ITS WIDEST POSSIBLE AVAILABILITY AND USABILITY, MISUSE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY INEVITABLE AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF OPEN DATA/OPEN KNOWLEDGE WHICH ARE ACHIEVABLE ARE NOT FULLY REALIZED.
PM-R: I shall not make criticisms of your community as I do not understand what you are trying to do and do not see its relevance. But if the OKF and ipso facto I are attacked, we defend ourselves.
RATHER THAN TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST FRIENDLY, IF PERHAPS AWKWARDLY EXPRESSED COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS (AND YES COLLEGIAL CRITICISMS) IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO FIND WAYS OF MAKING COMMON CAUSE IN SUPPORT OF THAT WIDE AREA OF COMMON GOALS IN THE AREA OF ACCESS TO AND USE OF OPEN DATA/INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE WHERE THE BARRIERS (AND ENEMIES) ARE MANY AND THE COMMITTED ALLIES FEW.
David G.
July 9, 2011
Michael, you are fighting the good fight here, and it’s a hard battle to take on. My diagnosis is that people who become deeply attached to memes (not specifically directed to PM-R in the quotations above, whom i don’t know from adam)–especially very simple ones like the word “open”–have typically invested very little in the interrogation of the terms out of which the memes are constructed. “Open” is a wonderful word. It sounds so good. Who could argue with it? Out of context, that sounds good. But (1) get into the guts of real Constitutional law, political practice, corporate practice, and so on, and in my opinion, “open” stops being a useful regulative ideal (i am specifically mentioning Kant). It doesn’t describe with enough detail. “build this in an open way” or don’t. i have been in many production contexts in which “open” stuff is advocated wtih so much force and with so little specific justifictiaon that it’s almost like deliberately staged propaganda. “open above all.” in corporations this often conflicts with “profit above all” for obvious and non-obvious reasons, and programmers who keep saying “open” often don’t hold their positions for long. Overall, it isn’t enough to hang your hat on and it can be used by any side for justification.
(2) its service as a default response to the request for “real” political engagement is deeply troubling. When I say that I see the same people who used to care about politics (meaning smart people in their 20s) now having hairtrigger responses that mention “open source” I get very worried.
the conversation i’ve had many times, typically with a gr***** st**** who has not published a book or perhaps anything at all, goes:
enthusiast: “you’ve pointed out many destructive things computers do in the world and many ways that their overall deployment debilitates parts of society. but what about open source?”
me: “what specific social problems are you saying open source addresses?”
enthusiast: “well, but, you point at destruction…”
me: “i didn’t say open source was destructive. you said it counters my argument that computers have destructive effects. which ones, and how?”
enthusiast: [reddening stare]
i see blood in their eyes, and i can hear the sacred cows mooing, but i can’t say much, can i? not that i’ll get the job anyway. you can hear the post-interview discussion: “crazy! he says computers do so many bad things, but he has nothing to say about open source!”
my last words on “open government”: show me one and we’ll talk about it.