political technology landscape
John Wonderlich
Since this list is full of people with extensive technical experience, I'd like to start a discussion about those internet technologies. What technology, specifically, is helping us gain access to political information, and driving us toward web based participatory government?
When I think of these new tools, I think of collaborative community software, like scoop or mediawiki. I think of APIs decentralizing data presentation, and structured information formats like XML enabling automated data integration into other websites. Tools like yahoo pipes enable mashup creation. I wonder about open source software development, and the potential for integrating different technologies, like streaming video, speech to text, and database mashups.
Simple advances, like reliable web searches, or google groups (ahem...) are obviously having a big impact too.
I'm interested in hearing all of your thoughts on this. What technology will change the way in which we're civically aware? This conversation isn't new, but I think it will be a helpful one to have here, in the context of recommending a public tech update for the House.
What else am I missing? New intuitive programming languages? Greater coordination within the developer community? Better database management tools?
John
Jed Sundwall
I work for Eventful. We've built an open platform to store event data.
Basically, we have a long list of venues and performers. We match a
venue with a performer and associate a date/time with it and make an
event (although we allow for events with neither, e.g.
http://eventful.com/events/E0-001-003006127-4). Anyone can add a
venue, performer, or event.
We have a well-received API (api.eventful.com) that lets people take
data from us and do what they please with it.
We've met with Greg, Carl, Garet, and Conor from Sunlight and talked
about what we can do to help. I don't want to speak for the company,
but I have two personal goals related to Eventful's role in
encouraging transparency:
1) to provide comprehensive data (who/what/when/where) regarding
events where policies are discussed, debated and made
2) to encourage citizens to create their own events in order to
influence policies that affect them
Clearly the first goal applies to this project. I have more to say,
but I'll save that for another thread. For now, just know that we're
happy to help anyone involved in this project to use our platform to
open up the house!
Jed.
Silona Bonewald
Tantek from technorati and microformats isn't on the list - but I thought would be a great contributor...
Subject: Re: [openhouseproject] Re: political technology landscape
|
From: Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> |
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:05:10 -0800 |
To: <Sil...@silona.com>, <openhous...@googlegroups.com> |
Thanks for the note Silona.
The awesome thing about a publisher (like Sunlight for example) marking up
their calendar on their site with hCalendar, and then pinging Pingerati.net ,
is that Pingerati notifies a bunch of folks (companies etc.) who then parse
those events and index them... including Eventful!
So, markup your events with hCalendar, ping Pingerati, and Eventful gets
them. As well as Technorati. As well as anyone else that wants to index
them. You (the publisher) don't have to worry about any particular
publishing site, nor any particular site's API. You publish it yourself
with an open standard and let everyone else read it in that open standard.
Open data. Under control of the publisher. Hosted by the publisher.
Readable by any site, which can then also index, store, and provide API
access (like Eventful does) for retrieving and manipulating that indexed
data, by anyone that wants to.
This is the vision of the world we are building with microformats.
Thanks,
Tantek
On 3/7/07 3:01 PM, "Silona" <sil...@leagueoftechvoters.org> wrote:
> You are also familiar with hcal from microformats.org too?
>
> We are focusing on that standard and by adding a ping back to
> Technorati. Technorati then scrapes it making those events
> findable/searchable.
>
> There has been talk of a global calendar...
>
> Cheers,
> Silona
>
> Jed Sundwall wrote:
Clay Shirky
> technology will change the way in which we're civically aware?
> This conversation isn't new, but I think it will be a helpful one
> to have here, in the context of recommending a public tech update
> for the House.
From my point of view, the question of technological changes in
civic capabilities rest on three things:
1. More access to data
2. Better handling of metadata
3. Ridiculously easy group-forming
1. More access to data is the ur-change. As Robert Rubin said years
ago, the first order effects of the internet can be understood as a
positive supply-side shock to the cost of information. There are two
obvious effects of increased access -- the first is the possibility
of detection and correction. And as ESR said, "Many eyes make bugs
shallow" -- the more people who can see a piece of information, the
likelier its flaws are to be noticed early.
The second is increased fairness. Information is not power,
information asymmetry is power. If you know something important that
I don't, that's a very different situation than if we both know it.
Increased access to data at least potentially reduces the number of
situations where pure information asymmetries can be used to the
detriment of some citizens.
2. Better metadata, and better tools for handling metadata, are
having a huge effect. The ability to link different kinds of data
from different databases around their common elements -- money by
zip, bill by benificiary, whatever -- is of huge value, and most of
that value is still to be unlocked.
3. Better group forming. Better coordination of and among groups
means that not every organization has to try to do it all. The
leverage coming from groups that can assemble and collaborate more
easily is also huge
If you want to know what technologies are going to affect civic life,
look for things that improve access to or handling of data or
metadata, or make it easier for groups to form or work together. And
when you see a trifecta, like wikis, bet on those. Also, be on
simple: wikis are a decade old, mailing lists three. It took a looong
time for the social practices of adoption and use for those tools to
get worked out so that they were ready for the mainstream. This isn't
to say that whizzy new tools launched last week can't make a big
difference, it's just that they rarely do.
As for this, though,
> ...helping us gain access to political information, and driving us
> toward web based participatory government?
I am skeptical that the second is automatically derived from the
first. I doubt, in fact, that we will ever have participatory
government in the US, in part because it isn't practical, and in part
because participation is what our form of Government is designed to
defend itself against.
Every form of direct democracy ever known except one has had strong
upper limits on scale. The two broadest such systems -- Swiss
cantonal government, and New England town meetings -- have explicit
clauses noting that for polities above a certain size, whether towns
or counties, direct democracy has to be replaced with representative
government. The one counter-example is California, whose recall and
state proposition systems seem, to my eye, to validate the wisdom of
the Swiss and New England systems, as the California experience
privileges name recognition, hot button issues and big money in ways
that make the Senate look like the Athenian agora.
The framers of the Constitution contemplated a 'right of
instruction', the right of citizens to bind their representatives to
vote in certain ways, and that right did not make it into the Bill of
Rights. Increased scrutiny of Government is pretty clearly a net win,
but I don't think that participatory government is necessarily the
end point of that progression, not do I think that participatory
Government is an obviously desirable outcome, even in theory.
-clay
Judith Freeman
an interesting read and has a lot of good material to talk about
transparency and accountability and the opportunities.
The GQR memo is at:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_February_28_2007_Memo.pdf
They summarize it as follows:
"Voters’ frustration with the government’s lack of accountability
holds perils for both parties, but also opportunities for the party
that boldly advocates for change and accountability. Democrats must
seize the mantle of change and advance their agenda with a seriousness
of purpose in tackling government’s inefficiency and lack of
accountability.
In a new strategy memo, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Democracy Corps
analyze the depth and breadth of voter discontent with government,
while offering strategic insights to help meet this challenge head-on.
We hope you find this material helpful in your work."
You can also read the poll questionaire at:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_February_14-19_2007_Survey.pdf
And you can get on their mailing list to get emails about their
research at:
http://www.democracycorps.com/
Judith
Robert McElroy
"...helping us gain access to political information, and driving us
> > toward web based participatory government?
>
> I am skeptical that the second is automatically derived from the
> first. I doubt, in fact, that we will ever have participatory
> government in the US, in part because it isn't practical, and in part
> because participation is what our form of Government is designed to
> defend itself against."
For years many individuals and publications have been reporting on
Congress with little or no problem accessing information or at the
worst having to perform hours of routine functions to gather and
organize the data. Trade publications, newsletters, newspapers,
television, and national and international organizations have been
carrying the word to the voters and those with other interest in what
the US Congress does all day. Most of these publications and
individuals are now online.
Readers are drawn to one publication or another because they like the
way the data is presented or for other reasons. They trust it, believe
it or like hearing what they want to hear, etcetera. Clay has raised a
very salient point: Better access to 'political information' does not
necessarily lead to more participation in government. Parenthetically,
I think the original writer meant 'legislative information' but that
is relevant too: One of my readers is also a pundit. We discussed why
it seems that straightforward data is always trumped by scandal and
vitriolic exchange in the media market. Neither of us know why but it
is a reality. Another example is this: The earmarks in a 109th
Congress transportation bill (the one that included the 'bridge to
nowhere') were published on my site and were available publicly for
months before the bill came to the floor for debate. It was only then
that the press picked up on the 'bridge' and the whole process of
identifying and vilifying earmarks rose to a level of public
awareness. It would seem, then, that only a crisis causes Americans to
look up from other activities-work or distractions or both-and even
then it is probably a representative percentage who contact their
lawmakers.
You might get closer to the answer if you consider that what you are
doing here is relevant to those who require Web 2 enhancements for
their daily feed. That limits your audience and so the effectiveness
of your effort. However, If you reach out to existing efforts and try
to determine what you might do to relieve them of any burdens in
research you would be expanding your reach. Although it may not be
popular in this age of citizen journalism to do something to help the
traditional media, you might consider that if your goal is to expand
knowledge of Congress you should see what you can do to improve how
and how much data the traditional media needs to do a better job.
fedspending.org is a perfect example of a tool compatible to
commercial media, non-profit media and the average voter with a
question to ask about spending.
I would add or reiterate that Congress can be easily and thoroughly
researched and accurately reported on. What seems to be driving this
current reform effort is the revelation that some Members were doing
sneaky things. It's true and anyone who added a provision to a bill
after the committee signed off on it or even after passage should be
arrested. The 110th seems to have addressed that and other provisions.
Keep in mind too that while the public was outraged at its perception
of how little Congress worked, when they did work all night they were
accused of doing so to hide what they were doing. In reality they were
rushing to finish a job they should have done months earlier. Of
course if you are a reporter or a C-Span watcher you don't want to sit
and look at an empty gallery til the wee hours.
On Mar 9, 9:15 am, Clay Shirky <c...@shirky.com> wrote:
John Wonderlich
Readers are drawn to one publication or another because they like the
way the data is presented or for other reasons. They trust it, believe
it or like hearing what they want to hear, etcetera. Clay has raised a
very salient point: Better access to 'political information' does not
necessarily lead to more participation in government. Parenthetically,
I think the original writer meant 'legislative information' but that
is relevant too: One of my readers is also a pundit. We discussed why
it seems that straightforward data is always trumped by scandal and
vitriolic exchange in the media market. Neither of us know why but it
is a reality.
You're correct to assume that I meant 'legislative information' when I wrote 'political information'. I see information access and transparency as helping to make the political into the legislative--narrowing the gap between the two. Distributed and specialized analysis and discussion broaden the bandwidth through which politicians jostle for control of a media narrative and news cycles. I see television's inherent inability to provide broad issues based coverage as a large reason "that straightforward data is always trumped by scandal and vitriolic exchange in the media market."
Helping internet users access timely accurate legislative information should make politics easier for honest politicians, helping the electoral to be based on the legislative, rather than whatever it's based on now.
Although it may not be
popular in this age of citizen journalism to do something to help the
traditional media, you might consider that if your goal is to expand
knowledge of Congress you should see what you can do to improve how
and how much data the traditional media needs to do a better job.
fedspending.org is a perfect example of a tool compatible to
commercial media, non-profit media and the average voter with a
question to ask about spending.
Fedspending.org is an awesome tool. Do you have any other suggestions for improving data access for the traditional media?
I would add or reiterate that Congress can be easily and thoroughly
researched and accurately reported on. What seems to be driving this
current reform effort is the revelation that some Members were doing
sneaky things. It's true and anyone who added a provision to a bill
after the committee signed off on it or even after passage should be
arrested. The 110th seems to have addressed that and other provisions.
Keep in mind too that while the public was outraged at its perception
of how little Congress worked, when they did work all night they were
accused of doing so to hide what they were doing. In reality they were
rushing to finish a job they should have done months earlier. Of
course if you are a reporter or a C-Span watcher you don't want to sit
and look at an empty gallery til the wee hours.
I would speculate that the current drive toward transparency is being driven by the "sneakiness revelation" and also by the growth of political engagement online. Bloggers can't rely on their credibility when breaking a story, so the availability of primary source documents is what differentiates rumors from breaking stories. Online information is necessary for distributed citizen journalism/activism/awareness, especially when the participants aren't in DC.
I see government transparency as a moderating force in government. Secrecy promotes abuse, suspicion, and results in bitter partisanship, whereas free information promotes issues-based debate. Public sympathy for Representative's work should increase with an understanding of how their job is done.
>
> 1. More access to data is the ur-change. As Robert Rubin said years
> ago, the first order effects of the internet can be understood as a
> positive supply-side shock to the cost of information. There are two
> obvious effects of increased access -- the first is the possibility
> of detection and correction. And as ESR said, "Many eyes make bugs
> shallow" -- the more people who can see a piece of information, the
> likelier its flaws are to be noticed early.
>
Yep. The patent office is doing this now, I wonder what else could benefit from experimenting with distributed research?
>
> I am skeptical that the second is automatically derived from the
> first. I doubt, in fact, that we will ever have participatory
> government in the US, in part because it isn't practical, and in part
> because participation is what our form of Government is designed to
> defend itself against.
>
I didn't realize that "participatory democracy" was a synonym for "direct democracy", but I'm glad to have encountered that rebuttal. I meant something more vague. Something like: 1. open government encourages 2.specialized information exchange and creative engagement and participation encourages 3. awareness and increased participation.
John
David All
Those of you who have been following Click.tv may want to check out an
emerging video/audio-->text application which scans YouTube files and
then produces a text transcript. It is being developed for the U.S.
government to fight back against the growing use of the Internet by
terrorist organizations, but the commercial use is not far off.
I wrote a note about it on my blog:
http://www.davidallgroup.com/2007/03/13/terrorists-use-the-internet-to-fight-the-war-on-terror/
My conclusion:
The technology, though not perfect, is a strong step toward not only
helping provide better intelligence to our Armed Forces in the Global
War on Terror, but could also prove a valuable and helpful application
to improving democracy by giving citizens better access to C-SPAN
clips.
For example, each day there are hours and hours of Congressional
hearings, floor speeches, etc. If we were able to search that content,
we would have greater access to a wealth of helpful information and
testimony for eternity.
I've already been impressed by the ability to scroll, scan, and tag
video through Click.tv. But adding the ability to search the video's
content without relying on the uploaders provided title and
description would be a great help. It is the next great evolution of
video.
Here's a link to the original story: http://www.beet.tv/2007/03/exclusive_defen.html
Steven Clift
What technology, specifically, is helping us gain access to political
information, and driving us toward web based participatory government?
What technology will change the way in which we're civically aware?
Some thoughts:
1. Timely and personalized online notification about and access to
political information when a citizen can meaningfully act on it is the
most cost-effective technology investment I've seen in "e-democracy."
This is what I tell governments I speak to anyway. You don't change
what is legally public, you simply make what is public radically
accessible through *dissemination.* More: http://dowire.org/wiki/E-Notification
2. When I think participation, I think about two-way communication.
While I want elected officials and governments to be more responsive
to direct electronic communication, the honest truth is that people
have more influence when they generate new public opinion online. I
saw this in E-Democracy.Org's MN-POLITICS e-mail forum way back in
1994 and even more so in our local forums - http://e-democracy.org/if
. Why do these spaces work? They have real voters within political
jurisdictions communicating in public. This freaks out many elected
officials because they can see it and they know the media does too.
Unfortunately, there are no unifying "public spaces" online tied to
Congressional districts where members might be talked about by a
critical mass of their voters from *across the political spectrum* -
despite their growing influence in election cycles partisan blog
spaces do not cut it for influence in governance within specific
Congressional districts.
3. It is time to explode changing/changeable legislative information
into little bits that say ... I'm new, I've changed, someone is trying
to change me, I disappeared, I'm powerful, I'm forgotten, I'm visited,
I'm commented on ... wanna see, I'm going to be voted on in X time,
I've been voted on ... here is how, I have history, here's my context,
etc. As the old school "e-democracy" guy I listened intently a few
years ago when Joi Ito spoke about "emergent democracy" at session
organized by O'Reilly. I thought, at least he didn't bring up slime
mold. Suddenly, it dawned on me ... we need legislative information
systems to "ping" when proposed laws are amended. In general, the more
we can explode the changing bits into events that show their life to
the "web 2.0" information ecology the most integrated Congressional
information will become in our participatory lives. I think this is
less about making government participatory than bringing government
into our participatory and highly interactive lives online.
In short, technology of, for, and by the people that pulls every bit
of the process into the dynamic web - "scraping" by where necessary to
get the bits into the best format without waiting for institutional
action while pushing politically for the hidden or selectively
accessible content (but legally public) to be online will help make us
and our elected officials more civically aware. I don't know if that
will help us make better decisions, but it certainly can't make things
much worse. :-) In fact, I just jolted myself by checking into my
articles - http://www.publicus.net/articles.html - archive - when I
wrote in 1993 (the very last link), "It seems more likely that
technology will advance within the walls of Congress and they will
structurally respond to technology and not use IT as a tool to force
reform." Reform comes from us.
Cheers,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
P.S. You might find some additional ideas for what governments can do
with "e-democracy" by checking out my 50MB slide collection on "Global
E-Democracy Trends" - http://publicus.net/speaker.html. I've given a
version of this speech in 26 countries ... although for some odd
reason I've rarely found any interest within DC or across my own home
country for that matter on just how far ahead many other countries are
with online participation in governance . To their credit, I must
confess to an engaging private session with House staff that had a
heavy emphasis on parliamentary examples a few years ago.