open data doesn't empower communities

[Morgen Peers]

anticipating ChangeCamp Ottawa, July 17th

sorry to be the one who 'queers' the open data narrative... read on for explanation of my use of explicative... i may or may have not used the term correctly...

http://www.internetartizans.co.uk/open_data_does_not_empower

excerpt from article:

So either we dump data for narrative, or we 'queer' the data in the full knowledge of its limitations. I'm inspired in that by the counter-cartographies collective (3Cs) who say in their report from a Chicago community mapping workshop: 

"One big point of discussion was how to deal with the embedded biopolitics behind data sources like US Census data that we use in our maps — as 3Cs, we often talk about how we ‘queer’ data or statistics by pulling map stories out of them that they weren’t intended for. But data sources often come so tightly bound up with state politics, white supremacist racial policies, definitions of family structure, etc., that queering them might require more conscious work than we always put in".

...

Still wondering, how will open data improve, sustain, and save lives? Perhaps the need parameters of the poor and disenfranchised offer the most exciting and complex design challenges? In fact, are these folks not the most system-dependent, and if the data we derive is system-based, then the poor as client-centrality-user-node represent a complete collapsing-upon of all public data necessary for their navigation, edification, dare i say, social salvation? with the rapid availability of directions, instructions, codes, laws, perhaps timing (i.e. speed of an app) is not the design challenge it once was. maybe narrative enters back in, from spin to form. The poor as client-centrality-user-node can for design's sake be assumed as ignorant, and if that's too hard to swallow, ingest newcomer from East Africa. Without knowledge of the systems, their attempt to 'go downtown' or 'to the office place' perhaps needn't be executed so quickly. Seems in there, there's room for storytelling, to insert the codes, and laws, mores, and local quirks that make any of this viable, and indeed politically relevant, or edifying, as it might were.

"Ignorance coheres Open Data"

Morgen

[David Janes]

The author of the article has exactly the same attitude that one particular TO city hall-type had on launch day last year: a fear that Joe Nobody might draw their own conclusions without the help of a benevolent professional curating and interpreting the data. Knowledge that a school district is awful or a neighborhood has an unusually high crime rate is best kept in the hands of the disinterested few, otherwise people might actually start wondering why it is so and maybe even take an unwise action, like moving, or putting their kids in a different school, or locking their doors [1]. And only the rich and the bourgeoisie own computers anyway.

I can't help think that OpenData "is what it is". If "saving lives" is the metric, one can always volunteer somewhere or take a St. John Ambulance course.

[1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1998/07/03/doe980703e.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChangeCamp Canada" group.
To post to this group, send email to chang...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to changecamp+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/changecamp?hl=en.

[Michael Allan]

I agree with David. The author critiques open data for the reason
that something more is needed. If something more is needed, then he
ought to focus on *that*. Otherwise, his argument collapses into
self-critique.

--
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/