Incorrect data; way to contribute?
65 views
Skip to first unread message
Liam
Jan 17, 2019, 2:45:04 PM1/17/19
to Google Civic Information API
We've been noticing some incorrect data. (For example, Tony Evers is correctly listed as the new Governor of Wisconsin, but he's also still listed as the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which is now Carolyn Taylor who isn't listed.)
I reported this through the feedback form, but we'd be more than happy to help fix such errors. I've seen posts from a few years ago that there wasn't a way to do so, but has that changed? I think it would really improve the flexibility and long-term accuracy of the API.
Robert Baskin
Jan 17, 2019, 3:10:33 PM1/17/19
to Google Civic Information API
Hi Liam,
Thanks for flagging this error.
Please fill out this form with the details of your error whenever you get a moment and we will look to get this fixed asap.
Please fill out this form with the details of your error whenever you get a moment and we will look to get this fixed asap.
Tks again!
J. Albert Bowden
Jan 17, 2019, 3:35:32 PM1/17/19
to google-civ...@googlegroups.com
Was Liam's message even read?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Civic Information API" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-civicinfo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Robert Baskin
Jan 17, 2019, 10:33:57 PM1/17/19
to Google Civic Information API
Apologies Albert - I replied off of Liam's original post (which might have been deleted/edited) before seeing his follow up.
We have received the error and will be looking into it soonest.
We have received the error and will be looking into it soonest.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-civicinfo-api+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
J. Albert Bowden
Jan 19, 2019, 1:53:15 PM1/19/19
to google-civ...@googlegroups.com
i was responding to the offer to help.
feels like many in here are open and up to the challenge of helping maintain this.
also feels like no one has any insight to what is happening because everything is cloaked away behind this forum.
super irony here as a civic api for elections is the opposite of open and transparent.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-civicinfo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Civic Information API" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-civicinfo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Robert Baskin
Jan 24, 2019, 3:27:12 PM1/24/19
to Google Civic Information API
Hi Albert,
Thank you for the note and for the willingness to help. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept contributions outside of our established data partners -- given the need for freshness and accuracy, a data partnership is our preferred solution. For now we would like to continue to use the error reporting trix with a renewed focus on ensuring reported errors/coverage gaps/etc are updated in the API in a more timely manner.
Thank you for the note and for the willingness to help. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept contributions outside of our established data partners -- given the need for freshness and accuracy, a data partnership is our preferred solution. For now we would like to continue to use the error reporting trix with a renewed focus on ensuring reported errors/coverage gaps/etc are updated in the API in a more timely manner.
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Liam wrote:
J. Albert Bowden
Jan 24, 2019, 7:04:17 PM1/24/19
to google-civ...@googlegroups.com
"Unfortunately, we are not able to accept contributions outside of our established data partners -- given the need for freshness and accuracy, a data partnership is our preferred solution."
you aren't able to accept contributions or your preference is not to allow them?
the preferred solution in place, that focuses on freshness and accuracy, seems to have a lot of issues around freshness and accuracy.
i have no idea who your data partners are. i assume you mean the voting information project, states, democracy works, etc.
i must say again, for a civic group, focused on an integral part of the democracy machine, the lack of transparency here is shocking.
furthermore, this structure is limiting the possibilities of the api; nothing can be built reliably with an unstable api.
this is evident from this forum's historical context, where the vast majority of the commentary is "X is broken", and "is x still broken?", and "we are fixing x".
instead of "look at what i built over the weekend", and "oh, i can do what i want on top of that!".
your data partners, the voting information project, use github. their code is open source and they use issues for tracking, which makes rolling this api in-house a deliberate and direct decision.:
on their site, they specifically advertise that "VIP only incorporates public, non-personally identifiable information, and delivers voting information based solely on address and no other information."
if there are no concerns around privacy data, then how/why you wouldn't be open to allowing contributions is quite baffling.
i'm not asking for anything extraordinary here. these are very basic, cut and dry questions.
these are very basic truths that i expect to see as the default in civic/open projects. whereas in this case i see the exact opposite.
it's not even very clear that you read these messages entirely.
in your latest response, you thank me for my note and my willingness to help, and yet fail to mention liam's questions, which started this whole conversation.
which itself was a response to me wondering if you even read liam's response in the first place, which was the whole reasoning behind any of this thread.
--
Chris Moschini
Jan 25, 2019, 12:33:53 AM1/25/19
to google-civ...@googlegroups.com
Well, to defend the Googlers here, it's a free project. There are pay for data sources that are a little better, like Ballotpedia is I think $1500/yr. But in short it might be really difficult to build a better free one. Crowd sourcing is the obvious solution to make it free but you've still got servers to pay for and software to maintain, and it's politics so there's a lot of value in manipulating that kind of crowd sourced data to say the wrong thing.
But if you do build a better free one please inform the list...
J. Albert Bowden
Jan 25, 2019, 8:58:19 AM1/25/19
to google-civ...@googlegroups.com
we should not be paying for anything; this data is already being collected and provided by state/local governments.
its about as free as it is open source.
in order to use it, you need https, which costs. yes, we should upgrade anyways. its still an annual fee that did not exist prior to upgrading to get api access.
you have to accept the default google api license.
you have to use google's tools aka the surveillance machine.
what's that saying everyone uses? if you don't pay for it, you are the product.
being able to see who is using/accessing this data, as well as controlling their access, is an incredibly powerful position of privilege.
naming one of the very many conflicts of interest at play here, google outspent every other company lobbying dc in 2017.
pivoting away from conflicts of interests, there are still entirely too many hands in the pie. or rather, google maps was free at one point too.
"but if you do build a better one please inform the list..."
it's really odd that you felt the need to defend one of the most powerful companies in the world, but even more odd that in the end, you agree this situation is less than ideal and are open to another solution.
i'm not asking anything extraordinary here. i'm not breaking any code of conduct rules.
these are legitimate questions.
this is an incredibly important api.
i wouldn't have to ask these questions, we wouldn't all be searching for any other option, if we were getting minimal, transparent support.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:33 AM Chris Moschini <ch...@brass9.com> wrote:
Well, to defend the Googlers here, it's a free project. There are pay for data sources that are a little better, like Ballotpedia is I think $1500/yr. But in short it might be really difficult to build a better free one. Crowd sourcing is the obvious solution to make it free but you've still got servers to pay for and software to maintain, and it's politics so there's a lot of value in manipulating that kind of crowd sourced data to say the wrong thing.But if you do build a better free one please inform the list...
--
Liam McCarty
Jan 29, 2019, 3:41:06 PM1/29/19
to Google Civic Information API
Just wanted to jump in here and offer a "bipartisan" proposal:
I see both sides here.
Data accuracy is obviously desirable, and open source can never guarantee that. But I also agree with J. Albert that allowing for contributions would really help. And to his point, there seem to be plenty of us willing to contribute.
What about a partially open source approach, where we can all submit contributions that are then verified by Google or the data partners? I think that could improve both accuracy and coverage while keeping delays relatively short.
For our part, we're going to make corrections internally anyway, since we want our own platform to have as few errors as possible. We honestly wish we could just share these corrections with others and benefit from their corrections. It'd be a win for everyone.
My two cents at least. Apologies for starting a heated debate!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages