That said, I don't believe any of those definitions are at odds. You
could build a very serviceable and accepted definition from those.
Even looking at documentaries such as Us Now which seeks to document
the phenomenon, there's no absolute definition. All the elements
combine to make a cohesive, working and happy whole.
I'd be tempted to lean away from the Wikipedia definition, which I
have been resisting jumping in and editing for some time. I think it
fails to adequately address the cultural shift at the heart of the
matter around all things "2.0".
Actually, I might just go into the Wikipedia chat page for the entry
and make that point...
Conversation. Collaboration. Community.
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
Nice. No doubt there will be a flame war at some point and accusations
of Nazism. But not amongst this group, I think.
I don't know which department you might work with.
You're right about the attitudes, but they appear, based on
experience, to largely be at middle management. These are hurdles to
be overcome, not reasons to give up.
It's also important to acknowledge that there are a significant number
of projects, and whole-of-government policy guidance, already in
place, that encourage the kinds of activities and efforts we might
label as Government 2.0. It's important that we're aware of these
projects and the documents and make those with whom we work in
government aware of them.
Just looking at the documents, the following all give guidance and
framework advice and encourage engagement in open government:
- APSC Circular 8/2008 on online engagement for APS staff -
- APSC report on governance and accountaibility (liked elsewhere on this list)
- Gershon report
- AGIMO Online Consultation Guidelines -
- AGIMO e-Government Strategy 2006 -
- AGIMO Access and Distribution Strategy 2006 -
So, there's more than adequate high level advice available. While
these documents might reflect APS advice, many parts of them are
applicable or adaptable to state and local levels.
There's also a significant push from a number of Ministers and other
parliamentarians for increased openness. I think this will land
heavily on agency desks much sooner than many would imagine.
I spent last week at a conference (and keynoting one day) organised by
the NZ public sector on opeing government. There's a lot of traction
there and in my experience it's reflected here.
I think you'll see that evidenced by the number I imagine will attend
the one day Government 2.0 Camp/Public Sphere that's to happen in
My point is that returning constantly to the "but there's resistance"
argument is futile. It's a guaranteed loss. I you can't raise
awareness and win friends at that level start both lower and higher in
the food chain - with politicians and with the doers. It does seem to
As I've said many times before, "the technology" is the last 10 per
cent of the problem. It exists *only* to make the recording of
activity (of any sort) sustainable.
Without the tech, the sustainability suffers. And, in a few cases, the
tech is the catalyst for activity and change. But only where latent
I think the tech component shouldn't be the focus. But it is an
important factor. Think 3x5 index cards. If we could pass and store
the info on 3x5 index cards (ignoring the available space), then the
change is helped by tech, but not about tech.
Andrew is right (and I don't always agree with him, indeed, I often
don't), if we focus on the tech, we do ourselves a huge disservice and
potentially turn away many who might otherwise show interest.
Think Open Government rather than Government 2.0. The 2.0 moniker has
done massive damage to many things 2.0.
I look to Andy McAfee's E2.0 definition, which uses tech, but makes
the point it's not about tech.
Not at all.
All of them are topics centered on greater openness and underpinned by
technology as the sustaining factor.
I don't think any of us are actually disagreeing. I think we just have
Both US efforts, and both specifically looking for non-US input.