Posts
I've just read the latest speech by Annabel Crabbe on the changing face of the media and politics and thought it worth highlighting as, to my knowledge, it is the first serious piece by an Australian professional journalist in recognizing the changing face of journalism, politics and communication (including by government agencies).
Her views embody much of what I have believed over the last fifteen years and spoken personally about at conferences and in my blog over the last five years - the traditional view of journalism and politics is being washed away, being replaced with a far more equitable, if less controllable, environment.
Give Annabel's article a read at The Drum, An audience, an audience, my kingdom for an audience.
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The changing face of media, communications, politics and agency engagement | Tweet |
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The role of social media during the Arab Spring | Tweet |
John Sheridan posted a link on Twitter to a very interesting analysis of the impact of social media on the revolutions across the Arab world over the last year.
The paper provides strong evidence that social media was one of the key causes of these revolutions due to its ability to place a human face on political oppression and had a critical role in mobilising dissidents to organise protests, criticise their governments, and spread ideas about democracy.
The report claims that social media had a central role in shaping political debates, for example,
Governments that attempted to shut down the internet, or specific social media services, were clearly also of the view that these were key channels for public dissidence outside their direct control, unlike government-run or influenced newspapers, radio stations and television channels.
Finally, the paper demonstrates how social media was used to open up internal discussions to the world, helping spread democratic ideas across borders, providing global support networks for local dissidents and informing the media, which then fuelled awareness, interest, engagement and support for the Arab Spring through media reports.
The paper is an excellent read and quantifies a number of the effects of social media during the Arab Spring, which could be used by political 'dissidents' in other countries to help influence local debate.
Note that like all research, it is a little of a two-edged sword, as the paper could also be used by governments seeking to minimise debate to pre-empt online dissidence by establishing frameworks that can be extended to allow strict control of online discussion.
These frameworks include national firewalls, broad-based and readily expandable online censorship regimes, internet kill switches and approaches that place the control of national internet infrastructure into government-controlled monopolies.
Often justified as beneficial initiatives designed to protect people from international cyberattacks, online fraud or inappropriate online content (which they may also do), these frameworks, if implemented without appropriate legal and privacy checks and balances, can be repurposed to restrict citizen access and quash undesired public debate, exclude certain individuals or organisations from participating online or even identify specific troublemakers for incarceration or worse.
I have embedded the document below for easy reading, or it can be downloaded in PDF format here, Opening closed regimes.
The paper provides strong evidence that social media was one of the key causes of these revolutions due to its ability to place a human face on political oppression and had a critical role in mobilising dissidents to organise protests, criticise their governments, and spread ideas about democracy.
The report claims that social media had a central role in shaping political debates, for example,
Our evidence shows that social media was used heavily to conduct political conversations by a key demographic group in the revolution – young, urban, relatively well educated individuals, many of whom were women.
Both before and during the revolutions, these individuals used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to put pressure on their governments. In some cases, they used new technologies in creative ways such as in Tunisia where democracy advocates embarrassed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali by streaming video of his wife using a government jet to make expensive shopping trips to Europe.The report also provides evidence that online conversations about liberty, democracy and revolution on Twitter often immediately preceded large protests. This supports the use of social media as a civic organising tool.
Governments that attempted to shut down the internet, or specific social media services, were clearly also of the view that these were key channels for public dissidence outside their direct control, unlike government-run or influenced newspapers, radio stations and television channels.
Finally, the paper demonstrates how social media was used to open up internal discussions to the world, helping spread democratic ideas across borders, providing global support networks for local dissidents and informing the media, which then fuelled awareness, interest, engagement and support for the Arab Spring through media reports.
The paper is an excellent read and quantifies a number of the effects of social media during the Arab Spring, which could be used by political 'dissidents' in other countries to help influence local debate.
Note that like all research, it is a little of a two-edged sword, as the paper could also be used by governments seeking to minimise debate to pre-empt online dissidence by establishing frameworks that can be extended to allow strict control of online discussion.
These frameworks include national firewalls, broad-based and readily expandable online censorship regimes, internet kill switches and approaches that place the control of national internet infrastructure into government-controlled monopolies.
Often justified as beneficial initiatives designed to protect people from international cyberattacks, online fraud or inappropriate online content (which they may also do), these frameworks, if implemented without appropriate legal and privacy checks and balances, can be repurposed to restrict citizen access and quash undesired public debate, exclude certain individuals or organisations from participating online or even identify specific troublemakers for incarceration or worse.
I have embedded the document below for easy reading, or it can be downloaded in PDF format here, Opening closed regimes.
Opening closed regimes - What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Who controls what online? | Tweet |
In the run-up to the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, the organisers have developed an animated infographic showing the points of control within the digital economy.
It provides an interesting perspective on which major companies provide which services and collect various types of data.
Take a look over at the Web 2.0 Summit map (the movements view is very cool - click on the service icons above the menu).
Thanks @dasharp for bringing it to my attention.
It provides an interesting perspective on which major companies provide which services and collect various types of data.
Take a look over at the Web 2.0 Summit map (the movements view is very cool - click on the service icons above the menu).
Thanks @dasharp for bringing it to my attention.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
TedXCanberra 2011 liveblog | Tweet |
I'm at TEDxCanberra 2011 today liveblogging the event.
It is also being livestreamed via the website, tedxcanberra.org and can be followed on Twitter at the hashtag #TEDxCanberra.
What's TEDx? A global phenomenon that you can learn more about here.
It is also being livestreamed via the website, tedxcanberra.org and can be followed on Twitter at the hashtag #TEDxCanberra.
What's TEDx? A global phenomenon that you can learn more about here.
Friday, September 23, 2011
46 countries commit to the international Open Government Partnership | Tweet |
The Open Government Partnership is "a global effort to make governments better", led by Brazil and the USA.
The concept was announced a few months ago and countries have been rapidly signing up to the commitments required to demonstrate their willingness to take action to improve transparency and accountability in government.
As their website states,
The launch of the Partnership occurred a few days ago, on 20 September in New York. 46 countries signed up (about 24 percent of all countries), including about half of the G20, a number of Asia-Pacific nations and a number of European states.
Here's a list of the launch members:
Steering committee
Participants
The concept was announced a few months ago and countries have been rapidly signing up to the commitments required to demonstrate their willingness to take action to improve transparency and accountability in government.
As their website states,
Participating countries in the Open Government Partnership pledge to deliver country action plans that elaborate concrete commitments on open government. In each country, these commitments are developed through a multi-stakeholder process, with the active engagement of citizens and civil society.
The launch of the Partnership occurred a few days ago, on 20 September in New York. 46 countries signed up (about 24 percent of all countries), including about half of the G20, a number of Asia-Pacific nations and a number of European states.
Here's a list of the launch members:
Steering committee
- Brazil (G20)
- Indonesia (G20)
- Mexico (G20)
- Norway
- Philippines
- South Africa (G20)
- United Kingdom (G20)
- United States (G20)
Participants
- Albania
- Azerbaijan
- Bulgaria
- Canada (G20)
- Chile
- Colombia
- Croatia
- Czech Republic
- Dominican Republic
- El Salvador
- Estonia
- Georgia
- Ghana
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Israel
- Italy (G20)
- Jordan
- Kenya
- Korea (G20)
- Latvia
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Macedonia
- Malta
- Moldova
- Mongolia
- Montenegro
- Netherlands
- Peru
- Romania
- Slovak Republic
- Spain
- Sweden
- Tanzania
- Ukraine
- Uruguay
What are the top things we can do to improve government websites? | Tweet |
The US has launched an interesting discussion asking citizens how they think the Federal government can improve government websites.
Run using Ideascale, an online idea management system, the National Dialogue on improving Federal websites is running for two weeks and involves both ideas submission and voting as well as live online discussions(or dialogue-a-thons) on specific website related topics.
I'd love to see this type of initiative organised in Australia, however in the interim it is worth looking at the ideas raised in the US, beginning with the use of Plain language on government websites, Creating content around topics/customers - not agencies, make usability testing and 508 testing (accessibility) required PRIOR to launch, Make Government Website Mobile Accessible and Commit to best practices (using modern web techniques).
If Australian government agencies applied these five top ideas to their own web development (or even applied standards from some of the excellent web links and comments for several of the ideas) we could see a very different level of engagement, potential cut the number of phone calls and ministerials, address hidden issues with incomplete forms and avoid agency embarrassment (when organisations publicly identify government websites that fail basic accessibility or mobile access requirements).
Of course this requires adequately funding and resourcing web teams to carry out these tasks - however this can be offset through mandating external developers to meet government's basic accessibility and content requirements and through using low-cost modern content management frameworks which support significantly greater functionality and require less customisation than the old backroom systems still in place at many agencies.
Even more valuable would be for the Australian government to similarly ask citizens what they thought should be improved about government sites.
I do wonder why Australia appears more fearful or risk-averse to asking citizens these types of questions and building an evidence base on which it can then assess actions. Or maybe it isn't risk-aversion and is simply due to cost (though the service the US uses costs only US$999 per year - and there's even a free version) or due to lack of resources or even interest.
However if the US government, where the political process is on the nose, unemployment is high, the economy is distressed and web budgets are in decline, can ask this question, surely Australia is in a much better position to do so.
To go a little further, to offset the perceptual risk that citizens may expect government agencies to act on specific improvement requests, the consultation could be shaped as an information gathering exercise, where the outcomes will be made available to various agencies to act or not act as they can within their budgets and resourcing.
Or maybe individual agencies can ask the question as part of their website surveys (if they hold them - as I've done regularly in past positions) and share this information across the APS.
What do you think?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Toughen up - we need online anonymity | Tweet |
Rather than posting in my blog today, I am breaking one of the rules of blogging (always pull people back to your own blog) by pointing people to an opinion piece in Mumbrella that I wrote recently after reading a couple of other opinion pieces attacking the basis for allowing anonymous commentary online.
Toughen up - we need online anonymity
Please comment in Mumbrella (anonymously if you prefer) to continue the discussion.
Note that I wasn't paid for my opinion :)
Monday, September 05, 2011
Booked into the CeBIT Gov 2.0 conference in October yet? | Tweet |
I'll be missing the Gov 2.0 conference that CeBIT is holding for the third time this October (25-26 October) due to my honeymoon. However I do recommend to others that they consider attending.
In my view this is the most mature Gov 2.0 conference in Australia and has managed to step beyond the '101' nature of most similar conferences.
For details visit www.gov2.com.au
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
What's in a name? | Tweet |
People invest an enormous amount of identity and personal energy into their own names.
Names are our unique identifiers, defining us as separate to others - even for people with common names.
So when organisations make rules about the names people can use online it can create signficant distress and dislocation for people.
It also raises questions over who can decide your identity. Can corporations deny people the use of their legal names online simply because they don't fit a narrow model of what the corporation regards as 'appropriate naming'?
A recent example I've been following is Stilgherrian's battle with Google over the use of his legal name for Google Plus. You can follow it at his blog (strong language) or read about it at The Register.
Stilgherrian changed his name over thirty years ago to a mononym - a single name. His passport and official records all reflect this and those of us who know Stilgherrian personally have never experienced any dislocation or issue with engaging with him as an individual with one name.
However Google's Plus service has defined rules for allowable names. Firstly it requires that you use your legal name (although Google is apparently not requiring evidence or checking with authorities in most cases to verify). Secondly, it requires that you have a first name and a last name and that there's no spaces or characters like an apostrophe in your name.
Now while this might fit a certain segment of the population, there's a number of people who have either only one name (as is common in a number of countries), have spaces in their names such as "Dick Van Dyke", or use apostrophes and other non-standard characters.
The net result is that Google is blocking people with names that don't match its view of what is a legal name - and requiring that people provide documented proof of their 'anomalous' legal names.
I have another friend who changed her legal name to a mononym (which includes an apostrophe) over ten years ago. About two weeks ago she announced that she was changing her name to add a 'first' name, so that she could use Facebook and other social media channels to communicate with people.
She had finally reached the point where her single name was excluding her from legitimate social interactions due to the naming policies of (mainly) US companies.
I have a real problem with this situation, for Stilgherrian, for my friend and for the millions of other people around the world who have names that don't fit Google or Facebook's views of a legal name.
Firstly, 'legal' names should be defined by governments, not corporations. Australia's governments, and many governments around the world, support a much wider variety of legal naming conventions than social networks appear to allow.
Secondly, isn't it discrimination when corporations deny you access to their service due to the format of your legal name? Denying a service to an individual just because their name is structured differently to their business rules might be legally actionable.
Finally, what right do corporations have to your legal name anyway - particularly if they make it public. Many people have good reasons for not revealing their legal name publicly. Those in witness protection programs, minors, people with embarrassing 'real' names and those who are widely publicly known by a name other than their legal name, are all candidates for using a different name to their legal name online for legitimate reasons.
It is fair to deny people access to online services, particularly when these services are in such widespread use, just because they can't publicly disclose their legal name?
All of the examples above relate to corporations. However there are examples which may also refer to government as well.
There have been calls from a number of quarters in various Australian government to restrict people to the use of their legal name when commenting online. The purported reason is that people are less likely to behave inappropriately if they can be held accountable for what they say. The subtext is that people become easier to monitor and track.
I am not a fan of this approach for governments either. Like above, there are legitimate reasons why people might choose to not use their legal name in online discussions.
It can also be very hard to identify many people from their legal name alone, given the number of duplicates that may exist. Any step taken to require legal name use would have to attach address and proof of identity in order to identify specific individuals. Even then, identity theft would lead to many misrepresented identities.
Also there are other ways authorities can identify individuals if there are legitimate reasons to do so (such as discussion of committing a crime) - using IP addresses and various analysis techniques.
What is useful for government, is being able to identify consistent identities online - whether individuals choose to use their legal names or not.
Consistent identities allow organisations to build user cases based on profiling views across different topics, supporting policy development and decision-making without compromising personal privacy or security and while allowing people to define themselves online as they choose.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
ACT Virtual Community Cabinet #2 | Tweet |
The ACT is holding its second Virtual Community Cabinet tonight from 7pm to 8pm, so I have again set up a livefeed to capture the tweets for the record, and to allow analysis afterwards.
I am only capturing tweets including the hashtag for the event (#actvcc), so if you are participating, but don't include the hastag, your tweet will not appear below.
Also note that CoverItLive, the tool I am using, doesn't necessarily capture every tweet due to the way Twitter's API works, so this may not be a complete record of the discussion.
I hope that the ACT government will record it and provide an official 'transcript' after the event (although I am not aware of them doing so for the last virtual community cabinet)
UPDATE: Unfortunately there was an issue with my CoverItLive, which did not start last night as scheduled, and I wasn't near a computer to check :(
Therefore I didn't record the session and at this stage are not able to report on it.
I'll look at alternatives through other tools to see if I can get a record of the event.
A basic analysis is available from the Archivist here and a record at Twapper here.
There is also a good analysis at the blog Keikaku Doori
Thursday, August 25, 2011
ACT Government opens discussion on open government website | Tweet |
In what I believe might be a first in Australia, the ACT Government has released the requirements and wireframes for its upcoming open government website for public scrutiny and comment at its Time to Talk website.
Essentially the ACT government has decided to allow the community to give feedback on the upcoming website's proposed functionality and design before they spend the resources to actually build it.
This step could help reduce site costs and improve community satisfaction by ensuring the site is build to a specification tested to meet public needs.
Of course, as this is the first time the ACT government has taken this kind of step, it may take time for people to become aware of the consultation, to consider the material and to comment. Also, many people are unfamiliar with specifications or web design processes, so it could be a challenge for them to understand and provide constructive advice. Hopefully a number of the web-savvy people in Canberra will step up, take a look and provide comment (as I intend to do).
Otherwise this might be a very quiet consultation and not deliver an outcome that encourages others to take similar steps in the future.
Gov 2.0 at the 2011 Public Affairs Conference | Tweet |
You may still have time to consider attending the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the Walkley Foundation's Public Affairs Conference in Canberra from 5-6 September this year.
The conference has a significant Government 2.0 and open government flavour, looking at the new toolkit of digital communication and engagement options available to public relations professionals and the effects of the FOI reforms on public relations.
There is also what looks to be a very interesting case study on the Clean Energy Future digital campaign including its social media and web engagement.
I'll be presenting a keynote (on Government 2.0) at the event and participating in one of the panels.
Other speakers specifically in the Gov 2.0/Open Government area will include Professor John McMillan, Australian Information Commissioner; Hank Jongon from DHS; Sandi Logan from Immigration; Tom Burton from ACMA; Kylie Johnson, University of Canberra journalism academic Julie Posetti; and Greg Jericho, known for his blog Grogsgamut.
if you can't attend, keep an eye on Twitter - there should be plenty of interesting titbits from the day.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Next ACT Virtual Community Cabinet coming up 30 August at 7pm | Tweet |
The Chief Minister of the ACT has announced via Twitter that the next Virtual Community Cabinet (on Twitter) will be held on 30 August at 7pm AEST.
As last time it will include all four ACT Cabinet Ministers, @KatyGMLA, @ABarrMLA, @SimonCorbell and @JoyBurchMLA.
It will use the same hashtag, #actvcc.
Participants do not require a Twitter account to watch, but will to participate.
The Chief Minister also commented that further Virtual Community Cabinets would be single topic focused.
I'm waiting for a copy of the transcript of the last Virtual Community Cabinet to be published (As Tom Worthington comments a record is required by law) to analyse any tweets missed in my analysis of the first event and compare the claims of 700+ Tweets with the 299 I recorded via CoverItLive.
I aim to repeat my analysis for this community cabinet.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
What's the oldest active government Twitter account in Australia? | Tweet |
I've done a review of the registration dates for Twitter accounts from agencies at all levels of government in Australia and identified what I believe to be the oldest account.
Established in November 2007, the oldest government Twitter account in Australia is from Narromine, a small local council in Central West NSW.
You'll find them still tweeting regularly at @Narromine
The second oldest was @rfsmajorfires, providing automated updates about major fire risks in NSW since December 2007 and the third was @questacon in May 2008, providing educational and exhibition news.
The full timeline is available as a tab in my Australian governments Twitter accounts spreadsheet.
Chart of the timeline for government agency Twitter registrations by month and a cumulative registration rate is below.
It excludes three suspended accounts (for which I cannot determine registration date).
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Live ACT Virtual Community Cabinet feed | Tweet |
Below is a live feed of the ACT Virtual Community Cabinet, on from 12.30pm to 1:30pm today, Tuesday 26 July, 2011
By capturing the tweets via CoverItLive they're stored publicly beyond the lifespan for tweets.
UPDATE: Due to load issues with my blog I've removed the CoverItLive replay from this post. My archive of the ACT Virtual Community Cabinet, together my previous liveblogs, are all accessible from http://egovau.coverpage.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast
Friday, July 01, 2011
UK central government spending data released on data.gov.uk | Tweet |
data.gov.uk has dramatically revised its layout (for the better!) and recently released 557 datasets (1.8 million entries) representing all UK government spending over 25,000 pounds under the section Open Spending.
This represents a new milestone in open data releases around the world and provide a new range of insights into the financial decisions of the UK government.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Are telephones a natural medium for internet natives? | Tweet |
I wanted to share this interesting post discussing the challenges faced by people used to online communications technologies when attempting to use old technologies like the telephone.
Technology’s Child: Why 21st-Century Teens Can’t Talk On the Phone discusses how phones conversations are "both too slow and too fast" and don't provide mechanisms for thinking about and carefully editing what is said.
Will telephone ettiquette become a victim of the internet revolution, replaced by new skills?
Time will tell.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Empowering citizens to lead public governance reforms in developing and developed nations | Tweet |
One of the assumptions often applied to government funding for aid and governance reform programs is that the funding must be granted to established corporations, NGOs or not-for-profits that have hierarchies, governance structures, offices and methodologies for achieving outcomes.
It only makes sense - when investing government money into development activities there needs to be ways to mitigate risks and ensure accountability.
Surely a well-established organisation, with structural integrity and processes, must be well-equipped to manage and deliver change outcomes.
A ten-year research study from the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (Citizenship DRC), has found that the assumption that an established organisation is better equipped to deliver governance reform is just that - an assumption.
As reported by Nick Benequista in the website of the Institute of Development Studies, the Citizenship DRC's report, Blurring the Boundaries: Citizenship Action Across States and Societies (PDF):
"argues that "the 'good governance' agenda that has persisted in international development since the early 1990s is itself due for a citizen-led upheaval."
Benequista's article, How a citizen-led approach can transform aid to governance, points to over 150 cases highlighted on the Citizenship DRC website where bottom-up citizen-led initiatives have been effective in achieving governance change in different countries, circumstances and on different issues.
Perhaps this is an area we need to explore more of in Government 2.0.
How can we rebalance the relationship between governments and citizens through development funding to achieve better outcomes.
Is giving money to established organisations the best approach, or do governments need to listen more directly to citizens and listen less to intermediaries.
With the emerging knowledge and experience in this area around the world it will be interesting to see whether Australian governments are willing - or able - to reframe their approach to development.
To finish with Benequista's words,
The good governance agenda of the 1990s has already overstayed its usefulness. The question now is whether what comes next will finally give citizens the role they have been demanding.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Delib's downunder digital democracy documentary deliberations definitely defining | Tweet |
Delib's Chris Quigly has released the edited Australian digital democracy mini-documentary that he recorded earlier this year with a number of Government 2.0 leaders (plus myself) across Australia.
The nine minute mini-documentary provides an interesting perspective on Gov 2.0 approaches and trends in Australia. It also provides a defining view from the outside - how people in other countries might view what is happening in Australia.
I have not embedded the video below as it is worth reading Chris' post about the mini-documentary for context.
I cannot wait for the blooper reel! (well OK I can)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Crowdsourcing serious government policy - now not only thinkable, but desirable | Tweet |
Crowdsourcing is often used in government for 'light' topics, such as selecting a logo or sourcing audience-created videos or photos.
However it also offers enormous potential for informing and developing government policy in areas that are considered both sensitive and serious - such as security.
About a year ago the Atlantic Council released its recommendations report from the 2010 Security Jam.
Unlike previous closed-room security discussions, the Security Jam ran on an open basis, bringing 4,000 military, diplomatic and civilian experts from 124 countries together online to thrash out the challenges facing global security.
Held from 4-9 February, the Jam, run by Security and Defense Agenda in partnership with the Atlantic Council and with support from IBM, was supported by both the European Commission and NATO.
The thousands of participant included defense and security specialists and non-specialists in order to broaden the security debate beyond purely military matters.
According to Robert Hunter, former US Ambassador to NATO, "The Security Jam has done something that NATO's Group of Experts has not - to reach out beyond the ‘usual suspects’, to people who have truly original ideas and a range of analysis that goes to the heart of today's and tomorrow's security issues."
Imagine applying the principles of the Security Jam to Australia's Commonwealth and state policy issues.
With the comments in Terry Moran's speech last week it is clear that this type of approach is not only becoming thinkable, but desirable.
However it also offers enormous potential for informing and developing government policy in areas that are considered both sensitive and serious - such as security.
About a year ago the Atlantic Council released its recommendations report from the 2010 Security Jam.
Unlike previous closed-room security discussions, the Security Jam ran on an open basis, bringing 4,000 military, diplomatic and civilian experts from 124 countries together online to thrash out the challenges facing global security.
Held from 4-9 February, the Jam, run by Security and Defense Agenda in partnership with the Atlantic Council and with support from IBM, was supported by both the European Commission and NATO.
The thousands of participant included defense and security specialists and non-specialists in order to broaden the security debate beyond purely military matters.
According to Robert Hunter, former US Ambassador to NATO, "The Security Jam has done something that NATO's Group of Experts has not - to reach out beyond the ‘usual suspects’, to people who have truly original ideas and a range of analysis that goes to the heart of today's and tomorrow's security issues."
Imagine applying the principles of the Security Jam to Australia's Commonwealth and state policy issues.
With the comments in Terry Moran's speech last week it is clear that this type of approach is not only becoming thinkable, but desirable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
