Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘semantics’ Category

“Government 2.0″ means many things to many people. Here’s a list of a few variants, with some (slightly) tongue in cheek observations. :+)

  • social media focus: using social media for government communications/marketing/outreach. This is about the outward face of government, mostly the domain of government communicators and marketers of the digital persuasion. Oh and” social media experts.” Looking into using Twitter, Facebook or blogging to replace , er, complement more traditional forms of government communications activities. Worried about user-generated content and approval processes. Convinced that the press release is dead.
  • web 2.0 tools focus: using web 2.0 tools for improving work processes in government. This is the most inward looking “stream” within government 2.0. Concerned with improving efficiency and effectiveness in the daily work of a wide range of public servants. Looking into collaboration tools such as i.e. wikis. Worried about workplace silos and restrictive rules. Convinced that technology is the answer.
  • transparency focus: releasing more government data online in usable/re-usable forms. This is a strain that’s perhaps more common from the outside looking in, as various activists and stakeholders want to get their hands on, er, aim to improve public access to  government information. Worried about a healthy democracy. Convinced that there’s a hidden agenda.
  • mashup focus: government as a platform that citizens can customize or build from. This is also a common approach outside of government, overlapping with the transparency folks. Looking into new service delivery models where end users benefit from an intermediary layer of tech-savvy entrepreneurs or philanthropists who repackage government services for citizens online. Worried about — actually I’m not sure what these folks are worried about, because they’re … Convinced that they know better.

Read Full Post »

Last Friday, I quickly re-blogged a news item on the 2009 Osbaldeston Lecture, by Martha Piper, former president of the University of British Columbia. Over on my Posterous miniblog, a reader reacted to my highlighting of an analogy that Ms. Piper made between the wristwatch and a Blackberry device. I’m going to reproduce those comments here, because they raise a good point:

“In a speech at the National Arts Centre, Piper likened today’s public service to the declining popularity of the wristwatch. Everyone over age 50 wears one, but most Canadians under 25 don’t.”

My response:

The wristwatch analogy has been used before, it is nothing new and it is not accurate. Most teenagers wear watch not so they can tell time but as a fashion statement. I would really like to meet a public servant that is isolated in Ottawa, the ones I work with are plugged in, on the move and aware of the world changing around them AND are part of the change or driving it. Perhaps she is talking about her perception of Ottawa, and if so, she has been isolating herself in BC. She is clearly out of touch.

I agree — if you focus on the demographic angle, it’s true that the wristwatch analogy is not accurate. It’s a stereotype, and if you were to leave this out of it, it would be more effective.When it comes to technology, young people are not inherently more “with it” than their elders. Different people use the same tools in a wide variety of ways, regardless of whether we can are “youth” or “middle aged” or whatever. & in terms of adoption rates, I’ll bet there is a wide variation in all demographic groups. I suspect that it is more about individual attitudes rather than generational.

What stuck me with the wristwatch/blackberry analogy was not the demographics however; it was the image of an older mechanical device that does one thing well, vs a newer digital device that does a lot of things, including what the old tech did. Maybe the new BB doesn’t tell time as stylishly as the old wristwatch does, but I’m willing to give that up to be able to also use it to communicate with my friends/family/colleagues, read news, organize my schedule, check weather, etc., regardless if I’m at my desk or not.

I realize that wristwatches are almost all digital these days, but to me they still are artifacts of the mechanical era, when the technological paradigm was a narrowly specialized — each tool should “do one thing, and do it really well.” Compare that to how 21st century digital technology is inherently open-ended and focused on multi-functionality. To me, that is what is effective about this analogy — as a comparison of two technological eras.

Regardless, after having had a chance to read the full text (warning PDF link) of Ms. Piper’s remarks, it turns out that the best stuff was not what I saw last week, it is the material that actually followed it. More on that tomorrow later.

(Oh BTW, I do beg to differ with the idea that public servants do not isolate themselves in Ottawa. I feel that point is highly debatable; I can think of a few bureaucrats that I’ve crossed paths with recently … but anyhow.)

Read Full Post »

So lotta chatter out there ’bout so-called “cloud computing” lately. The metaphor is nice and all, since it makes uploading your data to a web-based service sound so etheral. Disembodied and harmless. Plus clouds are nice, fluffy, pretty little things aren’t they.

But in fact it’s not anything like that at all, is it? When you use gmail or google docs or a wiki or any number of web services, your data is being stored in places like this:

Google Data Centre in the Netherlands

(Google data centre in the Netherlands, by Erwin Boogert on Flickr)

And think about just good ‘ol “surfing the net.” Let’s say you are reading the news online — you’re accessing servers in places like this:

Reuters Data Centre in London England

(Reuters Data Centre in London England, by .Martin. on Flickr)

And here’s a representative-looking interior shot.

Rows of server racks

(Cages and Cooling Units, by Webg33k on Flickr.)

Here’s a nice photoset that shows all kinds of gory detail. And there’s even a Datacenter group on Flickr.

What’s that stat about how many servers jump into action when you hit the “search” button on a Google page? It’s close to a thousand machines.

We’re talking about industrial strength computing here. These data centers look like factories, big buildings full of the machines that make the Web. And I gather that inside these data centres the heat and the noise is typically a problem. Again like factories. And they are electricity hogs with a growing appetite for power.

But then again “cloud computing” has a much nicer ring than “factory computing” or “industrial computing” doesn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Stumbled across this tool for creating word tree visualizations the other day. Fascinating, but I haven’t yet figured out what word trees would be good for. I suppose I could use them on my writing to analyze my style… to see if I use the same words or turns of phrase over and over.

So I was playing with word trees using the good old “lorem ipsum” text. But I don’t think that this classic (five centuries old!) piece of nonsense text, used to get people to focus on design rather than content, is quite the right thing for a word tree. Not long enough so not enough words that repeat. And no meaning! Still, looks neat.

Lorem ipsum text visualized as a word tree starting with “ipsum”

Sidebar: gotta love the handy Lorem Ipsum generator!

Read Full Post »

Rampaging elephants!

I was going to write a post about the reading list that I’m putting together. But LibraryThing, where I’m keeping that list, was down when I stopped by this morning:

rampagingelephant.jpg

Rampaging elephants? Peanuts? Alright, it made me chuckle. As an added bonus, it’s more interesting and somehow less cryptic than “HTTP 404: File not found.” (Could have done without the word error twice in the same sentence though.)

*insert lightbulb image here*

Hey, I’ve just discovered a surefire web 2.0 litmus test!

Answer these questions: 1) is the site/service often down? 2) is the error msg trying to tell you this in a funny or unusual way? If you answered “yes” to both of these questions, then you are dealing with web 2.0!

Read Full Post »

OK, so this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this. From the Washington Business Journal’s review of Now is Gone:

You have likely also heard of social marketing [sic] and maybe participated in some way through FaceBook, LinkedIn or an industry blog.

Now I admit I’m no expert (and I haven’t even got to reading the book yet), but I believe the reviewer actually means social media.

I’ve seen coworkers make the same mix-up. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that you can’t do social marketing with social media

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.