LitFuse » new media

The Illusion of Understanding

litfuse — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:23:35 +0000

In his article in Punch, Leo Shanahan puts up a hilarious PowerPoint slide that the US Army used to explain to its top brass how it would win the war in Afghanistan. The article goes on to explain why trying to simplify complex arguments down to bullet points invokes the danger of creating the perception of knowledge.

To quote General McMaster in the article: “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-sizable.”

True.

Ideas, arguments and concepts are more readily tested through dialogue. Poor thinking and specious arguments can be quickly torn apart when a room of questioning minds has the chance to engage with the presenter in a discussion. This is why tutorials are more useful for learning than lectures. t is why scientific papers must pass through the test of peer review before they can be published in scientific journals. It is why debates are more interesting and enlightening that public speeches. And it is why new media is so powerful. Traditional media such as newspapers, television and websites are one way paths for information and ideas.

New media on the other hand, has allowed the audience to talk back, through comments on blogs, videos, audio and so on. Traditional media has caught on. The highest ranking radio shows are talk back. Television is shifting from talking heads, to talking heads with audience interaction. Online news sites allow comments on their articles. This is all very healthy, and is an antidote for the great concentration of media ownership around the world.

Back to PowerPoint. While PowerPoint can be a powerful and useful communication tool, it does not beat conversation. It’s a great way of getting a conversation going if done well, and I’ll seen some fabulous and appalling Powerpoint presentations. But providing sufficient time for the concepts in the presentation to be tested by a thoughtful audience is just as important as the presentation itself.

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 May 2010

When New Media Bites

litfuse — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:34:05 +0000

Mike Seyfang blog’s his excitement that an original video made available under Creative Commons was picked up by Adelaide Now. His post made me think about our view of information and communication. In the age of newspapers, television and radio, information was consumable and disposable and communication was about writing. New media in particular changes our relationship with information – it is now something that stays around, being re-viewed, re-mixed and re-interpreted – it talks back to us. My experience in putting information online as video, audio and text, is that the reader base builds over time, as does the conversation. This means that information I put up a year ago, can bring me new connections and opportunities a year later – as Mike has found.

This makes me think more carefully about the purpose of putting information online. What is “news” and what is “content”. In fact, if I make information available in the way Mike is suggesting, “news” is “content”, so must be carefully constructed so that it makes sense as consumable news and as long term content that has value years from now.

Barry Brook’s blog “Brave New Climate” is a case in point. It is a mix of news and content, but the news remains of interest in the context of the rest of the blog-posts. Over time, he has build up a valuable library of content, and his army of readers and commenters grows at an ever increasing rate.

It also reminds me that communication is about listening as well as talking/writing. By seeing Adelaide Now re-interpret Mike’s original videos, he gets to listen to how others perceive his original content. Too often organisations lock their material down making it difficult for others to re-interpret. Does this mean they are not interested in listening?

Written by Paul Dalby on 17 September 2009

Open Access Gov Data in Victoria

litfuse — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:43:28 +0000

The Victorian Government has just released a report “Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data“.

The terms of rerference for the inquiry were to

“consider and report to Parliament on the potential application of open content and open source licensing to Victorian Government information”, in particular:

“report on the potential economic benefits and costs to Victoria of maximising access to and use of Government information for
commercial and/or non-commercial purposes….consider whether the use of open source and open content licensing models, including Creative Commons, would enhance the discovery, access and use of Government information… report on the use of information and communication technology to support discovery, access and use of Government information …identify likely risks, impediments and restrictions to open content and open source licensing of Government information”

The Committee has proposed three key recommendations for access to and re-use of Government information.

1) that the Victorian Government develop an Information Management Framework … The default position of the framework should be that all information produced by Victorian Government departments from now on be made available at no or marginal cost.

2) that the Victorian Government make use of the Creative Commons licensing model … for up to 85 per cent of government information and data…. Remaining Victorian Government PSI should either not be released, or released under licences tailored specifically for restricted materials.

3) that the Victorian Government establish an on-line directory, where the public can search for and obtain information… held by the Victorian Government. …people will be able to download information and data directly, or make contact with people in the Victorian Government to discuss access conditions.

The Victoria Government has been a bit of a leader is putting its government data in an online environment, with initiatives such as the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse and Victorian Resources Online.

The Federal Government is also getting interested in what can be loosely called “Open Government”, in my view thanks to the terrific effort that Kate Lundy is doing to raise the issues and encourage the debate. The Government has recently announced a taskforce to explore Open Government. There is a small amount of funding available from this taskforce:

“The taskforce won’t just be dishing out advice, but will be distributing funds from a $2.45 million pool to support the development of web 2.0 tools and applications which enable engagement between the government and community or support use of government information. The grants will either be in the form of funding for pilots and projects or in the form of prizes for innovative applications…. Those hoping to obtain funds don’t apply directly, but participate in competitions seeking ideas and designs for consideration.”

Government data belongs to the community and citizens in my view, and like the Victorian Government, I believe “The default position… should be that all information produced…. from now on be made available at no or marginal cost”

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 June 2009

What do the public servants think?

litfuse — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:36:16 +0000

Steve Collin’s blog post expands on the article I pointed to recently from Lavartus Prodeo on the use of Web 2.0 by politicians and government (Thanks to Penny Sharpe for pointing me to both articles). Steve makes the same point I made in response to the Lavartus Prodeo blog post, which is that the real opportunity for social networking in a democracy is to link the public servants to the public. My particular beef is about making government data available freely online, both in raw form, and interpreted from the view of government. But there is so much more that could be achieved, so much more richness in terms of conservation and interaction. I’d be very keen to hear from people in the public service about their views on this.

Written by Paul Dalby on 26 May 2009

Response to Politicians and Web 2.0

litfuse — Sat, 23 May 2009 01:26:48 +0000

Responding to Trev’s comment in the Larvatus Prodeo blog, what you have described is about politicking, which is valuable in its own right. What I am interested in is allowing the same sort of interaction between public servants and the broader community in policy development. I think in New Zealand, the new Police Act was developed through a public wiki. But from what I can work out, In Australia politicians are making use of social media because they get benefit from it, but are blocking public servant access to it. As someone who would like to contribute from the outside to policy development, I am frustrated that government agencies cannot interact with the outside world except through the government’s media office. This is stifling the flow of ideas and information, and limiting democratic input into policy development. Most government departments block all social networking tools. This is such a shame, but seems to be driven from the desperate need by the politicians to control their message.

Open government

litfuse — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:44:38 +0000

Was made aware of these websites by tweets from the Whitehouse.

http://www.data.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/

President Obama is the first world leader to really ‘get’ the power of online social networks. These initiatives aim to put government data online (that’s right, ‘other’ people will be able to download it and ‘misinterpret’ it ), and champions more open, accountable and transparent government using the web as a tool.

I’m thinking of emigrating.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 May 2009