Which bits of Local Government care least about their website?

The SOCITM studies usually cited are a cherry picking of those who care about the answers because they look good, based on the selective users who do reply.

But we know something else about Local Government websites: they’re supposed to do things, not talk about things, and so we can look at service not fluff. Local DirectGov is a database of services, and is supposed to be right…

Read more…

posted: 29 Feb 2012

Cabinet Office’s proposed Open Data User Group

“When the words “intelligent customer on behalf of Government” are used in relation to “Open Data”, and the Shareholder Executive, and tightly closed discussions, and when various large stakeholders in the open data ecosystem are ignored, what can possibly go wrong:

Read more…

posted: 20 Feb 2012

NHS Bill – where are the good, hip infographic flowcharts?

Is there anywhere, a webpage with a table/infographic/flowchart on it, which says “if X happens” (you break your leg, get cancer, get hit by bus), currently, Y happens to you in the NHS; but under the Government “reform” proposals, they say A will happen, but we think B, C and D will also happen. There’s a lot of discussion that B, C, D are bad, but I’ve not seen a clear connection to what happens when I walk into a hospital having done something stupid.

Read more…

posted: 04 Feb 2012

RIP DirectionlessGov

RIP DirectionlessGov.com: 21-dec-2004 – 31-Jan-2012.


posted: 31 Jan 2012

reflections on #ukgc12

Some reflections on Friday’s UKGC12

Read more…

posted: 23 Jan 2012

Turing’s Descendants

Ben hammersley nails it, as he so often does:
Read more…

posted: 14 Jan 2012

Reality doesn’t care what you expect.

A blog post about confusion on big data hits a lot of the things that I’ve been seeing but haven’t known really how to structure.

Read more…

posted: 03 Jan 2012

Talk series: Social Movements in the Internet Age

I didn’t know about the first talk in the series; but in advance of the second, I was chatting to a friend over coffee, about how I had not yet seen an academically methodological, technically competent, empirically accurate paper on online/offline integrated activism.

An hour later, I had.

All 3 talks have now been published online. Parts one, two and three

The first talk was the academic theory background. It is needed for understanding the academic bits of the other talks, and some of the background reasoning. If that’s not of interest, you can skip that one.

The remaining two talks are a pair, the second on Occupy and the US, and is now (and certainly was a 3 weeks ago when it was given) a talk about works in progress. The middle talk was looking at the process of revolution in the Middle East (primarily).

They looked deeply at the social, demographic and political reasons and interactions that intertwined in different ways in the different countries. Different reasons, for similar things, in different places, at similar times. It was a very good lecture.

If you’re watching it, the thing that computer people might question, is his use of “wireless” as a tool. He clarifies the means 3G and mobile phones (ie not wired), not WiFi. The connectivity wherever you are.

We’re starting to see some of that with FixMyTransport, or, more clearly, sukey.org where protestors could get comparable situational intelligence to the police. The Guardian Reading the Riots investigation picked up some of this when it was done ad hoc via BBM.

It was a very interesting set of talks, that my dear reader may be interested in.

posted: 20 Dec 2011

Funding acrobatics above sharks

It’s slightly depressing.

In a week of #COP17, #€geddon, the veto, and the dozen other things that should be in the political news agenda, but aren’t, what did 38 degrees choose to twice contact their members about?

Read more…

posted: 10 Dec 2011

One of those irregular verbs? Open Research Data

I’m reminded of a survey JISC funded about attitudes of PhD students to lots of things to do with PhDs. It asked them about their opinions on a load of topics, including their views on open access to research. It was about 85% in favour (and there were some who didn’t know enough to answer as they’d only just started).

Read more…

posted: 08 Dec 2011