Some weeks ago I wrote a post about a new initiative by UNHCR, which promotes the use geodata mashups to provide information about refugee camps all around the world. Today, I saw another initiative by the World Bank called geo.worldbank.org: “Our work around the world.” Again, it is a nice service, but does it offer much more than the website?

Paul Currions points it out well in his post that the UNHCR map “is useful because it starts to give people an idea of one of the key issues for refugee management and the complexity of running a refugee camp. The first thing I notice is that every time I click on a link for more information, it tells me how much it costs to buy school or farm equipment, and gives me a link to UNHCR fundraising so I can cough up right there. I think we should be doing better. Much, much better.”

I agree with Paul Currion and wonder why these services do not offer the following:

• Integrating other available sources of information to offer a broader perspectives on the given context. There are many other potentially valuable resources, which could enrich the visualization.
• There should be ways to contribute information, for example, by refugees themselves or beneficiaries of World Bank projects. Couldn’t mashups used to get feedback and to monitor projects and their impact?
• Gapminder.org illustrates nicely what further ways are possible to simplify complex data.

Interestingly, there are a lot of grassroot initiatives offered, which are often developed and maintained by a few people and sometimes even one person who accomplishes much more.

1. Tunesia Prison Map
   Sami Ben Gharbia put up together, already a while ago, the frightening Tunesia prison map, in which he has been using google maps. It shows where political dissidents have been locked up by the Tunisian government.
2. Theyworkforyou
   They work for you was developed by Rob McKinnon, whom I had the change to meet back in London. This inspiring project has a sister in the UK “that aims to make it easy for people to track the activity of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament.” Basically, this site aggregates information already available in a form that makes it more transparent to follow the engagement of parliamentarians and topics. I am really impressed about his work and looking forward to see more of his ideas realized in the future.
3. UNdemocracy
   This is again a website which aggregates available information and offers it in a transparent way. It focuses on an easy access to the transcripts of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. The same people also did the Public Whip, a page tracking the voting record and attendance of parliamentarians in the UK.
4. Ushahidi
   This website was quickly realized through the recent Kenya crisis and maps the reports of the post-election crisis with all its different incidents such as riots, deaths, property loss, government forces etc. Kenyians can report such cases through their mobile phones by sms. This truly is a bottom up mashup.
5. Mapping the election conditions in Zimbabwe
   
   This is a similar initiative, which documents all types of manipulation during the latest Zimbabweans election. The map is a valauble resource and Sokwanele has been doing an impressive work for human rights throughout the the last years. Ethan Zuckerman wrote an in depth post about this project.
6. Healthcarethatworks
   Another Google map mashup, which shows the New York City wide status for hospitals and its disproportionate impact that recent hospital closures have on low-income communities.

Some more mashups in the enviroment field are summarised on Global Voices by Juliana Rotich. Lastly, Netsquared has on this year’s conference a mashup event, where promising new initiatives are presented.

No related posts.

The German vs. the British websphere

Well, a week after attending both, the Social Innovation Camp (sicamp08) and re-publica, I finally post my reflections on these events. It was great to visit these two events, listen to numerous interesting presentations at re-publica, and grasp the contagious spirit of social innovation in London. There were interesting differences and similarities on discussions in these two events, but I will just extend on some thoughts I had:

• There are great projects regarding Edemocracy in both countries, which allow citizens to participate or influence politics and to give more transparency. There is even a German-British cooperation called e-participation.net. On a workshop, full of interesting presentations about this topic, Christoph Dowe said that it is still not easy to get citizens to engage on those platforms. Some websites do not get any attention and others, such as ich-gehe-nicht-hin.de ( “I do not go there”) for nonvoters or abgeordnetenwatch.de (ask the member of Parliament), are successful. Mysociety.org has great projects in this regards, based in the U.K. For example, Fix my Street.
• On both events free and open source software (FOSS) played an important role. It is clear that FOSS invites for collaboration and allows to build platforms for social innovation, which proprietary software cannot do because it is for commercial purposes. Regarding knowledge sharing, I really like the presentation of deepmehta software, in which knowledge is represented in a semantic network and is handled collaboratively.
• The whole topic around social change, innovation or entrepreneurs plays are far more a significant role in the U.K. Whereas on the re-publica, social entrepreneurs, e.g. startups for social change, played no role although there were promising projects such as betterplace.org and helpedia.org (will blog soon about them). The social innovation camp was fully devoted to this topic.
• Whereas at re-publica privacy laws and data protection were high on the agenda, on the social innovation camp they were of no importance. In contrary, I was surprised how openly people took user generated content for granted. The all over camera surveillance (CCT) in London is rather not amusing.

Local vs. global news

Another interesting development, is the emphasis on the local, as a sicamp08-fellow pointed it out to me during the first evening. The internet is truly global and it is great to connect with people worldwide, but there is this paradox that in the UK or in Germany one often does not even know its home-neighbours. So, there are projects coming up to have social network applications, so that people from an area can find similar interests and engage in community development.

At the re-publica.de, I listened to a presentation by Sean Bonner about “Blogging about local issues, on a global scale.” It dealt with the high relevance of local news in the global web and how metblogs.com tries to cover that. Sean Bonner said:

Before the web local issues did not get as much attention – national and international stuff was more important. Money was made through those kind of news. The Internet changed the distributing and exchange of news specifically on the local level. Blogs play a decisive role. Blog networks are key in local news exchanging.

Back in 2003, Sean Bonner and friends found that there was a lack of local information. Opinions, thoughts and recommendations about local issues. They started working on a local blogging network in L.A, and then opened up a platform called metblogs.com for a overarching network of local bloggers. Nowadays, over 50 cities are participating.

One interesting example is the coup back in 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand. First news appeared 6 hours before CNN on metblogs.com by people equipped with mobile phones. Similarly happened in Pakistan during the web blackout last year. There was also an interesting attempt by AOL to copy their concept, but it did not work out without a community. Sean Bonner said the newspapers rather copy the tools, but forget about the social dimension behind local community blogging.

I did not know about this network before, but it looks interesting. However, it seems often quite individualistic and with random topics. Global Voices Online follows closer developments in countries and translates them in other languages.

An in depth Social Innovation Camp blog post is in process.

No related posts.

Charles Leadbeater, well known for his book We Think, has released an interesting paper called “Social Software for Social Change.” The paper presents rich examples about civic action through the web and its impact on democracy. With the advice from Dan Mcquillan, Leadbeater greatly links different forms of activism and engagement; as well as elaborating how these new forms of engagements can promote social change, interact with the state and shape politics. Because it is one of the best peaces I have read for a while, I summarize it in this blog post.

This is the content of the paper:

1. The social web’s democratic potential
2. New media, new democracy?
3. The social web in practice
4. Conclusions

The social web’s democratic potential
Leadbeaters argues that the architecture of participation of web2.0 allows new forms of social activism. One outcome is the focus on causes and not as much on organizations that represent them. It can be called extra-organizational activism, as Allison Fine framed it, or simply ‘do it yourself activism.’ Users can individually start campaigns. The long tail theory can be also translated in unlimited ways for social change; one example is change.org. Leadbeaters also wonders whether civic organizations will be ready to exploit the potentials.

New media, new democracy?
The second chapter deals about potentials for democracy. Leadbeaters identifies three main respects:

1. Accountability: Citizens have new means to held politicians to account. Mzalendo.com in Kenya is such an example.
2. Debate: The social web allows for more people to have a voice and promotes collective problem solving.
3. Campaigning: The web dramatically cutting costs of mobilising people in campaigns.

So, is this really a push forward for e-democracy? For Leadbeater deliberation is a major aspect and mobilization another. The social web offers new venues for engagement and conversations about social change. It is not about technology or just signing a petition, but rather a continuous dialogue about public issues. Leadbeaters sees promising examples such as Wikipedia for an ethic of responsible self-governance and open debate. The challenge is about who will be hosting these deliberative conversations: The state, the media or civil society?

Very interesting are also the downsides Leadbeaters identifies:

• Cacophony of too many voices and few responses.
• Echo chamber: In a niche one hears from others a confirmation of what they already think.
• Quality: How can a certain degree of quality be obtained when the classical gatekeepers such as the media are lost.
• Equality: Those already rich in knowledge, information and connections may just get richer.

The social web in practice
This chapter analyses new web based actors or “quasi-political parties” such as moveon.org and identifies three forms civil society use the web:

1. Sustaining innovations in which the third sector uses the social web to do traditional tasks more efficiently
2. Disruptive innovations which create models for the third sector so it can organize itself
3. Hybrids in which organisations create a mix of traditional and new ways of working.

Example for the first point are online petitions or fund raising. NGOs are pioneers in widening own constituencies over the web. But another great potential lies in disruptive innovations. This can be for collective problem, e.g. I love Bees, as Leadbeater describes in his book “We Think” or for direct action. The mobile phone is a key for citizen engagement as examples from all over the world show. “A technology that can mobilise friendship networks for political ends thus is potentially very powerful.”

This is only a small summary as the paper goes in much detail and brings together a wide range of thoughts from scholars about this theme. I think it is a great way to learn about the young history for online civic action. Exciting times are ahead for how these new forms will emerge. But one point is the same obstacle online and offline, the citizen have to have an interest to engage and whether the web will open new ways to engage.

I also wonder whether it can and should work as Leadbeaters argues, that the third sector — mainly civil society — takes over to act as independent, trusted guides and moderators for debate, and whether this is necessary? Do you agree with the concerns or downsides? Do you share the potentials for deliberation and mobilization?

No related posts.

I found two very interesting articles recently which describe how politics, activism and media are influenced by the web.

Joe Garofoli from the San Fransisco Chronicle wrote the article “Local blogs are key to future of politics,” reporting from the Yearly Kos convention. He describes how local politics are already influenced by a mixture of citizen journalism, activism and blogging:

Here’s how: A blogger writes about something going on in his community, say plans for a local development to be built on toxic ground – the kind of story many large newspapers rarely break nowadays. Residents start complaining about the issue at local meetings. Soon, the buzz generated causes the local press and perhaps other larger bloggers to pick up on the issue, and the government is forced to respond to their inquiries.

So websites, such as saveoceanbeach.org, are used for local activism because they offer a forum otherwise not available and provide tools to network and advocate for an issue. Blogs jump into the gap that US newspapers leave open: “as more newspapers cut staff and can’t cover many of the stories they used to, bloggers who cover local politics have become the de facto watchdog in some communities and over some areas of government.”

Scott Karp argues in his blog post “Should Newspapers Become Local Blog Networks?” that the traditional media transforms itself into blogs that consist of three types of contributors: full-time reporters and editors, paid freelancers, and witness reporters. “What’s becoming clear is that blogs are now the organizing principle for newspapers’ original online content.”

As I am living in Germany at the moment, I have to state, unfortunately, that not a single German city is mentioned in the worldwide top 30 blogging cities according to a Forrester study. Anyhow, we have cities such as Stuttgart which has a town blog, and cities like Karlsruhe have a wiki for all kinds of topics.

No related posts.

Overview
First of all, I would like to thank Jan Amos and and Rolf Lührs for their comments. Yes, I agree that in Germany some initiatives around e-democracy have been taken (e.g. e-petition in the German parliament), however, in comparison to German’s vibrant political life, its web is politically inactive. In that regard, politik-digital.de is a lighthouse for many years and a think tank that discusses and analyzes politics and the net. The European counterpart, Europa-digital.de, has done a lot for independent coverage. Their latest initiative, e-participation.net, is great but it also shows how only so little has arisen. Another website is abgeordnetenwatch.de, where citizens can address politicians directly, leading to direct pressure, as Jan nicely pointed out. It is this kind of approach which opens a two-way-conversation.

Politik2.0 and campaigns
However, taking a look at the German political activism in the web or initiatives for e-democracy you get the impression that web2.0 has not arrived in Germany. For example, if you look at the blogosphere, you will hardly see any political blog and rarely grassroot activism. This was also regretted on a discussion called “Politik2.0″ last Spring on the ‘Re-Publica‘ conference. Only few blogs are different, such is the case of netzpolitik.org, which works as a watchdog dealing with all sorts of topics around the Internet and liberty rights. Right now they are part of a campaign against the Minister of Interior’s latest idea of “Vorratsdatenspeicherung“. The current government initiated a law that will allow the saving of all personal web traffic including email, etc. for half a year. The minister of interior also elaborates the wrong idea to allow private investigation through hacking software. Another interesting recent campaign was the one of flickr and censorship in Germany.

Some challenges
The challenges that keep e-democracy from moving much further in Germany are multifold. Markus Beckedahl said on the Politik2.0 discussion, that the political arena has still not yet embraced or even understood the web. Best prove is a an interview on German television given by kids, who asked Germans such as the Minister of Justice about different browsers. She replied: “Browsers? What are browsers again?” Another problem is surely the missing transparency of the German political system in some regards. For example, information about politician salaries have been made public just recently. But shouldn’t that missing transparency make the web more political?
Most surprising is the fact that civil society has not embraced the recent web developments and has not even started to use web2.0 potential.

Web2.0 and politics
But what strikes me the most is that web2.0 is purely seen as a business topic. It surely is a buzz word, but it does offer a new form of participation. For example, on bar camps blogger, politics and activism play no role. In the realm of web2.0, German blogger focus mainly on start-ups. The great potential for participation, being it political or for knowledge sharing and social change, is not been seen here in Germany in the wide blogosphere. The best example of this development is trupoli.com, a new political web2.0 platform which offers “true politics” that can be experienced free from media show. What really occurs to me is that trupoli.de is a corporation! Will participation and political discourse be now a part of demand and supply? I am looking forward to see a maplight.org application analyzing trupoli in the future.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic, especially right now, that an unconference about e-democracy takes place in Berlin. I am eager to hear about the outcome.

No related posts.

The concept of e-democracy dates from the early days of Internet. To my understanding, it embraces everything that connects political processes and the web. Back in the 90s high promises were linked to the web and its implications for democracy and participation. One early example is the Electronic Town Hall, but nowadays e-democracy stands for many approaches such as e-activism, e-politics, e-participation or latest government2.0.

While the early beginnings were optimistic, they had often not fulfilled promises. Such is the example of new venues to engage digital citizens to participate directly through e-voting. Another example was e-government, which encompasses different layers such as networking government institutions, and makes or offers more direct services to citizens. On the contrary, civil society such as NGOs or social movements embrace the potential of web for their activism earlier, quicker and deeper. Already back in 1999, the Seattle protests were effectively organized over the web.

There are many reasons why especially governments respond slowly to the potentials of the web, and why civil society uses the web strategically. But both sides have not really used the potential of the web to enhance participation. From my point of view two difficulties arise: (1) Government institutions and most NGOs are not yet willing to open themselves for an authentic two-way conversation. (2) Information is still in many cases not transparent and citizens are not being offered to participate.

Developments during the last year show some interesting new approaches to enhance participation. Tara Hunt calls it feedback2.0 (listen and learn) in her interesting government2.0 presentation. She says in her presentation:

“We need to change the way we approach service, viewing the public not as a recipient, but as more of a partner.”

One great example of enhancing more participation in political processes has been realized in Kenya. Mzalendo is a website, ” which is a volunteer run project whose mission is to keep an eye on the Kenyan Parliament.” One of the initiator is Ory Okolloh, who has been interviewed by BBC. The website offers valuable information on decision making processes in the Kenyan parliament and opens new ways of participation for active citizens. I have not yet discovered such a promising “watchdog” website in Europe, meaning how Germany lags behind.

No related posts.