Today I attended the inaugural “Gov 2.0 Meetup” presentation, taking place at City Hall. This is a summary of my reflections.
Gov 2.0 is not Government use of Social media;
The event’s speaker, Wayne Chu, Research Manager at Samara Canada presented what amounted to be a preview to a research paper to be released next month from Samara about political discussions in social media, illustrating the disconnect between legislations and the occupy movement. Yeah, I wasn’t all that clear about the relation to Gov 2.0, but it seemed clear having asked him what the link was, Wayne Chu equated the work of government with politics, political engagement, and political discourse, which is not tangential to the work of government. That’s like saying road deaths are due to the automotive industry. Sure the car hit the pedestrian, and sure that car was built to go fast, but saying that the Ford Motor Company is responsible for the pedestrian’s death is tangential. You’d have to make a leap to that conclusion after rendering the driver, urban planning, and even the pedestrian as responsible.
No, the use of social media (Twitter namely) by politicians (and even the media) is not Gov 2.0. That’s politics. Politics 2.0 even. Call it what you like. It’s also an over- simplification to say the use of Web 2.0 by government is Gov 2.0, but it’s not inaccurate.
I won’t redefine Gov 2.0 – but I’ll simplify it. I like Gartner’s definition:
The use of IT to socialize and commoditize government services, processes and data.
This is largely an update of the now-outdated term “e-government”, which was about getting Government information on-line (recall, you had to wait in line at some Kafka-esque government office, or wait on hold on a 1-800 number, or, if you dare, fax government and risk never finding out if they ever received it. Here is my receipt for your receipt!). To socialize government services – yeah, that sounds Gov 2.0. Not overly ambitious, or detailed, but it sounds like the next generation of Government.
I also really like O’Reilly’s expansion of the term (which is apt since O’Reilly himself coined the buzzword “Web 2.0″), illustrating Gov 2.0 as “Government as a platform” (first unveiled at Gov 2.0 Expo, expanded in the book “Open Government”, to engage the public in its own service delivery, review. With this definition, it’s easy to see the role of Web 2.0: the use of Open Data to engage analysis, the use of Social Media to communicate with the public / stakeholders, and the use of collaborative tools (like wikis) to collaborate with stakeholders. Better yet, O’Reilly writes:
“Government is, at bottom, a mechanism for collective action. We band together, make laws, pay taxes, and build the institutions of government to manage problems that are too large for us individually and whose solution is in our common interest.
“Government 2.0, then, is the use of technology—especially the collaborative technologies at the heart of Web 2.0—to better solve collective problems at a city, state, national, and international level.” - Government As a Platform, Open Government
To go further, I’ve written about how there are 3 types of Web 2.0 in Government:

The distinction is not perfect (it’s not an even divide) but it helps to focus conversations if you’re talking Web 2.0 and government and want to make sure you’re talking about the right things.
Open Data / Open Government
The second presenter at the event, Harvey Low, a Civil Society Representative from the Council on Social Development, was right on the money discussing Open Data and Open Government. By day he wears a cape as one of the Justice League (maybe Avengers) team of Open Data personnel at Toronto City Hall. Have you seen their work? You should.
- Toronto’s Open Data portal
- Toronto’s own application of Open Data of social metrics geographically mapped: Wellbeing Toronto
Harvey Low says he’s relatively new to the Open Data file at Toronto City Hall, but I doubt it. He sounds like a seasoned practitioner, with tacit insight and skinned compromised knees. I asked him about whether Open Data-supporting municipalities will adopt common but hard-to-reach standards at the sake of compromising their own support for Open Data and whether APIs will replace static data files (which I both hope and fear) and he had damn good answers for either. Answer: Hopefully yes but unlikely in the short term, and yes they should but not likely right now or soon.
Thanks to the organisers Anita Chauhan and Richard Pietro, I thoroughly enjoyed the event. I look forward to the next one.



May 16th, 2012
DBast
Posted in
More on the subject of gov 2.0 being more than government use of social media: Civil Servant 2.0, the Dutch book on government 2.0. Download the PDF at http://book.ambtenaar20.nl
Interesting blog post. However, I’d have to disagree with your assessments. I thought it was clear that the speakers articulated what exactly the scope of their project entails. Samara is invested in understanding how exactly democracy can be made more responsive to the public; their results of their study on social media – while still nascent – reveal that there is very little conversational overlap in the ‘twitter universe’ between those who stand for greater democratic accountability, as represented by the Occupy Protesters, and those who are Ottawa insiders. This is worrying for a number of reasons, the most prominent of which is that maybe this shows our elected officials who are Ottawa Insiders are not exactly interested in expanding democratic dialogue. That on-going discussions about the state of democracy are occurring in real life (i.e., in alternate political spaces outside the confines of the government), and in social media shows that there are a lot of people who believe that the status quo is not acceptable. ***The discussions in the latter sphere form part of what Gov 2.0 has become.***
Your definition of Gov 2.0 as ONLY concerning “the use of IT to socialize and commoditize government services, processes and data” remains outdated and – dare I say it – limited. The venn diagram you provided is also completely simplistic. Here’s a thought: rather than being pedantic about definitions, why not actually reflect on the messages the speaker is imparting? Why not reflect on why democratic discourse has so far eluded the Ottawa insiders? Why not think further about how and why discussions over social media is generating far more political engagement than, say, debates within parliament?
I’m curious to hear your thoughts about this. You outed yourself as a former federal government employee when you were asking your question at the end of the presentation but perhaps you can forget your former job and think as a concerned Canadian citizen: how can we make democracy more accountable? How can we make sure that the issues ‘average Canadians’ care about are heard by decision-makers and how can we ensure that the advances in social media contribute to that? Until we start deliberating on that, then the simplistic definitions and the venn diagrams you create will remain in the theoretical realm and will have very little to do with what matters to most Canadians.