Re: position paper: Social Media in eGovernment

El 04/12/2008, a las 3:00, Novak, Kevin escribió:
> Owen,
> Speaking for myself, I think dialog on the questions asked in the  
> paper would be terrific.


> Kevin

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: 'eGov IG' <>
> Sent: Wed Dec 03 20:42:03 2008
> Subject: RE: position paper: Social Media in eGovernment
> ...
> With reference to the first question, I would make a plea for use of  
> the
> word "stewardship" rather than "ownership" -- at least as far as  
> public
> information is concerned.  (The notion that someone ... anyone ...  
> could
> "own" a social network is also anathema to me.)  See the section  
> entitled
> "Culture" at the bottom of page 10 (PDF page 16) of the document at
> --  
> whose
> four enumerated goals are available in StratML format at

from there: "There is an established mindset of information 'ownership'.
The new mindset must be one of information 'stewardship'"

I fully agree with this statement, it needs a change of mind and it  
also has other implications. Maybe we should discuss separately who  
owns the social network and who owns the _contents_ of the social  
network? Maybe the appropriate wording is who should _steward_ the  
social network and _own the content?

One of my main concerns when using the 2.0 stuff is the site/tool  
"owning" _my_ data. I really hate this.

Personal example. I'm a Flickr Pro user. If I upload an image to  
Flickr, I supposedly own the image. What will happen to my photos and  
all he time I spend on Flickr tagging them, etc. if I decide not to  
stay as Pro in the future?
(limited access or no access at all)

Now think of the picture being a public one, or (I think I read it  
somewhere) Obama's speeches in YouTube later next year. Who "owns"  
that video clip?

I think it was Rachel who mentioned a couple times being working on a  
policy wrt the use of social media by the US Federal Government  
(looking forward to the use case!)
I think it's clear that in the case of public information is even more  
important to analyze the potential issues and address them as soon as  
possible in the process. It's likely the regular terms of use of those  
sites are not applicable "as is" to this kind of information.

Not to mention personal profiles... tired of filling forms so many  
times and still not "owning" that information myself. Would love to  
see something like FOAF succeeding big scale.

We'll see what's the outcome of the workshop.

> Regarding the second of the four summary points in the social media
> "position" paper, it would be good if the eGov IG could at least  
> identify,
> if not necessarily "recommend" a few key goals that might be part of a
> logical strategic "approach" (if not necessarily an actual strategic  
> plan,
> with measurable objectives against which progress can be measured and
> reported to stakeholders, e.g., in StratML format).

I'm copying Oscar. I mentioned a couple times before there is a Group  
led by the State government here and the centre I work for (CTIC),  
working on this based on an inventory and a risk management approach.  
AFAIK, that Group is preparing a use case to be submitted to the eGov  
IG and I think it could be of help much in this regard if it was  
detailed enough.

-- Jose

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:59:34 UTC