nieuws

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 theoccupy 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This is largely an update of the now-outdated term “e-government”, which was about getting Government information on-line (recall, you had to wait in line at some Kafka-esque government office, or wait on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.

Lees hier verder.