Sunday, October 14, 2012

Libraries and the future




(Photo from Imgur )


Two notes on libraries that got me thinking about technology and communities:

1) The Digital Public Library of America is several years into trying to figure out and launch a digital public library of America. Is it all online? What materials? Who are the stakeholders? What's different about it - is it the code that shares the materials? What does it mean for those cherished physical libraries? What gets included? Why would it have national borders if its all digital? And so on...huge questions, great work going on. I attended a planning session in San Francisco at the Internet Archive, follow their work online, and find myself loving the discussions among librarians, authors, parents, community members, publishers, museums. This effort is one of the living laboratories for creating "digital civil society." The Knight Foundation just made a grant to help the DP.LA establish several regional pilot sites.

2) Small, local, "unofficial" lending libraries that pop up on the sidewalks of Brooklyn or in farmers' fields in Florida. Hipsters and fieldworkers - sharing, trusting, building community. See this story on Little Free Libraries,  or these on "guerrilla" libraries, and corner libraries.

These seem like opposites, don't they - national and digital, local and analog, run by professionals and volunteer-driven? Yet here they both are, complementing each other.


Friday, October 12, 2012

Let's Play "Let's Predict the Future"

Last year several studies looked at the the possible effects of changes in the tax law on American giving patterns. As I noted in November 2011 the studies found a range of giving decline of between $.8 billion and $5.6 billion (the high number estimate is only about 2% of annual giving.)

Given the variation of these expert economic models, let's all play experts for a second. 

Here's the question, "What would affect donors' behavior more, changes in the tax deductions associated with their their giving or rules requiring greater transparency about their giving?"

Let me know what you think in comments or on twitter (@p2173). Unlike 6th grade math you can just share your opinion, you don't need to show your work, although I also welcome you to explain your opinion.

(The savvier of you will, of course, realize that I'm asking because I think changes of either kind might lie in the year ahead....)

Friday, October 05, 2012

Let our data define us - part II

Here's the second part of my "screed" on data from Markets for Good. Pasted in below and you a link to  part one.

"In Part I of  “Let Our Data Define Us”, guest blogger Lucy Bernholz charged the social sector to be the standard-bearer for one of biggest issues of our time: how we use data. She continues the thought here and outlines a new definition for the sector at the forefront of taking on our biggest challenges."

"Ours is a sector that should set the standards for data use, innovation, and sharing. The sector should be a leading voice on issues of digital access and personal privacy and an innovator when it comes to trying new enterprise forms built on data: think Khan Academy.
Social purpose organizations should be careful but willing partners in efforts that use data to find disruptive insights into shared public problems.
We should leapfrog old technologies where possible. Social networks, search engines, text messages – all yield massive aggregate data sets that may reveal how we the people are really making change happen in the 21st Century. When we think about the “data of change” we need to see past our own established boundaries to ask if there are new, better ways to organize to accomplish our stated missions.  In building shared systems of data, let us not limit ourselves to the revenue and enterprise flows that we’ve long used: instead, let us look to the data to see what is going on around us.
The social sector is no longer the purview of philanthropy and nonprofits. Social businesses, informal networks, crowdfunded prototypes, and social investments are all part of the mix.
We cannot define the social sector by the enterprise form (nonprofit), or type of revenue (philanthropy) – this is too limiting.
Nor can we define the sector by its outcomes. Although it is the first-gathering place of those seeking to use private resources for the benefit of others, the social economy relies on relationships with business and government. Should we ever get around to agreeing on outcomes we will still be faced by the hairy problem of attribution – better to focus on doing the work then claiming false credit.
More important, the economy is consciously defined by conflicting results. The deliberate diversity of the sector – that it is home to both pro-life and pro-choice, gun control and gun advocacy organizations – makes its inclusivity more salient than its outcomes.
With enterprise structure and outcomes set aside as defining  characteristics, let us look to data as a revealing asset.
If we set and meet high standards on data sharing in pursuit of mission, provide incentives to gather and share, and demonstrate results by virtue of our practices, the social economy in all its healthy diversity will stand apart. With respect to both the power of aggregate data sets and the rights of individuals, the sector will  become a trusted ally on issues of personal privacy. With a justice-based lens on ownership and property rights and default position of contributing to and taking from shared repositories of data, the sector will can become a proving ground for inclusive practices.
Americans have long taken pride in our tradition of independent associations. Let us now bring that associational tendency and tradition to our use of data. As we have long been known for our civic action and participation offline, let us be come to be known by shared practices around data – how we contribute and draw from it, use it to better opportunities for all of us, protect it and those it makes vulnerable, and value it as a critical resource for change in the 21st Century."

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Let our data define us

Information is power. As we become surrounded by data, as data get counted as are assets, as data access, synthesis, ownership and privacy must be recognized also as issues of fairness, justice, and equity the independent sector should be leading data initiators, educators, users, consumers, and sharers.

We who care about the commons should care about data. We, not business or government, can identify the throughways between personal privacy and aggregated insights and light the way forward. Democracy depends on information and relationships - access to, control over, understanding of, and definitional contribution to the data that shape our collective decisions is key.

Dumping data on people is not accountability, transparency, or effective practice, and big data holds threats as well as promise, injustice as well as insights. Sharing and making sense of data and information as part of seeking change, creativity, and making progress is part of problem solving. Let us not "do data unto" others, rather "let our data, and our generation, use, and sharing of it, define us."

This is the spirit in which I've contributed a two-part blog post series to the new Markets For Good Initiative. The first post is online and pasted in below. Read more at marketsforgood.com

"Solutions to shared social challenges should not be proprietary. To achieve our social missions we should share what we know – widely, accessibly, and openly. We should define our work and our enterprises by our data and data practices.

What would this mean? Data used for and generated by efforts at improving the human condition should be shared. Investments in structures that allow for data cleaning, sharing, maintenance and appropriate use should be fundamental parts of all funding strategies – as their benefits will rebound to (and beyond) each contributor. Creative Commons or other open licensing standards should be the default for research and findings. Open data protocols should be the norm for data sets developed with philanthropic resources. The best privacy protocols and attention to human rights protections should be widely understood, available, and used when needed. Equitable access to broadband, data analysis and digital skills must be provided. The skills that are required for using data – assessing credibility, identifying bias, seeing significance, storytelling – should be part of the sector’s workforce.

WE SHOULD SET THE STANDARD FOR USING DATA AS A PUBLIC PURPOSE RESOURCE

We should show business and governments what it means to use data well and imaginatively to solve problems, vet solutions and protect individual privacy. We should be encouraging the innovators and “miners” who can manage huge data sets and see new solutions in them. We should be nurturing the ethos of hacking for good, encouraging techies, coders, and public agents to put our data to work in making communities safer, healthcare more accessible, transportation more reliable, cities greener, and art more available. We should be willing to experiment and innovate with mashed-up data sets and stay the course until the efforts yield new insights, new partnerships, new forms of giving, and new knowledge about solutions.

Why should we do this? To achieve our goals. We exist to address shared problems, we should share the resources that can help move us forward. Data are such a resource.

BUT WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR SUCH A REALITY

Foundations and nonprofits lag far behind both commerce and government when it comes to using data as assets and resources. The Markets For Good initiative, with its recommendations on infrastructure, interoperability, and access is a great start. It details a platform and set of operating standards by which existing data sources – reports, compliance documents, grants, and due diligence reviews can be made visible and useful. It lays the groundwork for better mapping of issues, shared planning efforts, and potential new ways of working.

To define ourselves by our data we also have to recognize that Markets for Good is only a start. It will make available data that we can use, but more important it will set the stage for innovation off of that data. Let’s look to these markets for the raw materials of change – just as the National Weather Service fuels the weather channel and countless weather apps, or federal satellite data unleashed the creation of the GPS industry and mobile maps, lets not stop at the stage of collecting, cataloging, opening, and sharing data.

Let us view the Markets for Good initiative as a small step toward a giant leap in making change. One in which networks of individuals can crowd fund experiments and link them to sustaining institutions. Where the data created by a failed foundation investment in a digital news experiment becomes the raw material for another experiment, one that might work. Where the lessons learned from hundreds of independently operated after-school programs can be aggregated and analyzed for all to use. Where the data trails generated from online giving sites are re-constituted into “community sensors” that reveal the needs and strengths of different communities. Where new forms of enterprise and fiscal sponsorship, peer-based accountability and mobile payment mechanisms can be created." 

…to be continued. Part II of “Let Our Data Define Us" will be posted on October 3rd.