What does open government really mean?
Although I freely admit to a positive bias when it comes to the open government/open data* issue, I also enjoy critiques of said issue. These are excellent at pinpointing downfalls of access and inclusivity, and for identifying ulterior motives in the adoption, of say, the government's OGP commitment.
This govfresh post (which is now almost 2 years old) was prompted by another post by blogger/scholar Tom Slee, who raises some (sadly) valid points in the Canadian context. It seems that many open data folks, including the govfresh author, took umbrage with Slee's blanket dismissal of the rhetoric that accompanies the open government/transparency movement. An excellent response to Slee's argument (as noted in the govfresh post) can be found in David Eaves' response.
What's important about this debate is not who is right; it's the fact that it is happening at all. Open data champions need skeptics to avoid falling into the trap of technological determinism, while skeptics needs to accept that great grassroots work is being done in this space (see OpenParliament.ca, as an example). Debate and critique are at the heart of what it means to be open and transparent. An echo chamber reverberating with agreement on how wonderful and emancipating data is will not help advance the principles of transparency that this movement (and yes, I think that's an accurate moniker) espouses.
This UCLA Law Review piece also provides an interesting critique of open government.
*I've conflated the two here, but I agree with Eaves that open data and open government are truly not one and the same.
