I remember a couple of years ago when the whole Chronic Wasting Disease issue was hot… and of course, living in Wisconsin, it became a hot topic FAST. My family is not a hunting family, but for some of my best friends – hunting is a way of life. I knew that they were looking up information on the topic nightly, but I guess I never really thought about where it was coming from it. I think that Eschenfelder and Miller make many valid arguments in their article “Examining the role of Web site information in facilitating different-government relationships. Throughout the entirety of the article, I couldn’t help but have this little lingering voice in the back of my head saying, “What is the government hiding from us??” Now, I am an extremely trusting person, and have never really seriously had these thoughts (I like to think I have faith in our government), but seriously- why not give the people the information! It was a little disheartening to think there was no consistency within these four states’ websites. Ideally, the public information should be the same across states (with different specifics) and the websites should be fully inclusive of information. Yet- apparently this is not the case. Through this study, it seems that Wisconsin had the “best” website, yet is that just because we had such a highly invested interest in it? Is the public information concerning bed bugs in Wisconsin as thoroughly covered as it is in New York? I am aware that there are a bazillion issues that the government “should” report on, and that in reality time and resources are limited; however, with the creation of the Web, shouldn’t this be easier? I like the point that Eschenfelder and Miller made when they commented on the value of information. Just because a state puts a ton of information on their website, does not necessarily mean it is better. More does not equal better. In fact, oftentimes more information is just a fluffy way of looking like you are making a point, when in reality you could be spinning your wheels. To reiterate a question made in the conclusion of the study, “Do agencies really seek to use Web sites to change their relationships with citizens, or do they see them as tools to reinforce their positions of information power in policy debate?”
The next article I read was Yudolf’s “The Nerves of the Government,” and when I finished, I was even MORE skeptical of the government and their duty of providing information to the public. But then I started to think: sins of commission, sins of omission… can the government win? Yes, the use of technology makes it easier to disseminate information, but if this technology was not available, would there as many criticisms of the government’s role of informing public? History has proved that there definitely were instances of this (Watergate for example), yet, were these suspicions common? I can’t really answer these questions myself, since my entire informed life I can remember the use of the Web. But are we just using the Web as an excuse, or is there an increase of expectation that comes along with it? As stated in the article, “technology is ethically neutral, but unethical leaders seize upon it to advance their interests.” So what do other people think… the Web… good addition to public information? Or complicated factor that brings out skeptics in citizens?
I must admit, I struggled a little with the Interim Summary of the “Documents of a Digital Democracy” piece… and I am not entirely sure why. I understood the premise of the piece, explaining the Federal Depository Library, and the issues that have occurred with it in its first year of existence. From the article, it seems like the FDLP is not thriving as “they” had hoped. I think my issue was… who exactly is the “they” that planned and first implemented this program? Ithaka? Then what was their purpose and WHO were they marketing this article to? I read it, but really, did not feel I could make a connection with it. Plus, I am not sure if I agree that everything should eventually be digitized. (Actually, I am not sure the article suggesting this is the way it SHOULD be, but maybe rather it is just an observed trend?) Yes, digitization would provide easier of access of materials to people, yet… then I began thinking… should everyone have access to everything? Can people make use of all the knowledge they have access to?
Now, I know what you are thinking… I spent the first part of this entry talking about how I was baffled in thinking that the government might be withholding information from public, and now with this final article, I start to wonder if giving people access to “all” information is a good idea? I think this clearly displays… that I have no idea. Maybe it’s one of those situations where it is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Or maybe it is just that I had a super busy with parent teacher conferences this week, and I have been battling the flu on and off for over two weeks and my head is just a wee bit in a fog. Or maybe… a little of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment