Wired Magazine reports on New York City's 311 line, which provides a 24 hour live operator (with access to 170 languages) who answers questions and forwards calls regarding city services. This “citizen services phone line … may well be the most radical enhancement of urban information management since the invention of the census, and it promises to make urban centers into more livable spaces….
“First, it's a kinder, gentler 911: You dial 311 when there's a strange guy hovering around the playground, not breaking into your apartment.
“Second, 311 functions as an information concierge [giving directions to everything from parking tickets to the nearest daycare centre to the concert schedule at Central Park]…
“Third, the government learns as much as the callers do. That's the radical idea at the heart of the service: Every question or problem carries its own kind of data. … 311 automatically records the location of each incoming service request in a huge database that feeds info throughout New York City's government. Think of 311 as a kind of massively distributed extension of the city's perceptual systems, harnessing millions of ordinary eyes on the street to detect emerging problems or report unmet needs…
“Already, 311 data is changing the government's priorities. In the first year of operation, noise was the number one complaint; the Bloomberg administration subsequently launched a major quality-of-life initiative combating city noise. Today, geomapping software displays streets with chronic pothole troubles and blocks battling graffiti – all integrated into custom dashboards on city officials' laptops.”
Update from Mark Evans on November 25: The CRTC has approved a joint application from the cities of Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Halton to use 3-1-1 for non-emergency municipal government services.
Google has launched Google Scholar, a specialized search engine restricted to scholarly literature like peer reviewed articles, technical reports, theses and abstracts. The search algorithms have been customized to provide the kind of information that researchers look for, and includes results from subscription-based online journals that are hidden from the public web.
In many cases, Google Scholar finds relevant citations that are only in hard copy but are referenced in an online article. From TechWeb: “In such cases, a Library Search and/or a Web Search link shows next to the book's or paper's title. The former uses the Open WorldCat program to locate a nearby library with the work, while Web Search searches the larger index for other, non-scholarly references.”
For more information, see Google Scholar's FAQ.
Google is offering to include posted reports from eligible professional associations. This is an opportunity for the voluntary sector to disseminate research and reports without big investments in OAI compliant archives as I recommended in an earlier article. If a website such as www.nonprofitscan.ca was included in Google Scholar, it could instantly provide a free search function on its own site at the same time as joining the international scholarly literature.
The free FireFox browser is finally officially released. Besides being more resistant to viruses and other security threats than
Internet Explorer, as well as lots of other features that technology
magazines seem to appreciate, it has two very cool abilities. First, it
will enlarge text on most sites, even those that are not programmed to
offer larger text. This is a big deal for people with visual
impairments, like anyone my age or older. [Update: Firefox
also offers an extension that "displays a text representation of a web page similar to how a screen reader would read it. This helps web developers finding accessibility issues at an early stage in the UI development process."]
I like many of Firefox's extensions, which are little optional
plug-ins that expand the functionality of the browser. My current
favourite is called WayBack, and it lets you instantly see the history and various versions of the web page you are browsing in the waybackmachine archive.
For example, using FireFox I went to the web site of the Liberal Party of Canada (www.liberal.ca),
which incidentally has one of the worst home pages I've ever seen – a
questionnaire in two languages asking for personal information. I
right-clicked on the page and selected 'WayBack this page'. I got
the following response, listing all of the major versions of the
information-free Liberal home page since 1996.
* denotes when site was updated.
| Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 – Nov 15, 2004 |
| 1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
| 2 pages |
3 pages |
4 pages |
8 pages |
14 pages |
18 pages |
16 pages |
20 pages |
2 pages |
Nov 09, 1996 * Dec 29, 1996
|
Feb 01, 1997 Apr 16, 1997 Dec 11, 1997 *
|
Jan 22, 1998 Apr 23, 1998 Nov 11, 1998 Dec 05, 1998
|
Jan 25, 1999 Feb 04, 1999 * Feb 08, 1999 * Feb 19, 1999 Apr 21, 1999 * Apr 29, 1999 May 07, 1999 Oct 12, 1999
|
Mar 02, 2000 * May 10, 2000 May 11, 2000 May 20, 2000 Jun 19, 2000 Jun 20, 2000 Jul 06, 2000 Aug 15, 2000 Aug 19, 2000 Oct 18, 2000 Oct 19, 2000 Nov 09, 2000 * Dec 02, 2000 Dec 06, 2000
|
Jan 18, 2001 Feb 01, 2001 Feb 03, 2001 Feb 24, 2001 Feb 26, 2001 Mar 01, 2001 Mar 02, 2001 Mar 30, 2001 Mar 31, 2001 Apr 05, 2001 * Apr 18, 2001 * May 09, 2001 May 15, 2001 May 17, 2001 May 21, 2001 May 30, 2001 Jul 21, 2001 Sep 22, 2001
|
May 26, 2002 May 28, 2002 May 30, 2002 May 31, 2002 Jun 05, 2002 Jul 21, 2002 Aug 02, 2002 Sep 15, 2002 Sep 22, 2002 Sep 25, 2002 Sep 27, 2002 Sep 29, 2002 Oct 21, 2002 * Nov 26, 2002 Nov 28, 2002 Nov 29, 2002
|
Feb 03, 2003 Feb 07, 2003 Feb 13, 2003 Feb 18, 2003 Apr 01, 2003 Apr 03, 2003 Apr 08, 2003 Apr 20, 2003 Apr 22, 2003 May 28, 2003 Jun 20, 2003 Jun 21, 2003 Jun 24, 2003 Jul 26, 2003 Oct 06, 2003 Oct 30, 2003 Nov 22, 2003 * Dec 14, 2003 * Dec 19, 2003 Dec 26, 2003
|
Jan 03, 2004 Mar 04, 2004 * |
You don't need FireFox to do this – just enter an URL into the waybackmachine for any web page – but it sure is fun to do.
Jessica Litman, in Ethics and Information Technology (2003), an expert in Digital Copyright (in fact, she wrote the book) writes about ethical disobedience in music and movie downloading:
“The heated rhetoric surrounding digital copyright in general, and peer-to-peer file sharing in particular, has inspired great confusion about what the copyright law does and does not prohibit. Most of the key legal questions are still unsettled, in part because copyright defendants have run out of money and gone out of business before their cases could go to trial. In that vacuum, some copyright owners are claiming that their preferred rules of conduct are well-established legal requirements. But those claims are strategic; those rules have never been endorsed by the courts. They are made-up rules. There's a difference between our obligation to follow real rules, and our obligation to follow made-up ones. There may be an ethical obligation to follow real rules, even when they seem unreasonable. But we don't have any ethical obligation to follow made-up ones. Indeed, in this context, we may have an ethical obligation to resist them. Some copyright owners believe the law ought to enable them to control essentially all significant uses of their works. The law has never said that, but it gets closer and closer every day. If we behave as though the made-up rules were actually the law, we will make that day come much sooner. “
If you act fast, you can download the entire article here; it's a free issue.
Lori Criss Powers pointed out this What Works Clearinghouse published by US Department of Education to “provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education”. The site lists research on relevant topics in education, and divides them into studies that meet evidence standards, and those that do not. For example, they have collected 300 studies in the topic of Peer-Assisted Learning, of which 15 meet evidence standards and 109 are still being reviewed. Evaluators and agencies are encouraged to submit studies for review; only two topics have been studied so far.
The evidence standards themselves are worth reading, in that they define the characteristics of relevant research in particular topic areas. It's an interesting model for other areas of best practice in the human services.
The National Guideline Clearinghouse, also sponsored by the US government, lists evidence-based clinical guidelines that are selected through a multi-level peer review process. The site attempts to serve consumers and patients as well as researchers and policy-makers; it's a rich, complex site with masses of health information. Health sciences have led the push towards evidence-based practice, and it's past time for social services to follow suit. This type of clearinghouse could be very helpful to service providers and funders in key topics such as employment, immigration, family violence and so on.
Jakob Neilsen's current Alertbox analyses the Internet strategy of George Bush and John Kerry, and concludes that their email newsletters may have contributed to Bush's win. The article also describes guidelines for effective newsletters. Here's an excerpt from Neilsen's own email newsletter:
“As [my] analysis shows, Kerry supporters were bombarded by repeated fundraising requests, to the extent that many of them probably tuned out the newsletter in the final critical days. Although the Internet is great for collecting money from the masses, there is a limit. Kerry exceeded it.
“Bush sent more messages than Kerry asking supporters to get *other* voters to go to the polls and vote for him. This is a more appropriate use of the newsletter medium because it connects emotionally with subscribers. Being treated as an active participant in the civics process is more motivating than being regarded as an open wallet.
“Bush also repeatedly sent out information that promoted himself and attacked his opponent in relation to current events (such as the Osama video). This is a good strategy: offering newsworthy content makes subscribers more likely to continue opening newsletters. Up-to-the-minute arguments are a classic use of email and gave Bush's supporters fodder in their get-out-the-vote efforts, thus reinforcing the newsletter's value in getting voters to the polls.
“In summary, Kerry used his newsletter to collect money. Bush used his to increase voter turnout, and he won because he was better at turning out his base. Understanding the strength of email newsletters thus directly contributed to Bush's victory, so his Internet team can claim some credit for the outcome.”
Open Access Now is an online journal devoted to articles on various aspects of open access research, published by BioMed Central. A recent article addresses '(Mis)Leading Open Access Myths':
“In the evidence presented to the [UK] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publications, many dubious arguments have been used by traditional publishers to attack the new Open Access publishing model. Below, BioMed Central responds to some of the most prevalent and most misleading anti-Open Access arguments.
| Myth 1 |
The cost of providing Open Access will reduce the availability of funding for research |
| Myth 2 |
Access is not a problem – virtually all UK researchers have the access they need |
| Myth 3 |
The public can get any article they want from the public library via interlibrary loan |
| Myth 4 |
Patients would be confused if they were to have free access to the peer-reviewed medical literature on the web |
| Myth 5 |
It is not fair that industry will benefit from Open Access |
| Myth 6 |
Open Access threatens scientific integrity due to a conflict of interest resulting from charging authors |
| Myth 7 |
Poor countries already have free access to the biomedical literature |
| Myth 8 |
Traditionally published content is more accessible than Open Access content as it is available in printed form |
| Myth 9 |
A high quality journal such as Nature would need to charge authors £10,000-£30,000 in order to move to an Open Access model |
| Myth 10 |
Publishers need to make huge profits in order to fund innovation |
| Myth 11 |
Publishers need to take copyright to protect the integrity of scientific articles” |
Nature journal has completed its series on Open Access publishing with a few wrap-up articles summarizing the pros and cons of open access models. One of the articles addresses the needs of researchers themselves, based on an international web survey of 91,500 senior authors who had recently published in an ISI-indexed journal.
“The survey yielded 3,787 fully completed questionnaires, with responses from 97 countries and from each major discipline in the sciences and social sciences.
“What authors tell us they want from the journals systems reflects a view that has probably not changed much over the past four centuries. They want the imprimatur of quality and integrity that a peer-reviewed, high-impact title can offer, together with reasonable levels of publisher service. Above all, they want to narrowcast their ideas to a close community of like-minded researchers.”
97% of the respondents said their target audience was other researchers in the same field. Only 56% said their target audience included education professionals, 45% wanted their own funders to read their articles, and 40% wanted policy-makers and opinion formers to read them.
“The significance of this finding is that it places one of the journal crisis’ traditional scapegoats, the cry that there are ‘too many journals’, into its proper context. It might even be argued that there are too few titles to satisfy fully scientists’ needs.”
It also points to the importance of journals or other communication vehicles that reach out to policy makers and opinion formers, because scientific literature is not aimed at them.
From the Register – “NBC News has set up an 'I can't vote!' helpline…. The Voter Alert Line application will allow US voters to 'notify local polling officials about voting problems or irregularities at their local polling location' and forms part of NBC News' political coverage of today's presidential election. People unable to vote successfully for whatever reason will be able to get the weight off their chests by calling a free automated system… and leave up to a message (in either English or Spanish) about their experience. These rants (no longer than 60 seconds) will be captured as a voice file and delivered to news network NBC News along with statistics about the origin and volume of the calls via a web portal….”
The information will be used in several ways. Voters can be transferred to their local election offices after their rant, and NBC will analyse the calling patterns and report voting problems in real-time. The results may feature in civil rights lawsuits after the election. It's a fascinating extension of the role of public media in citizen engagement, and it's being funded by several non-partisan organizations and universities. Watch the site throughout election day to see which locations are reporting high numbers of voting problems.