OOGL: Open Our Government List

The Sunlight Foundation has a new website called OOGL: Open Our Government List, for you to vote and submit ideas for what the Open Government Directive should address.

Shortly after President Obama's inauguration, he issued a memo on transparency directing his top officials to develop plans for an Open Government Directive to promote transparency, participation, and collaboration. The Sunlight Foundation has created this page in order to add a public element to the crafting of this Open Government Directive that is itself transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
So far, the highest vote goes to Ethics Information, APIs & Bulk Data Access, and Procedural Information. Spread the word and vote! Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Act now for open access to govt funded research

[Note: I'm pasting here the action alert from Jennifer McLennan, Director of Communications, Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). FGI has no affiliation with SPARC, but this is an extremely important issue] CALL TO ACTION: Ask your Representative to oppose the H.R. 801 - The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act Last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) re-introduced a bill that would reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. The legislation is H.R. 801: the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". Please contact your Representative no later than February 28, 2009 to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801. Contact your Representative directly using the contact information and draft letter below, or via the ALA legislative action center. As always, kindly let us know what action you're able to take, via email to stacie [at] arl [dot] org. H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). In effect, it would:

  1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.
  2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.
  3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.
  4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.
  5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.
Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner. All supporters of public access -- researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others -- are asked to contact their Representatives to let them know you support public access to federally funded research and oppose H.R. 801. Again, the proposed legislation would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. Thank you for your support and continued persistence in supporting this policy. You know the difference constituent voices can make on Capitol Hill. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact Heather or myself anytime. All best, Jennifer -------------------------- Jennifer McLennan Director of Communications SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition) http://www.arl.org/sparc (202) 296-2296 ext 121 jennifer [at] arl [dot] org Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. ------------------------- Draft letter text: Dear Representative; On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 801, "the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act," introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2009. This bill would amend the U.S. Copyright Code, prohibiting federal agencies from requiring as a condition of funding agreements public access to the products of the research they fund. This will significantly inhibit our ability to advance scientific discovery and to stimulate innovation in all scientific disciplines. Most critically, H.R. 810 would reverse the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, prohibit American taxpayers from accessing the results of the crucial biomedical research funded by their taxpayer dollars, and stifle critical advancements in life-saving research and scientific discovery. Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH's PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner. H.R. 801 affects not only the results of biomedical research produced by the NIH, but also scientific research coming from all other federal agencies. Access to critical information on energy, the environment, climate change, and hundreds of other areas that directly impact the lives and well being of the public would be unfairly limited by this proposed legislation. [Why you support taxpayer access and the NIH policy]. The NIH and other agencies must be allowed to ensure timely, public access to the results of research funded with taxpayer dollars. Please oppose H.R.801. Sincerely, (name) [END LETTER TEXT] ------- Contact information Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary (For other Members of Congress, please see www.house.gov or use the ALA legislative action center. Name Fax number State: Rep. Trent Franks 202-225-6328 AZ Rep. Howard Berman 202-225-3196 CA Rep. Zoe Lofgren 202-225-3336 CA Rep. Maxine Waters 202-225-7854 CA Rep. Brad Sherman 202-225-5879 CA Rep. Adam Schiff 202-225-5828 CA Rep. Linda Sánchez 202-226-1012 CA Rep. Elton Gallegly 202-225-1100 CA Rep. Dan Lungren 202-226-1298 CA Rep. Darrell Issa 202-225-3303 CA Rep. Robert Wexler 202-225-5974 FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz 202-226-2052 FL Rep. Tom Rooney 202-225-3132 FL Rep. Hank Johnson 202-226-0691 GA Rep. Steve King 202-225-3193 IA Rep. Luis Gutierrez 202-225-7810 IL Rep. William D. Delahunt 202-225-5658 MA Rep. John Conyers, Jr. 202-225-0072 MI Rep. Gregg Harper 202-225-5797 MS Rep. Melvin Watt 202-225-1512 NC Rep. Howard Coble 202-225-8611 NC Rep. Jerrold Nadler 202-225-6923 NY Rep. Anthony Weiner 202-226-7253 NY Rep. Dan Maffei 202-225-4042 NY Rep. Jim Jordan 202-226-0577 OH Res. Comm. Pedro Pierluisi 202-225-2154 PR - At large Rep. Steve Cohen 202-225-5663 TN Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee 202-225-3317 TX Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez 202-225-1915 TX Rep. Lamar Smith 202-225-8628 TX Rep. Louie Gohmert 202-226-1230 TX Rep. Ted Poe 202-225-5547 TX Rep. Jason Chaffetz 202-225-5629 UT Rep. Rick Boucher 202-225-0442 VA Rep. Robert Scott 202-225-8354 VA Rep. Bob Goodlatte 202-225-9681 VA Rep. J. Randy Forbes 202-226-1170 VA Rep. Tammy Baldwin 202-225-6942 WI Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 202-225-3190 WI Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Won’t Get Fooled Again: Day 28

I got to say -- even one steeped in the cynicism of Illinois politics gets fatigued. Revelations about Roland Burris' selective memory of when and who he talked to about fund raising for our favorite ex-Governor continues to plumb new depths of political depravity. When will the this long state-wide nightmare be over? On another front -- a couple of political science professors have put together an excellent report on Illinois corruption -- find it here. What's more, the Illinois Attorney General is recommending legislative changes in the state's Freedom of Information of Information laws -- all because of you know who -- check it out here. And, I am pulling together a list of state libraries that are under threat of being shut down or service curtailed because of state budget crunches. If you know what is happening in your state -- drop me a line and I will report the results in a near future segment of "Won't Get Fooled Again" See you on Day 29. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Law Libraries and Digital Information

In an interview in the Connecticut Law Tribune, Darcy Kirk, associate dean for library and technology and professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, addresses some of the potential dangers of digital-only legal information.

She outlines a number of concerns:
  • A concern that the information won't be permanently available as technology changes. "If the government agency or court doesn't plan before the current format goes out of use, we could lose the ability to access those publications."
  • A concern that a government agency or a court, publishing online, might decide on its own what to delete. "Then, all of a sudden you don't have it online and you don't have it in print, either."
  • A concern about the Google Book project because "Google is a for-profit entity. We're not. Google is interested in things that might ultimately make them some money."
These are not exactly problems of digital vs. paper; they are issues of control. When government agencies, courts, and the private sector insist on controlling what is online and what is not, libraries have no control over what is available. The simple solution is for libraries to build their own digital collections. This allows libraries to treat the information as a community resource and empowers the library to manage that information as a community resource and maintain that resource to match the needs of the community. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Public Media 2.0

An interesting new white paper contrasts "Public Media 1.0" (public broadcasting, cable access, nonprofit satellite set-asides) with "Public Media 2.0" (multiplatform, participatory, centered around informing and mobilizing networks of engaged users). It says that "the individual user has moved from being an anonymous part of a mass to being the center of the media picture."

Public broadcasting and other "public media" are facing challenges similar to those that newspapers and libraries are facing in the digital information age. This white paper attempts to re-envision public media, just as many people are trying to re-envision newspapers/journalism and libraries. The paper focuses more on "content" creation and user-collaboration than on preservation of information, but it does acknowledge the need for funding for what it calls "curation" and archiving. It says that "Commercial platforms do not have the same incentives to preserve historically relevant content that public media outlets do." The terms "curation" and "stewardship" are often used in discussion of long-term preservation and access to information, but different writers use the terms differently, even interchangeably. This leads to vague, conflicting, and confusing arguments. This white paper defines "curation" more as presentation and commentary than as preservation. In doing so, they miss an opportunity to address the issues of long-term, free, usable, public access to information.
Curation: Users are aggregating, sharing, ranking, tagging, reposting, juxtaposing, and critiquing content on a variety of platforms—from personal blogs to open video-sharing sites to social network profile pages. Reviews and media critique are popular genres for online contributors, displacing or augmenting genres, such as consumer reports and travel writing, and feeding a widespread culture of critical assessment.
Clark and Aufderheide do include libraries as one of the potential partners for public media projects along with other institutions in the nonprofit sector such as universities, museums, and issue-focused educational and social organizations. They note that these institutions have "assets" that "include archives and databases, issue expertise, legitimacy, and trusted brands." This vision certainly fits in with what John Shuler has been describing in his series on libraries as centers for education and civic engagement. I think libraries looking for service ideas could get some good ones from this report. But I also think that libraries will need to read beyond this report to find their unique role in society and in facilitating and participating in "Public Media 2.0." Libraries can fill the long-term preservation-and-use gap in the report. Specifically, civic participation needs trusted institutions to select, acquire, organize, and preserve information and provide that information in usable formats in an environment that encourages re-use and the kind of participation described in the white paper. Libraries need to concentrate on those "assets" -- not in the economic sense of private property that is owned and controlled for the benefit of the owners, but as valuable community property, managed and maintained for the community by information professionals. For Public Media 2.0 to succeed and flourish, for citizens to be able to reliably "aggregate, share, rank, tag, and critique," society needs more than content creators (journalists, broadcasters, writers, analysts, etc.); it also needs institutions that guarantee access and usability of information. It needs libraries. Thanks to Kevin Taglang, Editor, Communications-related Headlines, Benton Foundation for the pointer to this report! Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Archives

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM