Open Government - What Does it Mean?

• Some people say that Barack Obama's participation in social media (facebook, twitter, et al) had a direct impact on him becoming president of the USA.
• Almost 1,000,000 people follow Kevin Rudd on Twitter.
• The Australian government has just adopted, in principle, 12 out of the 13 recommendations from the report of the Government 2.0 Task Force.
• The NSW government has recently appointed an Information Commissioner who will promote openness, accountability and transparency of government information.
• In the last 12 months Waverley Council decided not to pursue the development of a truck depot at North Bondi, primarily due to a campaign waged on Facebook.

But what does it all mean?  Why are governments moving in this direction?

Craig Thomler has written a short post on Infallability, government and Web 2.0, which sums up nicely the reasoning behind the shift.

The shift towards open government, or Gov 2.0, has not come from government itself.  It is being forced upon government due to shifts in the way information gets shared by people as a result of the rise of Web 2.0 - Web sites that focus not on providing information to consumers but on facilitating connections, sharing and participation between people.

Government's are not infallible. Those inside government know it and the public also knows it.  Trying to provide an impression of infallibility by controlling the flow of information can cause more damage than good. In the world of 24 hour citizen journalism trust and reputation are crucial.

As Craig puts it...

...attempts to protect an agency or Minister through controlling information can, instead, create greater risks to them. This activity can damage reputations, expose them as out-of-step or, in extreme cases, result in rolling heads.

Government agencies increasingly need to resist the need to control all flows of information and focus on ensuring that accurate information is available wherever people are having a discussion. They need to ensure that the community has access to the facts - both when government is right and when they are wrong.

This limits the damage of false claims and myths - when government has indeed made the most correct decisions. Equally it limits the damage and distress when government has made mistakes. This approach allows government to retain the respect and trust of the community, particularly when errors are quickly detected and corrected.

(emphasis mine)

My slide deck on trust, transparency and reputation in government is available on slideshare if you're interested this line of thinking.