On 10/13/08, R E Sieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a proponent of PPGIS, I feel a little bit awkward because my field is > supposed to be self-reflective. We critique the very discipline we > promote. So do we criticize the need for expertise, whether it's science > or technology? Sure. At the same time, we spend a lot of time > investigating new tools that don't do further damage to the people and > participatory processes they're supposed to serve. And we spend an > inordinate amount of time trying to understand the complicated nature of > participatory processes. > > But Tim, you put the gloves down. (In a good way.) > > To me, the main difference between PPGIS and neogeo is that there's > self-reflection in the former and no reflection in the latter. For > neogeo, it's all build, build, build. As much as I love the new tools > and support the innovation (the very innovative streak that GIS may have > lost!) it still comes out of the creative destruction inherent in the > innovation. (Sean applied it to GIS but it applies far more to geoweb > technologies these days.) New thing comes along and the past is smashed. > The past could be ArcGIS 9.3 or Openlayers. Or geography. > > But there's no reflection on what's lost. Like what happens when the > data can't be used anymore because it was tied to a particular software?
One of the reasons we build new things is because we have gazed at our navel and found it wanting. Maybe there is an itch in our navel that needs to be scratched, maybe the navel itself is not as technologically advanced as it used to be, whatever. To that extent, I think it is as self-reflective as my make-up mirror. There is a lot of reflection on what is lost. Sometime what is lost deserves a quick death and is best forgotten, sometimes its wastefulness is a lesson for the future. Much of open source is founded on the use-reuse philosophy, so it does much better in avoiding the bit-rot problem than its closed source counterpart. I am one of the folks who lurks on both Geowanking as well as the PPGIS list, and in all honesty, I personally find the PPGIS list to be a waste of bandwidth for the most part. Maybe I am going through a severe internet/social-networks post-high depression cynicism syndrome, but PPGIS is one of things that just rubs me the wrong way. In the beginning there was GIS. Then someone came along and made it PGIS. Then someone else made it PPGIS. Then some changed GIS to GIT. Someone else added P3DM. If this acronym soup is an indication of self-reflection, well then, I am happier without it. Every time I get a new email on the PPGIS list asking for courses that one could do and funding for those courses, I get that much closer to unsubscribing from it. With regards to the other statement in the thread that "GIS is power" -- that is also a bunch of hooey. If anything, GIS is a huge waste of power and has been a sink of much useful resources that could have been alternatively deployed. Hopefully, with internet-based data sharing, this neo mashup trend, we can actually really realize the power of what may not be "real" GIS but is eminently more useful. > Okay, the available digital data and free software and open source are > supposed to alleviate that problem. But what about the time and > applications lost because the only person in the community organization > has left so all the opensource middleware falls apart when version 2.0 > comes along. With the loss of the app, the democratic potential is lost. > > So that's fixed over time (although that's a big "if"). There's no > reflection on what persists. In particular, the continued role of > neoliberalism in neogo. Neogeographers come out of a smash the past, I > built this cool technology and if you cannot use this app to lift > yourself out of your deprivation then it's your own damned fault. Never > mind that mere technology access doesn't alleviate the local political > situation, the global political situation or gender differences or > whatever. Never mind that the neogeographer is well-educated, > particularly in technology, and therefore well-off relative to most > everyone else in the world. And it's one step above social Darwinism. > Instead of smashing paleogeo, GIS or PPGIS, I'd say what's needed is a > neogeo conscience. We could start with ironic detachment. > > Was John Pickles prescient? I'm not much of a fan of John Pickles > because he offered NO possibility that GIS could ever serve a democratic > ends. Also he wrote in a style that remains completely opaque to the > general public (even as he was casting opinions about the societal > impacts of GIS). Geospatial technologies would always be held hostage to > the capitalistic or militaristic ends for which it was originally > conceived. (Pickles did come around years later and allowed for some > democratic potential.) But PPGISers and PGISers (those who work > primarily in developing countries) have been looking for alternatives > and critiquing geospatial technologies even before Pickles and ever > since Pickles. To think that critical theorists have left GIS alone > since Pickles but have only emerged to critique the geoweb is wrong. > > If you'd like to hear the broad range of critiques and possibiliites of > computerized and non-computerized mapping for democracy and > participation, please join PPGIS.net. I know there are more than a few > of you who are on both lists. > > To continued fist fights on the list and Happy Canadian Thanksgiving, > Renee > > Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: > > These recent discussions have increasingly reminded me of the > > Introduction by Pickles in "Ground Truth: The Social Implications of > > Geographic Information Systems", published way way back in 1995. On > > two scales, those of experts and novices and those in power and those > > without. > > > > The main message from Ground Truth is that GIS is power. The tools are > > mainly used by those in power, and helps them keep their power and > > privilege, and widens the social gap. > > > > The traditional response to this is Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) - > > where the same tools are used to help those to make decisions without > > such privileges and power. > > > > To me, PPGIS still exists within the same world of GIS that Pickles > > describes - the tools and methods are the same - they are consciously > > used in a different way, however. > > > > Neogeography stands for a decentralising or democratising of power, > > the creation of new tools, new methodologies, and ecosystems. > > > > It could be said that within "the world of geo" those in power and > > privilege are the academics in the ivory towers, and the GIS experts > > with their arcane knowledge. It's easy to see there's vested interests > > at work. Those without power is everyone else. VGI is seen as a > > commodity, an output. > > A bigger example are the countries were GPS ownership or map-making is > > illegal (e.g Egypt)[2] > > > > Free software, open data & neogeography reduces somewhat the social > > gap between those with the power and those without. Although of course > > it's limited to the broader "digital divide" and access to computing & > > internet resources, which is being focused on in other areas. > > > > It's by no means perfect (it needs quite high-tech know how to go > > around and map for openstreetmap for example) but its on the right > > path. > > > > [1] > http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Implications-Geographic-Information/dp/0898622956 > > [2] http://www.gisdevelopment.net/news/viewn.asp?id=GIS:N_mtgnzhxuse > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > > -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
