Apologies for being slow on the response, but agree with both of Renee's points. I do think there is a lot more creative destruction going on in Neogeography than GIS. Just happens I think that it is a good thing from an innovation and possibly from a participation perspective. The impact of all the GeoWeb technology building definitely needs to be reflected on and that is one of many things academia is great for. Then we (Geowanking et al.) can be educated as to what we are destroying that we should not.
I also agree there has been lots of good critique done of GIS, but I do not think there has been a good critical analysis of how the GeoWeb has the potential to solve some of the problems highlighted in that literature. Many of the things that Chippy brought have not been examined by Geographers. This of course means venturing into the postmodern taboo of saying technology could be used for societal good. I still think the discipline of Geography is missing a huge opportunity to educate the public through democratized GeoWeb tools and data. I see the folks at UCL CASA and Wisco pushing the possibility but very few others. Critique certainly has its place but I think it has taken far to prominent of a role in the discipline. best, sean FortiusOne Inc, 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 Arlington, VA 22201 cell - 202-321-3914 ----- Original Message ----- From: "R E Sieber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:37:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Geowanking] was: novice vs experts HULK SMASH 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? 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 > > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
