End of Open Data?

The bandwagon of open data has barely started to roll in Europe, while the first chimes of death bells are already feared to be heard from USA.

Data.gov, the mother of all national open data repositories worldwide, is expected to be shut down by the end of May this year. Reasons for shutdown are reportedly financial: US government funding for the transparency scheme is likely to be reduced from $37m to a mere $2m.

It remains to be seen, whether possible shutting of data.gov and several other transparency-related sites in US prove to have a significant and irreversibly negative effect on global open data movement. Probably – and hopefully – not, but what we do know, however, is that the need for comprehensive research on wider social impacts and intrinsic justification of open data is more crucial than ever.

Initial results of studies on the impact of UK Freedom of Information Act have played down the great expectations of FOI’s overly positive social impacts. Only a fraction of people in UK in fact use FOI. People are still aware of its existence, and it is seen to lead to a more accountable and transparent government.

It might be a good idea to stay somewhat realistic about impacts of open data, as well. Nathan Yau makes a good point in his recent article in Guardian, that if data sites are to be put down, very few people outside open data community would in fact even notice it.

It is increasingly important to ask the question ‘what does open data really bring to transparency and society at large?’ There are calculations on its positive economic impact and hopes for increased levels of public participation, but is there any intrinsic justification for spending public money to open up government data sets for a small minority who effectively are able to use the data? Furthermore, should there be more alternative methods of measuring the impacts of open data?

Interestingly, the UK government has argued in favour of open data mainly due to accountability and efficiency factors; government is spending money to publish data sets in order to save money in the long run. However, if it proves that economic impacts of open data are not as significant as expected, will the austerity measures hit hard on open data policies, as well?

We live in interesting times. Reactive FOI is feared to be too expensive, but arguably it still remains the only proper way of truly holding officials to account. It is highly unlikely, that all public information would some day be published proactively in open format, thus in the end it is up to government officials to decide, what data sets are to be published. FOI remains a primary tool to ask for those that are not.

Perhaps we should not put our hopes too heavily on the beatific capacities of open data. It is a delightful bonus and worth to fight for, but in terms of ensuring the functionality of transparency regime, reactive FOI is still needed. If FOI is played down in favour of proactive publishing of data, what do we have left if the axe eventually hits the open data movement?

FOI officers walking on Finn ice

Nordic countries have traditionally been seen as strongholds of transparency due to their long history of freedom of information laws. As readers of this blog may know, Swedish freedom of the press act (1766) is considered the oldest piece of FOI legislation in the world, with Finnish act on government publicity (1951) coming not far behind.

However, a recent article in the leading Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, suggests that the state of FOI in Finland would not be as good as it is commonly assumed. A study group from the department of political science at University of Turku made FOI requests by email to 230 random state authorities, asking salary and bonus details of responding organisation’s highest ranked official. All this information should be disclosed without delay and without any further inquiries about requester’s identity or purpose of requests.

Results are interesting, to say the least. According to the spokesman of the group, professor Matti Wiberg, only fifteen (15) authorities responded properly and without delays, with eight more responding after another request was made. All others (207) either ignored the request completely or gave inadequate responses. Several of the authorities also demanded personal details of requester or asked requester to visit office in person, which they would not have been allowed to do.

What is the moral of the story? Arguably, results of the test underline the importance of FOI watchdogs and education on FOI issues. Since Finnish authorities don’t collect comprehensive statistics on FOI requests (as I was told last year by the registry of Ministry of Justice), responsibility effectively falls to independent journalists and study groups to gather data by themselves. This surely doesn’t make it any easier for academics to conduct research.

Logically, the big question that follows is why? It is tempting to argue that the lack of statisitics derives from the deep tradition of FOI in Finnish society. Document publicity is taken as granted and therefore there wouldn’t be any accurate need for statistics. Recent test proves, however, that the impeccable state of FOI in Finland is far from given.

Without available data on authorities’ responses to FOI requests, officials can’t really be held properly accountable, which arguably undermines the initial purpose of having FOI in the first place. Evidently Finnish officials have been given great freedom and therefore great responsibility to act in accordance with FOI legislation.

However, the old question of who is policing the police is still relevant. It is highly questionable, whether the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland has sufficient resources to pay special attention to breaches of FOI act, if 90% of authorities fail to conform to it. Another potential watchdog, Data Protection Ombudsman, for one, concentrates only on data protection issues.

Institutional issues aside, one could also ask what is the point of having comprehensive FOI legislation if individual officials subject to it are either unwilling to work according to it, or – as it’s perhaps more likely – not aware of the obligations it sets for them? Without further education of officials on FOI and comprehensive statistics to feed academics with Finland may face a threat of noticing that their good reputation in governmental transparency is based on rather false grounds.

HS Vieraskynä 18.9.

The uncut version of my article published in Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat 18.9.2010. Unfortunately in Finnish only.

Julkisten palvelujen tulevaisuutta koskevan epävarmuuden aikana on yhä useammin nostettu esille aktiivisen kansalaisyhteiskunnan ja kansalaisten voimaannuttamisen tarve.

Britanniassa yhteiskuntatieteilijät ja johtavat poliitikot ovat viime aikoina korostaneet tiedon ja tietoyhteiskunnan roolia palvelujen tehostamisessa ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan toimintamahdollisuuksien parantamisessa. Julkishallinnon tietovarantojen maksimaalinen hyödyntäminen on ollut jokaisen kolmen pääpuolueen keskeisenä tavoitteena.

Myös Suomessa olisi suotavaa tarkastella erityisen tarkasti, kuinka tietoon suhtaudutaan ja kuinka julkishallinto verovaroin tuotettuja tietovarantojaan hallinnoi.

Tietyt puutteet tiedonhallinnassa ovat alan ammattilaisten piirissä olleet tiedossa jo pitkään, mutta nyt ongelmakysymykset ovat alkaneet saada tilaa laajemmassa yhteiskunnallisessa keskustelussa.

YTT Pekka Henttonen nosti keväällä Helsingin Sanomissa ansiokkaasti esille puutteet pohjoismaisessa hallintokulttuurissa. Esimerkiksi Ruotsia koskevassa niin kutsutussa tyhjän arkiston syndroomassa on kyse siitä, että pitkän avoimuuden perinteen pelätään johtaneen hallintokulttuuriin, jossa merkitykselliset asiat sovitaan suullisesti siten, että asiasta ei jää virallista asiakirjaa.

Hallintokulttuurin mahdollisten puutteiden lisäksi pohjoismaista tiedonhallintaa on moitittu yksipuoliseksi: se on unohtanut ajatuksen julkisen tiedon vapaasta jatkojalostamisesta.

Tuntuukin siltä, että on tuudittauduttu ajatukseen, että kattava julkisuuslaki tyydyttää kansalaisten tiedonsaantitarpeen ja antaa valmiudet aktiiviselle kansalaisyhteiskunnalle, joka käyttää julkista tietoa polttoaineenaan.

Kuitenkin lähtökohtainen ajatus siitä, etta pelkkä yhteiskunnallisen tiedon julkaiseminen edistäisi kansalaisten yhteiskunnallista vaikuttamista on todistettu virheelliseksi.

Arvostettu britannialainen tutkimuskeskus The Constitution Unit toteaa tuoreessa asiakirjajulkisuuden yhteiskunnallisiin vaikutuksiin keskittyneessä tutkimuksessaan, että julkisen tiedon positiivinen vaikutus kansalaisten yhteiskunnalliseen aktiivisuuteen on ollut lähinnä toivekuva ilman yhtymäkohtaa todellisuuteen.

Ei ole myöskään mitään todisteita siitä, että tiedon saatavuus parantaisi hallinnon sisäistä tehokkuutta, edistäisi kansalaisten ymmärrystä päätöksentekoprosessista tai johtaisi parempaan päätöksentekokulttuuriin. Kuten Ruotsin esimerkki osoittaa, on uhkana, etta vaikutus voi olla jopa päinvastainen.

Tiedon julkistamisella on sen sijaan pystytty vaikuttamaan positiivisesti hallinnon läpinäkyvyyteen ja päätöksentekijöiden valvontaan.

Vapaa tiedonsaanti ja julkishallinnon läpinäkyvyys ei siis ole mikaan taikaeliksiiri parempaan hallintoon ja aktiiviseen kansalaisyhteiskuntaan.

Se on ennen kaikkea demokraattinen kansalaisoikeus, mutta jos julkishallinto haluaa laajentaa kansalaisten vaikutusmahdollisuuksia, täytyy sen muuttaa suhtautumistaan tietoon.

Lukijayhteiskunnasta kirjoitusyhteiskuntaan

Vaikka tietoa on vapaasti saatavilla, ei sitä välttämättä pysty vapaasti hyödyntämään.

Ajankohtainen kysymys monissa EU-maissa on ollut julkishallinnon tuottaman tiedon tekijänsuojaus ja käyttöoikeudet. Britanniassa julkishallinnon tuottama tieto on lisensoitu ns. Crown Copyright –lisenssillä, joka takaa jokaisen kansalaisen oikeuden jatkojalostaa tietoa.

Avoimella lisenssillä on aukaistu muun muassa Britannian rikos- ja häiriökäyttäytymistilastot. Erittäin suosittu palvelu onkin ollut älypuhelimia varten kehitetty ohjelma, joka ilmoittaa satelliittipaikannuksen ja häiriökäyttäytymistilastojen perustana olevien datasyötteiden avulla kuinka levottomalla seudulla käyttäjä kullakin hetkellä liikkuu.

Vastaavalla periaatteella voisi Suomessa kehittää esimerkiksi apuohjelman, joka varoittaa autoilijaa poikkeuksellisen runsaasta hirvikolarien määrästä. Hirvivaaramerkki saattaa jäädä helposti huomaamatta etenkin tutuilla tietaipaleilla, mutta punaisena hohkava navigaattori herättää huomion.

Kansalliset raja-aidat ylittävästä ja avointa dataa hyödyntävästä kansalaispalvelusta erinomainen esimerkki on erittäin suosittu Ushadidi-verkkopalvelu. Ushadidi perustettiin 2008, kun Keniassa koettiin tarve varoittaa parlamenttivaalien yhteydessä syntyneistä mellakoista. Ohjelma visualisoi datasyötteet kartaksi, josta helposti näki levottomuuksien liikehdinnän. Sittemmin ohjelma on levinnyt maailmanlaajuiseksi kriisipesäkkeistä varoittavaksi ja kansainvälistä apua organisoivaksi kansalaispalveluksi.

Suomen olosuhteisiin voisi hyvin sopia Ushadidin menetelmää soveltava ohjelma, joka visualisoisi julkishallinnon datasyötteiden ja kansalaishavaintojen pohjalta edellisten vuosien metsäpalot ja kunkin hetkiset metsäpalovaroitukset. Ohjelma olisi hyvä julkinen palvelu, jonka laatimiseen ei julkishallinnolta vaadittaisi käytännössä muita resursseja kuin metsäpalotietojen avaamisen koneellisesti luettavassa muodossa. Joku innostunut kansalainen ohjelmoisi palvelun ja valmiiseen ohjelmaan pystyisi kuka tahansa ilmoittamaan havaintonsa.

Onkin tärkeää pystyä hahmottamaan tarve kulttuurin muutokselle suhtautumisessa tietoon.

Perinteinen asiakirjajulkisuus mahdollistaa ainoastaan ns. “lukijayhteiskunnan” syntymisen. Kansalainen saa pyytäessä tietoa, mutta hän ei pysty hyödyntämään sitä vapaasti.

Aito kansalaisyhteiskunta mahdollistaa jäsenilleen myös tiedon luomisen. Jotta kansalaiset voivat tuottaa uutta, yhteiskuntaa hyödyttävää tietoa tai palveluita, taytyy lainsäädännöllä luoda alusta kaksisuuntaiselle “kirjoitusyhteiskunnalle”. Vain silloin kansalaiset pystyvät osallistumaan julkishallinnon kanssa tasavertaisina tuottajina yhteiskunnalliseen toimintaan.

Ruotsissa astui voimaan 1.heinäkuuta uusi laki, joka parantaa kansalaisten mahdollisuuksia hyödyntää julkista tietoa. Tätä ennen läpinäkyvyyden mallimaana tunnettu Ruotsi oli pitkään EU:n hampaissa johtuen julkisen tiedon jatkojalostamisoikeuksissa ilmenneista puutteistaan.

Suomessa asiaa määrittää edelleen vuodelta 1992 peräisin oleva maksuperustelaki, jota on kritisoitu vanhentuneeksi vastaamaan tämän päivän tietoyhteiskunnan tarpeita. Britannian esimerkki osoittaa, että julkisen tiedon avaamiselle ensiarvoisen tärkeää on poliittisen johdon tuki: eurooppalaisessa vertailussa ainutkertaisen laaja hanke lähti liikkeelle entisen pääministerin Gordon Brownin henkilökohtaisesta aloitteesta.

Tilanne Suomessa on siinä mielessä hyvä, että meillä toimii erittäin innovatiivinen kansalaisyhteisö, joka yhteistyössä julkishallinnon kanssa on pystynyt edistämään kirjoitusyhteiskunnan asiaa. Keväällä 2010 liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön tilaama Kari A. Hintikan, Petri Kolan ja Antti Poikolan ”Julkinen data – opas tietovarantojen avaamiseen” on erinomainen kiteytys siitä, mistä asiassa on kyse.

Raha ratkaisee

Kuten muissa kansalaisyhteiskunnan kehittämiseen ja julkisten palvelujen oikeudenmukaiseen ja tehokkaaseen tuottamiseen tähtäävissä toimissa, myös tiedon avaamisessa valitettavan usein ratkaisevin asia on se, mitä jää viivan alle.

Vaikka tärkein asia julkisen tiedon avaamisessa onkin kansalaisten demokraattisten perusoikeuksien tyydyttäminen, on huomattava myös sen tuomat taloudelliset mahdollisuudet.

Julkishallinnon hallussa olevan tiedon avaaminen vapaaseen käyttöön aukaisee lukuisia mahdollisuuksia esimerkiksi yhteiskunnallisille yrittäjille ja muille pienyrittäjille, jotka pystyvät hyödyntämään ilmaisen tiedon yritystoiminnassaan.

Cambridgen yliopistossa on tutkittu avoimen ja jatkojalostettavan tiedon laajempia kansantaloudellisia vaikutuksia ja todettu ne positiivisiksi: tiedon avaaminen ei ole valtiolle suuri rahallinen sijoitus, mutta sen on laskettu tuottavan innovaatioina ja kukoistavina pienyrityksinä kansantaloudelle jopa kuuden miljardin punnan tuoton.

Yksi syy tälle on se, että toisin kuin monet muut hyödykkeet, tieto ei kärsi niukkuudesta. Autoa ei voida jakaa, mutta tietoa voidaan, ja yleensä parhaan idean tuottamasi tiedon pohjalta saakin joku muu kuin sinä itse. Kukaan ei voi vielä aavistaa, minkälaisia yrityksiä ja innovaatioita datan avaaminen voi jatkossa synnyttää. Uuden Nokian synnyttämiseen tarvitaankin ennen kaikkea uusia ideoita.

Rehellisyyden nimissä on toki todettava, että vaikka läpinäkyvyys, voimaannuttaminen ja tiedon jatkojalostaminen ovat tämän ajan trendisanoja, ei pelkillä kauniilla ajatuksilla saavuteta mitään, ja avoimen tiedon mahdollisesti synnyttämät yritykset ja muut palvelut ovat vain pieni osa julkisten palvelujen ongelmien ratkaisua.

On myös naiivia väittää, että kaiken yhteiskunnallisen tiedon julkistaminen johtaisi automaattisesti avoimempaan, demokraattisempaan ja aktiivisempaan kansalaisyhteiskuntaan.

Avoimen tiedon, aktiivisen kansalaisyhteiskunnan ja julkisten palvelujen tuottamisen välisistä vaikutussuhteista kaivataankin jatkuvasti lisää luotettavaa tutkimustietoa.

Olisi ehkä myös syytä pohtia asiakirjajulkisuuden, julkisten tietovarantojen lisensointikysymysten ja valtionhallinnon tietohallinnon kehittämisen yhdistämistä yhden informaatiopolitiikan sateenvarjokäsitteen alle. Britanniassa ja Yhdysvalloissa tässä työssä keskeisessä roolissa ovat olleet maiden kansallisarkistot.

FOI and deliberative decision making?

Director of the RSA, Matthew Taylor, argued convincingly in favor of deliberative decision making in his annual lecture last week. He pointed out recent researches in the field of neurosciences which have stated that our thinking is hugely influenced by social networks and social context at large.

In a nutshell, our reason is more or less a slave to our emotions and our individual desires are not always correct – for example we are rather inadequate to predict what makes or has made us happy. This results in a fact that the individual opinions we express in opinion polls and which thus generate into votes in elections are systemically different to those which are reached after a process of deliberation.

With this argument Mr Taylor gives a scientific ground for the preach for more deliberation, which is more than welcomed. In a times of economic crisis, diminishing political activity and lack of interest towards social issues citizen engagement has been suggested as a potential cure, not only to legitimisation of political decisions but to wider social problems as well.

Recently, a think tank 2020 Public Services Trust handpicked citizen engagement and increased deliberation as some suggestions for producing more efficient public services in their pamphlet 2020 Vision: A far-sighted approach to transforming public services. What should interest readers of this blog is the fact that both 2020PST and Mr Taylor mentioned the importance open and of easily accessible public information in order to capitalise the benefits of citizen empowerment and engagement.

It is tempting to assume that increased transparency and fully opened public data would automatically lead into better policy-making. Daniel Naurin has tested the idea in his research Deliberation Behind Closed Doors – Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union where he – according to front page summary, sadly I’ve yet to receive the book itself – argues that despite the fact that publicity forces the negotiators to adapt to the norms of the forum of the deliberation, the positive force of the publicity seems still to be overrated.

On the basis of Naurin’s research more questions arise. To name one, what is the effect of widely opened and accessible information to deliberation on completely public forum where negotiators are ordinary citizens instead of business lobbyists? There is a reason to believe that we don’t yet have sufficient knowledge on this particular question.

Evidently issue deserves more research. Of particular interest is the connection between free and open information and citizen engagement, in which information professionals could hopefully play a significant role. Also, what is the information that makes the most profound impact in the process of deliberation and from which sources does this information arise?

As Mr Taylor pointed out, we are likely to change our opinions according to circumstances. If it really is so, then the key to power indeed seems to be in the control of right information.

Should we perhaps study a bit more the art of cold war propaganda?

UK’s open data policy opens doors for social enterprises

(Article published in the blog of Finnish Institute in London 18/02/2010)

In the spirit of UK’s Freedom of Information Act HM Government recently launched a website (http://data.gov.uk) where all public information is to be presented in a computer-readable and easily accessible format.

In a nutshell the purpose of data.gov.uk is to open up all non-personal data for free reuse. An easy access to data is believed to encourage citizens to create innovative applications for purposes of different kinds.

The obvious advantage of free data project is the enhancement of both civic activity and government transparency. It clearly emphasises the importance of an old mantra used by information professionals worldwide – right information for the right people at the right time. In a democratic civic society this mantra basically means that all public information should be accessible to all, at any time.

Open data project could potentially mean a promising opportunity to social entrepreneurship as well. Our society is filled with active and innovative people who only need the last and decisive ignition to jumpstart a successful social enterprise.

Open and free data could just be that ignition. For an example, imagine a scenario where – after collecting and analysing relevant information from the free database – a group of individuals decide to set up a community-owned nursery in an area where there is a high number of low-income families and a shortage of free day care services, thereby empowering the community by increasing the earning potential of families.

It has to be noted, though, that there are already numerous advert-financed non-profit websites (mashup) online which present useful societal information in a user-friendly way, both in UK and in Finland. One example of such a mashup is a scheme presented in leading Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat (HS 8.2.2010), which interviewed two voluntary fire fighters who had come up with a mashup that places on map all emergencies reported to the national emergency centre. All income from adverts is invested to further development of the service.

If social entrepreneurs as a group endorse the ideology of open data, then this could be seen as a significant argument for the benefits of freedom of information at large. That is to say, one main initiative behind document publicity has always been the enhancement of citizens’ scope for action.

Naturally this commits social enterprises to even greater transparency within their own administration and governance. Theoretically and ideologically perhaps even more interesting issue is the transparency within social enterprises. Social enterprises are not merely customers benefiting from open data policy but they also have a heavy responsibility to act by freedom of information principles.

Transparency indeed is one of the cornerstone values of social entrepreneurship. As the benefit goes directly – in most cases anyway – to the community, it is only logical that the decision-making processes and accounting are open to community as well. Question is, whether social entrepreneurs can capitalise this golden chance to prove that the necessity of document secrecy in the world of business is merely a myth – if it indeed is.

In the meantime, they can by all means pick all the open data cherries of freedom of information cake and create a flourishing network of free data –powered social enterprises. And why not teach other enterprises a lesson about the advantages of transparency and open data as well.

Empty archives syndrome and democratising archival information

In the preface of a newish compilation Freedom of Information: Open Access, Empty Archives (Routledge, 2009) co-editors Dr Andrew Flinn and Dr Harriett Jones highlight so-called Empty Archive syndrome.

To quote them, the concept refers to situation when “faced with the possibility that potentially controversial decisions could be released immediately into the public domain, politicians and civil servants might simply avoid committing themselves on paper, leading to an ‘oral’ culture of policy-making that renders government unaccountable, not only in short term, but also potentially damaging the historical record” (p. 5).

Quite strikingly the phenomenon seems to have hit hardest in the Swedish archives. According to Dr Fredrik Eriksson and prof Kjell Östberg the culture in Sweden, whose Freedom of the Press Act is regarded the oldest in the world and thus cited as a source of a national pride (p.113), causes severe problems concerning the public scrutiny of highly important documents.

Eriksson and Östberg mention several critics of the Swedish system, who argue that the Swedish freedom of information is merely a myth because most of what is of the greatest interest is not written down and hence not available for scrutiny (p.118).

Tightened government secrecy clearly isn’t a suitable solution to the problem of empty archives, although historians tend to love the newly opened archives of security organisations and other archives, whose administrators have not had the need to wonder whether their documents would go under public scrutiny or not at the time of their creation.

In  a case where polical culture is somewhat questionable the possible solution should arise from below. In modern Sweden – and EU in general – there should be no reason for authorities to fear written documentation and its public scrutiny. As Eriksson and Östberg also point out, “the real problem is that the authorities are flouting the rules and that a culture of oral decision-making has been allowed to prevail” (p.123). It is indeed our duty as citizens to demand better handling of public information.

In a larger scale, the whole idea of information created mostly by state authorities is rather arguable. We still tend to consider information as something that is given to us from above. Information created in the daily life of a democratic civic society is generally not regarded as important as the official documents with the state stamps on them.

Still, history – and politics – is made as much in the grassroot level as in the chambers of Whitehall or Riksdagen. And every social phenomenon regardless of its origins needs information of different sorts as its fuel.There is a golden opportunity for archivists and other information professionals to enhance the general consciousness of the proper usage of information.

One question relevant enough to be asked is, whether the empty archives syndrome would still take place in the case of deliberatively and openly created community archives? Would the full democratisation of archival information result in archives, where there would be no need to fear the consequences of the disclosure of documents?

The Missing Link

Good news from the field of civic society and open governance. A group working on i.a. the enhancement of the feasibility of web 2.0 in civic participation has published its final report, on which the Ministry of Finance is currently requesting for comments.

It is no secret that Finnish public sector still lacks certain dynamics when it comes to information policy and its usage on behalf of  deliberative e-Democracy and e-Participation. Right information for the right people at the right time is an old cliché used by data management professionals, by which we try to justify our existence. It is time this cliché was put more effectively in use.

A cliché it may be, but a justifiable one. In fact, the role of data management could be even bigger in public agencies. I tend to speak about extended data management (fin. laaja tiedonhallinta), which connects the traditional parts of data management – registry (kirjaamo), record management (asiakirjahallinto) and archiving (arkistointi) - with public relations/communication (viestintä/tiedotus), knowledge management (tietämyksenhallinta) and even data administration (tietohallinto).

I believe that in order to reach the aim of above-mentioned cliché and thus effeticely promote electronic civic participation certain measures need to be taken. The preceding clarification of the roles of different branches of information policy is one of them. Nowadays it can be quite unclear who is in charge of issues concerning the promotion of civic participation and freedom of information.

Someone should have a clear vision on the big picture and have a control of every dimension of information. For example, public relations and communication are capable of transmitting the information here and now, but in order to control the time-dimension of information archives are needed. They handle different dimensions of the same information but may never be in any contact with each other. Also, in order to fully utilize the benefits of an active civic society the whole idea of distributing only selected pieces of information is way behind the times. Limitations caused by the law on freedom of information (621/1999 24§) must naturally be taken into account.

A mere enhancement of the feasibility of civic participation is a good start but not enough. From the historian’s point of view equally important issue is the preservation of the context and provenance of the on-line discussions and other forms of deliberative policymaking. It is relatively easy to draw rules for the document management of authorities, but constantly developing and open-to-all wiki-environment is a whole new ballgame, so to say.

In order to achieve a sufficient level of preservation we need historically, societally and technologically savvy information professionals who are aware of the amount, type and provenance of the information as well as legislative issues. In addition to all that, they should be able to innovatively promote civic activity and civic society by means of freely and easily accessible information. Nowadays the gap between a technologically illiterate archivist and a wiki-conscious, microblogging pr-officer can be huge although their jobs should be inter-related in many ways.