el pensar, el sentir, el soñar, la manera en que nosotros vemos el mundo. Podemos gastar saliva en decir lo que la CNN o la BBC hicieron o dejaron de hacer. Pero creo que en vez de trancarnos en el expediente de que lo único que existe es eso, y entonces lo consumimos y lo criticamos, tenemos que decir: señores, nosotros no somos menos, ni lelos, ni lentos. Necesitamos algo que salga a nuestros televisores con lo cual nos sintamos identificados

Transparency is the solution to informational deficits. Ho

Una serie de ‘Laboratorios Cali’ destinada a determinar el rango de respuestas a la pregunta ‘¿qué quiere que sea Cali?’, seguida por la construcción de escenarios en donde las diversas visiones se puedan exponer, junto con la transición potencial y los imaginarios de diseño especulativo desarrollados por el equipo de co-diseño —para que cada vez más gente juegue con la idea de Cali como un espacio verdaderamente acogedor para vivir y no como una máquina de insostenibilidad—.

se pueden diseñar dispositivos para transformar, gradualmente, nuestras maneras principales de entender y de ser

desde esta perspectiva las organizaciones constituyen conversaciones para la acción. Hay un cierto grado de recurrencia y formalización en estas conversaciones, que Winograd y Flores (1986) caracterizan en términos de actos lingüísticos distintivos. Las organizaciones son redes de compromisos que operan a través de actos lingüísticos, como las promesas y

la invención de algo llamado ‘la economía’ como un dominio independiente de pensamiento y acción ligado a otra poderosa ficción, el mercado autorregulador —con la ciencia económica supuestamente a cargo de decirnos la verdad al respecto—.9 Aunque es posible que la economía neoliberal haya sido sacudida hasta la médula por la crisis financiera de 2007-2008, el imaginario económico en términos de individuos que realizan transacciones en los mercados, la producción, el crecimiento ilimitado, el capital, el progreso, la escasez y el consumo continúa sin obstáculos. Co

BoletteBlaagaard,forexample,arguesthatthecontributionofcitizenjournalismhasbeentochallengetheostensibleobjectivityofprofessionaljournalism.[4]Shearguesthatincreatingajournalisticobjectivity,professionaljournalismportrayedaknowingsubjectthatisdetached,unemotional,neutral,unbiased,andindependent.Bycontrast,citizenjournalism’scontributionhasbeentodemonstratethatpassionate,attached,affective,andbiasedyetfairreportingcanresultfromjournalisticsubjectivity

Theempoweringpossibilitiesofaccessingandworkingwithdataalsounderpin‘opengovernmentdata’programmes.Opennessisextendedtomakinggovernmenttransparentthroughapublicrighttodataandfreedomtoinformation,aversionthatisalsoadvancedbycivicorganizationssuchasmySociety.[19]Thesecallforthanimaginaryofcitizensasdataanalystsequippedwiththeskillsnecessarytoanalysetheircommercialtransactionsandthusmakebetterdecisionsortoanalysethetransactionsofgovernmentsandthusholdthemtoaccount.

. Fellows particularly advocate for improved transparency and improved effectiveness of local government services through open government data (Maruyama, Douglas, and Robertson 2013). After finishing the year fellows pursue a range of non- and for-profit career paths

More staunch critics questioned if the White House was being duplicitous by inviting “civic hackers” under the guise of transparency while having the worst administrative record for prosecuting whistleblowers.

The more pressing threat is that a fear of solution-ism and neoliberal connotations of “open data” together might dissuade political par-ticipation. Systemic social disparities are often intractable. The route to alleviate them has never been detachment or abandonment. Looking forward, we should pay attention to how data activism and advocacy might result in meaningful systematic change beyond the usual claims of “transparency.” To fulfill the possibilities for meaningful social change hinted at in their history, civic hackers might have to coordinate around specific mechanisms for change and articulate a deeper sense of democracy than the language of technology provides.

Obama appointed Aneesh Chopra as the first chief technology officer (CTO) of the United States and released executive orders defining open government in 2009 as entailing transparency (“conduct its work more openly and publish its information online”), participation (in decision-making), and collaboration (both internal and external). In 2013, he emphasized machine-readable data as a “default for govern-ment.”

Swartz objected because transparency for transparency’s sake shifted labor from government entities to eve-ryday citizens, and the connection of transparency to accountability had been irrevo-cably altered: “the pipeline of leak to investigation to revelation to report to reform has broken down.” In their opinion, flows of information became detached from their uses to gain leverage against corruption.

Crowdsourcing is often used as a metaphor for open data initiatives with emergent and vaguely defined goals of collaboration rather than specific ones (Brabham, 2013). Open data came increasinly referred to an ecosystem of production rather than accountability. In The New Ambiguity of Open Government, Harlan Yu and David Robinson (2012) note that open data signals a movement toward “politically neutral public sector disclosures that are easy to reuse, even if they have nothing to do with public accountability” (p. 178).

The emphasis on innovation is also vis-ible in Tim O’Reilly’s (2010) influential notion of “government as platform,” which positioned systems of governance as being similar to technical systems, subject to con-stant observation and tweaking to improve inefficiencies. He applied a biological model to government, where “information produced by and on behalf of citizens is the lifeblood of the economy and the nation” (O’Reilly, 2010: 14).

The computational shift of open government data refers to the move from governments fulfilling information requests to automatically releasing data to fulfill a range of more speculative uses. While promises about the Internet (Morozov, 2013b) encouraged this move, so too did notions of open government from previous decades. For example, David Osborne’s notion of “reinventing government” involved hallmarks familiar to open data initiatives: “catalytic” public–private relationships, connecting with communi-ties, and decentralized collaboration (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)

On the level of municipal governments in particular, the movement from information to data focused on new uses that emphasized collaboration and utility over accountability (Yu and Robinson, 2012), signaling what I term the computational shift of openness.

His stance was not cyberlibertarian (Barbrook and Cameron, 1996). As his successive refutation of transparency in this shift toward open data indicates (Lessig, 2009), he was quite concerned about efforts with software becoming distanced from tangible outcomes. Lessig might regarded as a hacker in the mold of Tim Jordan (2008), taking a progressive perspective on how we might regulate technologies—alongside laws, norms, and markets—that affect behavior.

Journalism historians Stoker and Rawlins (2005) extended Brandeis’ metaphor of light to describe this as a move from “searchlight to flashlight”—a narrower and less powerful beam that only illuminated what corpora-tions wanted. Yet they also critiqued progressive beliefs that publicity was synonymous with purification and backers such as Adams for placing “too much faith in information’s power to produce public action” (p. 186)

Yet, the natural equating of “openness” or government transparency (Hood and Heald, 2006) with accountability increasingly became dubious (Tkacz, 2012). The move to “open data” was often an imperative that didn’t make clear where the levers were for social change that benefited citizens (Lessig, 2009). Still, I argue that civic hackers are often uniquely positioned to act on issues of public concern; they are in touch with local communities, with technical skills and, in many cases, institutional and legal literacies. I conclude by connecting the open data movement with a specific set of political tactics—requesting, digesting, contributing, modeling, and contesting data.