Statistics Canada has launched a Census Forum

A fellow business contact of mine, William Dore, recently pointed me towards a new Census Dissemination Discussion Forum that has been created by Statistics Canada. Essentially it is an open forum for people to post questions about the 2011 Census. Discussion topics are broken down into multiple categories and feature unique publicly accessible commenting ability. While it’s not “technically” a web 2.0 app (e.g. no rss feed), it has all the elements from a “strategic web 2.0″ perspective, since it does engage Canadians and provide a means of easy two-way communication/collaboration; Everyone has an opportunity to have their voice heard.

There aren’t too many questions on there yet, however with a little added exposure from all of us (especially those that actively engage in the world of social media), I’m sure there will be more…

Canada Revenue Agency announces YouTube contest

Whenever I see a new addition on the Government 2.0 Best Practices Wiki, I immediately proceed to do a little investigative research to find out if it’s legit. The other day I stumbled upon this press release (via the CRA RSS feed) announcing the launch of The Canada Revenue Agency’s new “Underground Economy – Not your Problem?” YouTube video contest.

Essentially,  the CRA is inviting Canadians to tell how the underground economy is affecting them and their communities. The contest details are brilliantly laid out in this surprisingly “non-government like” YouTube video (that’s a good thing by the way…):

Here are some things I like about this initiative:

• It takes the existing “one-way” CRA YouTube channel to a “two-way” engagement state, calling on Canadians to submit their thoughts in the form of a video using a  medium accessed by over 336 million people each day.
• It shows that the CRA, an organization that is easy to pick on and “hate”, is ready to engage in dialogue and perhaps vocal negative feedback (this form of openness will surely make it succeed in the long run).
• It is “an idea worth spreading”. These kind of “memes” are worthy of a quick “tweet” and/or even a blog post like this one. The easy “embedability” of a YouTube video allows buzz to spread exponentially.
• It puts other departments that still don’t know what “web 2.0″  is to shame. If the CRA can engage in social media, why can’t department X?

Things I don’t like, or do I?:

• I noticed the comments on YouTube for this video are blocked. On the other hand, comments are not the main objective of this initiative. Besides, they would surely be filled with brainless absurdities from active tax evaders. If someone has something intelligent to say, it’s easy to find other places to do so that are tied in to this initiative. Therefore, while I am usually in avid support of comments, not including them in this case could be justified. Hopefully the contest information website is sufficient for people that have actual questions. Otherwise the only option is to email contest_concours@cra.gc.ca.

There have been numerous entries already, which is a good sign for initiatives of this nature. I’m looking forward to seeing the winning video.

What are your thoughts?

Wikipedia Zealots vs. The World

There has a been great deal of discussion and controversy lately regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia entries and the existence of so-called Wikipedia “Zealots” controlling and manipulating the information with their inherent biases. Lawrence Solomon (an editor for the Financial Post) wrote an article last Saturday (April 12th) entitled: Wikipedia’s Zealots – The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy. -where he provided a play-by-play of how his entry had been repeatedly edited by a single editor holding a different opinion on climate change. In response the blogosphere is questioning the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia as well as it’s “loss of innocence” so to say.

So what are my thoughts on all of this?

It’s unfortunate, but I think this will always occur to some extent. This is why communism doesn’t work in practice (someone needs to control the system for it to work) and why democracy has a tremendous rich/poor gap (elite in control). The good news is that thanks to social media, we now have the means to discuss these issues publicly and start up conversations with a worldwide audience. Just look at the amount of discussion on the topic of “Wikipedia Zealots” since that Financial Post article was published (Google the term or just do a Technorati Search).

Being “aware” and “informed” is crucial. Each individual still has the responsibility not to take any piece of information at face-value and determine potential biases. Think of it this way, if you were reading a particular entry in Encyclopedia Britannica you would probably assume it to be true even though the individual biases of the particular academic(s) that wrote the article would be inherent in the text (even if minimal). It would not be questioned. However, with Wikipedia, the entries are constantly being questioned and as a result stirring discussion that continually makes them better. I can guarantee you that this climate change entry (mentioned in the Financial Post article) will be re-written over time to accommodate multiple views thanks in large part to the controversy surrounding it. There will probably even be a Wikipedia entry written on the “Wikipedia controversy surrounding the Lawrence Solomon article”. The wisdom of the crowd, in my opinion will therefore prevail in the end. Nobody ever said it was a straight road with no hurdles…

What are your thoughts?