The Knight Commission Recommendation
Creating Local Online Hubs: Three Models for Action
by Adam Thierer
“Ensure that every local community has at least one high-quality online hub.”
— Recommendation 15, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age
The Knight Commission Recommendation
The Knight Commission Recommendation
This white paper will explore scenarios for implementing Recommendation 15 from the report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age, which calls for “every local community [to have] at least one high-quality online hub.” The entirety of Recommendation 15 can be seen in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Recommendation 15:
Ensure that every local community has at least one high-quality online hub.
Given the volume of information on the Internet and the infinite diversity of user interests, it is not possible for any one website to aggregate all of the online information local residents want and need. Just as communities depend on maps of physical space, they should create maps of information flow that enable members of the public to connect to the data and information they want.
Communities should have at least one well-publicized portal that points to the full array of local information resources. These include government data feeds, local forums, community e-mail listservs, local blogs, local media, events calendars, and civic information. The best of these hubs would go beyond the mere aggregation of links and act as an online guidebook. They would enable citizens to map an effective research journey by letting people know what is available and where. The site should leverage the power of new forms of social media to support users in gathering and understanding local information.
Where private initiative is not creating community online hubs, a locally trusted anchor institution might undertake such a project with the assistance of government or foundation funding, or support from those who also support public media.
Although the primary focus will be on how Recommendation 15 might be implemented, the paper will also reference Recommendation 4 from the Informing Communities report and suggest how it might be linked to Recommendation 15. Recommendation 4 reads as follows: “Require government at all levels to operate transparently, facilitate easy and low-cost access to public records, and make civic and social data available in standardized formats that support the productive public use of such data.”
While other recommendations in the Knight Commission report will engender some controversy, I believe these two can find more widespread support among various political constituencies. A “high-quality online hub” for every community makes a great deal of sense in that it can help ensure citizens have access to information about their government(s) and local communities.
What may remain controversial, however, is the scope of this online hub (in terms of how much it seeks to accomplish or include) as well as how this hub is funded. There are several considerations left unanswered by the Knight Commission report that complicate this analysis. Indeed, while conducting research for this paper, the many experts I consulted kept coming back to three common questions about this local hub recommendation and how to implement it:
- What is a portal, and is the very concept itself passé? As I’ll note below, the very term portal has a dated feel to it. Clearly, the old walled garden models of hierarchical web services have given way to a flatter structure, one dominated by search and social networking, not portals or hubs. The fall of the old AOL and Yahoo models is indicative of the death of the old order in this regard.
- What is a community? Is it geographic or interest-based? The Informing Communities report generally sticks to a geographic conception of community because, as it points out, “American democracy is organized largely by geography.” But many experts and site developers stressed the increasing importance of interest-based communities that cut across geographic borders.
- What is the role of government? While the Informing Communities report suggests a potential government role in the absence of sufficient private initiative, most experts I spoke with did not envision that government’s role would be extensive. It is also worth noting that most of the local hubs that are already underway are not significantly funded or influenced by governments.
While these issues will continue to be debated, I will make matters simpler here by making the three following assumptions:
- While newer developments have supplanted the portal concept, there is still something to be said for sites that can help to aggregate attention, highlight important civic information and activities and map public information resources.
- It continues to make sense to focus on geographic communities for the reasons the Informing Communities report made clear: They are “the physical places where people live and work” and also elect their leaders (Knight Commission, 2009). Moreover, it seems there is no shortage of interest-based communities online today, although one could always find exceptions. On the other hand, some geographic communities still lack a credible online hub.
- The government’s role in creating high-quality online hubs will likely be quite limited and primarily focused on (a) opening up its own data and processes and (b) providing some limited funding at the margins for other local initiatives.
To borrow science fiction writer William Gibson’s much-repeated aphorism, “The future is already here. It’s just not very evenly distributed.” That is, there are many excellent, high-quality online hubs already in place in many communities across America. Unsurprisingly, those hubs tend to be found mostly in large- and mid-sized cities. They can serve as models for online hubs in other communities; the question is how to get them built. In thinking about how to do so, I raise as many questions as I answer, but I hope to at least help focus attention on the key issues that communities and various stakeholder must consider as they look to create online hubs. Toward that end, Exhibit 2 offers a list of possible evaluation criteria or metrics that should be considered as part of this process. These questions help to guide the narrative that follows.
Exhibit 2. Possible Evaluation Criteria / Metrics for Online Hubs
- What are the primary informational needs of the community?
- How can community interests and needs be gauged?
- Who should be involved in hub creation? Who are the other local stakeholders who can help?
- How can we connect with potential stakeholders? Or, what has their response been so far?
- Who is primarily responsible for building/managing the site?
- What is the funding mechanism? Is it sustainable?
- How can the site be made more accessible to more constituencies?
- How can the community be made aware of the hub? What sort of marketing and awareness-building efforts might be helpful?
Go Back | Table of Contents | Next Page
