Does
it really matter?
That’s what I was left wondering at the close of each of
the past six or so conferences/events this year that I have attended and
participated in, variably on data management (mostly open data) for civic
engagement and global sustainable development.
This perplexing problem of accurate nomenclature is not of
mere pedantic preoccupation by university academicians. It is in many ways a
significant contributing factor to the enduring and arguably enlarging silos
and fissures between and among open data practitioners and advocates,
information and records managers, and national statisticians/census managers.
They have long informed project priorities, design and implementation, and
oftentimes loggerheaded shortsightedness that result in inefficiencies such as
project duplication across several siloed MDAs (ministries, departments,
agencies).
The usual result? Failure to achieve objectives, with huge financial
and human resources price tags that government (and even intergovernmental
sponsors/partners) could ill-afford.
Much to chew on here. In fact, too much for here. So “since brevity is the soul of wit… [let’s]
be brief” and cut to the chase by cutting through the fat to the
meat. Or tofu. See, one may well attribute this whole DIKW pyramid craze
to the seemingly algorithmic
simplicity that makes it readily endearing to data, information and knowledge
practitioners/managers of all stripes. My response? Much thanks to David
Weinberger whose superb piece
in the Harvard Business Review says it all for me. Or nearly
all: Bunkum!
Before we talk about data
versus information, let’s dispense first
with knowledge and wisdom. While these are important
concepts or constructs that relate to data
and in at least one case (knowledge)
needed to process it, data does not
(as I argue further down) need any of them to exist.
Now to data versus
information. First, it is settled
that it is singular, no longer plural. Goodbye
datum! Second, please don’t say raw data. It
is irksomely tautological. It’s like saying PIN
number.
Which brings us to
the third and most important point: Data
is neutral. It is amorphously nothing and everything. It only takes precise shape and
meaning upon first contact with us: You. Me. How? Let’s…
*
Demo
So your
friend shared an article by a celebrity chef on tomato being a fruit and on the
highly nutritional benefits of including it in fruit salads. Your friend expressed
their opinion by quoting Miles Kington. You liked it so much (the quote that
is) that you shared it on Facebook and Twitter, along with a photoshopped salad
to convey your own opinion, with a
link to the article.
Okay. Now.
See, at that exact moment when you received the friend’s article with their
comment, it was not information to you. It was just data. It only became information
when you reacted to it by inferring from it your friend’s reaction to it. It also
became information when you manipulated that data by sharing it with others.
Though you expressed your opinion and “like” of it with your photoshop, it
still would have been manipulation had you only shared your friend’s piece “as
is”; that is hook, line and sinker, with zero alteration or modification
(pardon the tautology there). The very act of you sharing it transformed it
from data to information.
And to access
that data, to react to it, to interpret
it as desired or differently, to modify it, and to share that information, you need all sorts of
ability, know-how, too many to list here, way too many. That ability, that
know-how, is called knowledge.
But what
you received from your friend at that very moment when you opened it and before
you even photoshopped and shared it, that data,
was information. Again, though your friend expressed their opinion and “like" or "dislike” of it with the accompanying quote of Milton Kington, it still would
have been manipulation had they only shared the piece “as is”. The very act of they sharing it rendered it information.
And what
your friend who shared it with you received at first contact, the data, was information to the one who shared it and to the one before and
before, and before, and before, and so on and so forth back till the Big
Bang or the Creation, and each to whom was data at first contact. And to access
that data, to react to it, to interpret
it as desired or differently, to modify it, and to share that information, each needed all sorts of
ability, know-how, too many to list here, way too many. That ability, that
know-how, is called knowledge.
It goes
without saying—so why am I saying it?—that the identity remains the same for
the interactions and processes after you. And what your friend with 
So let’s
end with an answer to a paraphrase of Marcus Aurelius’ philosophical question,
made famous by that classic
scene in Silence of the Lambs:
Question: “Simplicity Clarice!
Read Marcus Aurelius. “What is it this thing that we [call data/information/knowledge/wisdom]?”
Answer: Data. We call it data.
It’s the
only unchangeable referent, the only denotation guaranteed to clearly and consistently
convey and receive the same connotation. Irrespective of sender, source or
intent.
Data.
Simple.
*
Oh! Oh!
And wisdom? Where does it fit in?
Well, you probably guessed it by now with this whole tomato article setup thingy
and this whole Miles Kington quote thingy. So let’s get to it and get on with
it, shall we?
Knowledge is knowing
that tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
No comments:
Post a Comment