Participation and the Geoweb: Reflections
Korbin daSilva
It is my opinion that participation is too fluid a word for any definition to be properly
extrapolated from a dictionary and then applied to the Geoweb. My initial reaction to this was a desire
to better define the Geoweb and then build a more concrete definition with the Geoweb acting as the
structural support. Although I still believe this to be a more suitable approach, I have instead chosen to
be even more specific by using my own research and experience in constructing a dynamic Geoweb
application as the framework upon which participation relative to the Geoweb will be further defined
and discussed.
In my project participation was required from two separate groups, the farmers and the
consumers. To participate in my application a farmer must proactively come to my website and fill out
an online form that aggregates information about their location and what they sell. For a consumer to
participate in my application they also need to visit my website and then click on what products they are
looking for. This then provides them with a map of relevant famer locations. This is how my target
audience participates in my project. If I were to conclude a crude definition from these actions I would
say that participation is: the active desire and ability to contribute to a project either for one’s own
personal benefit or for the desire to contribute to a “greater good”. Although somewhat simple of a
definition I believe it highlights the two parts of participation I wish to discuss further.
Participation on the Geoweb is directly influenced by one’s ability to participate on the
Geoweb. This statement may seem redundant, and in truth what it states is fairly intuitive. Never the
less the most common critics directed towards the Geoweb are focussed around one’s ability to access
and take part in all of the benefits of the Geoweb. Aside from the inability to access the Geoweb due to
socio‐economic reasons associated with access to the Internet, is also the issue of the knowledge barrier
that prevents participation. Companies like Google Maps attempt to overcome this by simplifying the
process of creating maps as much as possible (i.e., Google MyMaps). My project reflects this as it becomes
the median that removes the difficult programming from the hands of the users and allows them to
create maps suitable to their needs.
The other key element to participation is desire. Motivation plays an important part in
participation. In the example of my project the farmers are motivated by a desire to attract customers
and the consumer is motivated by their desire to locate products they desire in the simplest and most
efficient way. Because the consumer only uses the Geoweb because it is efficient and simple, it can be
presumed that any Geoweb application must also be simple and efficient (or at least the most simple
and efficient option in the case of more complex issues). Often the ability to participate is given more
consideration then the desire or motivation to participate. Focus is given to making applications
accessible under the pretence that, “if we build it, they will use it”. It is important treat both accessibility
and desirability with equal consideration when attempting to create a Geoweb application that relies on
participation.
Unfortunately sometimes providing for both accessibility and desirability can be difficult. For
example if we wish to create a program that is more accessible we need to make it simpler. Simpler also
makes a program more desirable because simpler usually means faster and easier. The issue arises when
we make things very simple, like in the case of My Maps; we limit the abilities of these programs and by
limiting the abilities the desire to use the applications decreases. The solution to this is creating more
specific applications that are then able to simplify tasks. This can be difficult because often the allure of
a “do‐it‐all” application is strong, as in the case of Google Maps where they are trying to simplify as
many tasks as possible.
I am interested in a section of Jon Corbett’s presentation on participation and the Geoweb
where he describes “the creators, the directors and the audience”. I do not disagree with this method of
aggregation or the claim that in the Geoweb there is relatively low number of creators contrasted
against a large participatory audience. What I do want to suggest is that by breaking down the barriers
between these different categories of participants a more "end‐user friendly” participatory Geoweb will
be fostered. To elaborate allow me to explain my current concerns with participation and the Geoweb.
Under the Web 2.0 user generated content is usually heralded as the "great leap forward" from the Web
1.0. Unfortunately, the majority Geoweb user generated content seems to be polarized between user
generated pushpin maps and the more complex maps that Corbett described as being limited by the
complex programming. To decrease this gap, the directors Corbett mentioned need to take on a
different role. According to Corbett's presentation there are more directors then creators in the modern
Geoweb, for this reason, directors should take on a role where they create applications that facilitate
the creating of maps. He already described the director as having a facilitator role within the Geoweb,
but to further participation on the Geoweb the director should be take over much of the technical
programming knowledge. With this knowledge they create the aforementioned applications that would
allow the audience to then create their own maps as much as possible. Thus aside from the few creators
at the very top who supply the directors, the audience becomes the creator. The more we facilitate this
relationship the more the richness of the participation on the Geoweb will increase. This logic partially
motivated my project as it aimed to empower the user by allowing them to feel like they participated in
creation of the map are using.
Effective participation is when all parties are satisfied. Looking at my project, even if the farmer
did everything correctly, if the consumers do not use this data to generate maps then any participation
on the farmers part has left them unsatisfied. Thus for participation to be effective it goes beyond the
effectiveness of each individuals participation. Instead each group must participate effectively for
participation to be effective. In simpler terms the projects goals whatever they are must in some way be
met otherwise any participation by its contributors is ineffective.
These thoughts are taken from my own reflections of my participatory Geoweb application. I
then applied them to a frame work Jon Corbett supplied in his Web Video on participation and the
Geoweb. Although I have not drawn directly from any literature for my explanation of participation and
the Geoweb, I believe the concept of ubiquitous cartography as presented by Gartner, Bennet and
Morita (2007) could be used to help support my points. Unfortunately they do not delve into the details
of creating maps instantly anywhere anytime, instead they focus more on the ramifications this has for
cartography and cartographic principles. I do believe though that the notion of ubiquitous cartography
will play an important role in participation and the Geoweb.
(identical material attached as a file)
