The world's most educated countries: on the dangers of big data and infographics

In recent weeks I have received, unsolicited invitations to review infographics on topics related to my blogs.  The most recent of these, late in January, was from a woman who had created an infographic on "the world's most educated countries."  As with the other solicitations, she asked me to review the graphic and consider posting it on my blog, with a link to or attribution of the original source.   The problem was, as I quickly discovered, the infographic was based on faulty data, incorrect interpretation of data or both.  The infographic claimed to be based on OECD data, but when I saw a world map near the top of the graphic that ranked South Korea #6 among the world's most educated nations, I became suspicious.   I am deliberately not linking to the infographic, which is still accessible on the internet, not wanting to contribute further to misinformation.

Investigating the matter further, the infographic appears to have been published by what amounts to an education-related "content farm."  The site claims to be a global leading news source covering educational, political, business and environmental issues, but it has all the signs of being a content farm, and for that reason I am not identifying or linking to it here.

Those of you who are interested in genuine data and analysis on the world's leading education powers will want to take a look at the latest report from The Learning Curve, a joint project of Pearson and the Economist Intelligence Unit.  As shown in the accompanying screen capture, (click to see a larger version)it places South Korea right where it should be, number two overall behind Finland, in its world education rankings.

The proposed centerpiece of the reorganized "Park Geun-hye government"

There is a great deal of discussion taking place these days about the shape of the new government that will take power later this month. Earlier this week a spokesman for the transition committee announced that the official name of the new government would be the "Park Geun-hye" government. This followed the approach used by Lee Myung-bak, but departed from an earlier practice in which President Kim Young Sam used the name "Civilian Government" to emphasize that he was the first civilian president elected after a series of military leaders, and President Kim Dae Jung used the name "Government of the People." President Roh Moo Hyun called his government the "Participatory Government."
Much of the discussion is centering on the proposed new "미래창조과학부," the official English name of which has not been announced.  It includes the words future, creation, science and ministry, but they do not translate literally into English.  Something like "Ministry for Future Scientific Innovation" might be more appropriate.
The proposed responsibilities and functions of the new ministry have already been announced.  If approved by the National Assembly it will become one of the largest ministries, with over 900 staff members.  The sheer size and importance of the ministry (it is referred to as a "super ministry,") have naturally led to discussion about where it should be located.  Some suggest that it should be headquartered in Sejong City, where a number of other branches of government are already in the process of being moved.   Others say that the government complex in Gwacheon would be a better choice, especially now that many government officials have moved from Gwacheon to Sejong City.
While much of the nation is celebrating the big Lunar New Year holiday, these discussions about the new government and its ministerial centerpiece will continue unabated.
For me, as for most readers of this blog, a most interesting aspect of the government reorganization is the manner in which the new Park Geun-hye government attempts to unify science and technology policy (STP) with information and communication technology(ICT) policy.  ICT, after all, is part of STP.  Arguably, it is the most important policy element insofar as the information revolution is the driving force in today's social, political and economic changes. We are all adjusting to the realities made possible by new digital networks, powered by ever more powerful, smaller and cheaper semiconductors, sensors and related devices.

The problem with "versioning" the web: web 1.0,2.0,3.0, 4.0.....

I posted late last month on the problem with Western-centric and other efforts to define social media. My observations here relate to that concern, but focus specifically on the Web 2.0 buzzword and related terminology that has caught the fancy of so many people these days.  If the purpose of a definition is to provide policymakers, managers or ordinary citizens with some clarity about what social media, the world wide web or the internet are all about, there are several reasons to avoid being seduced by the "versioning" approach to defining things or describing their history.  I list some of them here, not necessarily in order of importance, but in hopes of eliciting cogent response from readers of this blog.
1.  Consider the origin of the term Web 2.0.  It was introduced by Tim O'Reilly, the wealthy founder of a large technology publishing house and was originally used as the catchy title for a conference.  Later, the event title was expanded into a concept that proposed separating various versions of the web.  This explains why the concept of "Web 1.0" never existed before Web 2.0 started to catch on.  For a thoughtful treatment of all this, I recommend Scholz's article on "Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0).  The term's origins on the commercial/business side of the internet also explain why leading scholars have not adopted it to any great extent.
2. Most scholars and policymakers would agree that the information revolution is an ongoing process, driven by the core reality that semiconductors keep getting smaller, cheaper and more powerful, resulting in exponential increases in computing, communications and network power.  Most would probably also agree that it is a single, digital revolution that involves fixed, mobile and satellite communications, and is global in scope.   Therefore, any naming or categorization scheme that proposes to clearly demarcate versions, such as Web 2.0, 3.0,4.0 and so forth is more likely to confuse than to clarify understanding.
3. On the face of it, it seems that the "versioning" approach had its origins in the practice long used by software engineers and programmers of naming the subsequent versions of their software.   This is epitomized by Microsoft, which is now attempting to market its Windows 8.0 software in a changed world which has moved away from desktop computing toward mobile and cloud-based solutions.  I would argue that even the versioning of software these days conjures up memories of the near-constant need to patch and update Microsoft Windows or office products in a desktop environment.  Furthermore, the versioning approach to describing the web and its history makes one immediately wonder where it will all end.  On this topic, John Mell, in his blog on Social Collaboration, has nicely summarized some views that I share. (see his post "Web 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0--where will it end?")
4. Conceptually, in the search for a clear, workable definition, the versioning approach is a disaster.  Each new version leaves even the most thoughtful reader with an increased number of questions about how Web 2.0 is different from Web 3.0 and exactly what Web 4.0 adds to Web 3.0 and so forth.  According to one thoughtful tech writer, even Tim O'Reilly himself, originator of the Web 2.0 term, has suggested that the different "versions" don't really exist and that they are just part of one, continually changing web. (that post was aptly titled "There is no Web 3.0 There is no Web 2.0 --There is just the web.)
5. I could go on, but in case you think I'm pushing the argument too far, do a little search exercise.  Use Google to search for Web 2.0.  Then search for Web 3.0, then 4.0, 5.0 and so forth and see how high you can go and what the results return.
Enough said.  As always, I encourage thoughtful comments and will be please to amend my thinking and do further posts on this topic.

Synergies expected from new "Super Ministry" 미래창조과학부

As reported in the Seoul Shinmun,(Korean language article) as part of a series on the proposed government reorganization under President-elect Park Geun-hye, the convergence of the fields of science and technology with information and communications technology (ICT) is expected to create synergies leading to future growth engines.  As the article puts it, "The field of science and technology together with the field of ICT in the Ministry for Future Science Innovation are like the two wheels of a bicycle.  (Note:  The foregoing is my translation for the English name of the new ministry.  The Korean does not translate well literally and the official English designation for the new super ministry has not yet been announced by the government.)
The article goes on to note that the proposed new super ministry indicates that the transition committee for restructuring of government is placing more emphasis on the expectation of a synergy effect between science and technology (S&T) and ICT than on worries about so-called "dinosaur ministries."
This news seems to clearly indicate that the incoming government of President-elect Park Geun-hye has a broad understanding of the concept of digital convergence.  In other words, the incoming government appears to be signalling its recognition that convergence is a broad, multi-faceted and pervasive phenomenon, not limited to the ICT sector and the well known convergence between broadcasting and telecommunications.   Instead, digital convergence is a reality that affects all industries, organizations and groups in society, both now and in the future.

Smart, paperless elections coming soon to Korea

As reported in The Korea IT Times, smart, paperless elections are just around the corner in South Korea. According to the article, the "National Election Commission of Korea (NEC) is pressing ahead with the introduction of electronic signature pads as part of its efforts to put in place a consolidated electoral roll system within this year. It was confirmed that the NEC already had embarked on this project, contracting out the production of prototypes to solution companies." Moreover, "The electronic signature solution industry expected that once the consolidated electoral roll system is set up in approximately 13,000 polling stations nationwide, there will be a surge in demand for electronic signature pads." The next logical step in election technology will be to allow people to vote from their home, business, or wherever they may be on election day, leading eventually to almost "instant" election results. This, of course, would require an absolutely secure and transparent method to remotely verify the identity of voters.