 Yn ym 6 mlynedd yn siŵn, oedden nhw ydwg yn mawr. Rwy'n ddod am y blwyddyn. Gael dwi'n mynd i'ch bod gyntaf ar ei bod yn dod y bwg â'i wneud, bod nid yn ddigon iawn hefyd yn ei wneud, ac felly wedi cael sefydliadau o rhesiad ar mwylwch. Felly, rydyn ni wedi ei chi'n gweld y cifn hynny i'w c licu am neud ond y cwestiynau gan ymgyrch. Mae clywedd ar gael gweithio maen nhw wedi gweld 10 mewn arddangos wedi bod rheswm zedder o'r gweithio. Yn rheswm o'n gweithio ychydig yn llun yn ni gyd yn gwneud amdano, ond hwrdd desperately hon o'n cyd-dweud am yr wybod y myd, a'r wybod y myd yn cyd-dweud y myd. Felly, oherwydd, rwy'n gweithio Baeccy yn ychwynig ffordd cyllid y maen hwnne, y mas o'r wybod ddweud o'r wybod ar gweithio. Rwg roedd rydyn ni'n cynharu arweinyddio'r fforddio y awdd o gwybodaeth ar gyflynyddoedd. chwarae i gyd ddim ychydig o'r bwysig sy'n rhoi gwybodaeth gweithio ar gyfer Llywodraethau, ond gallai meddwl nhw'n ei gynnig o ddataeth o wahanol ihowb yn bod yw'r ddyrch yn gwirioneddol. Roedd yma yw'r arnyfer i'r rydyn ni'n golywodraeth. Mae'n meddwl i ddim yn ymddyddol yma. Ond mae'n meddwl i'r Udoedd yn ffodol yn dda i gael cyfnodau. Yn amlwg, llwyfyn o'r bynd, ymddiad cyfnodol, ymddiad cyfnodol, ymddiad ymddiad, ymddiad, ymddiad cyfnodol, ymddiad o'r cyfnodol, ymddiad o'r cyfnodol, ymddiad ymddiad o'r cyfnodol yn ymddiad ymddiad. Rwyda iawn, mae eich gweithio'r gwyno ond yng ng Muslimson yma. Mynd yn blaen iddo, mae ganyddwch cyd-gylchedd, ond mae'r chyflen, mae dyna'ch gwir y dgweithio'r cydd-gylchedd. Ond mae'n edrych yn ystod i chi'n gweithio'r gyd wedi'u cymdeithasol sy'n gweithio'r cynyddiad. Ond mae'n edrych yn ddechrau ddaig o'r hwn opiadau o'r ddiogel o'r hwnnw. gerdwysodol i gweithio gyda'r cyfwau cyfwau a'r cyfwau amser. Mae'r ganddoedd yw'r ysgol yn iawn. Mae'r cyflwynt yma, mae'n fwy o'r cyfrifod o'r cyfrifod ar y cyfrifod ymlaen. Mae'r cyfrifod ar gyfer. Mae'r cyfrifod yw ymlaen nhw pwysig yma. Mae'r cyfrifod yw hwn yn iawn, i holl o'i ffordd pwynt i'r ysgol yw'r Ysgol. A dyna'r ffordd, rwy'n credu, rwy'n credu bod ysgrifennu'r gweithio ar 9.48, a, oes i'n ddod, mae'n gyfrifio'n 9.60. Felly, roeddw i'n gwybod, yn y cyfrifio, 12 o'r cyfrifio'r bwysig yn y Cymru. A dyna'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, yn gyfan dded existu, ddod, ddod, gwneud fynd i ddim yn ei ddod, i'n ddod i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o ddweud o ddod a'i gweithio? Dwi'n gweithio'r ddiweddau o'r gwaith ar ei dda o'r hyn o'r radion iechydig, i ddod o'r moddd yn gweithio'r cyfrifio mae'n ceisio gynhenol間di, bydd wedi cael ddim byd pan oedd hollwn i'n cyfrifio a Ddweud yn y Llo England fo. Roedd yn cael ddweud ei ddod o'r ddweud ei bobl yn cael ei ddod, felly mae'r FBI yn gwneud yn mynd i'r gadeu'r ddafyn yn fath yw'r cyffredin iawn. Mae'r ddafyn o ddweud y cyfnod yn gweithio, mae mae'n ddau'r ddweud o'r ddweud yn gweithio, symud i'r ddafyn o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud yn y gallu bod yn gweithio ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o ddweud. I've always loved this definition of news, particularly when I'm doing seminars on investigative journalism. I think Lord Northcliff said it in the 19th century, but I can't prove it. And it's at the back of most journalist minds is this idea that they ought to be doing something that somebody doesn't want them to know. So the whole idea of having open government data goes completely against that. If they want us to know it, we don't want to put it out there because they want us to know it. We want to move on and find something that somebody doesn't want us to know. That's what we do. That's what journalism is all about. Yes, sort of. The problem is then that they think, well, I'll go to FOI. I'll do a freedom of information request because that's something they don't want us to know. And I'm really clever and I'm going to find it out because I've asked the right question. It's like playing a sort of journalistic game of battleships where you say square C9 and they go miss. And you say D4 and they say hit. If you add open data and freedom of information, maybe you have transparency. And I think speaking in Britain where we have a short history really of transparency, that's particularly true. There is some transparency out there. I did try to do a sort of survey of people's perception of corruption in a given country. And then open data readiness score and their transparency score. And I tried to sort of do it mathematically and it didn't really work. And the supervisor I had at Oxford wasn't at all happy with it so I haven't reproduced it here. But it did sort of push the Swedes and the Finns and the Danes to the top. And the New Zealanders. And Britain and America were sort of a bit lower down than their open data scores might have implied. And I think that sort of is reality that we are not as transparent as we think we are or we'd like to be. And as Eric Hanell said earlier from Tableau, he said that open data is out there but not everybody can consume it in its native format. Now what governments including the British and the Americans were looking for was what they called the armchair auditor. What Obama said during one of his town hall speeches in his first election campaign, you guys, everybody, the entire population, can be our eyes and ears. They want sort of, in return for transparency, they want auditing on the cheap, where the people sit in their armchair with their Excel spreadsheets and work out where the money is going where it shouldn't be. Cameron in the election for 2010 referred to armchair auditors. But you can't really, as you hunt around the internet, you can't really find many of them coming out there. There are one or two. I mean one of my favourites may even be in the room, it's Tom Forth from Citimetric or I did this for Citimetric. To me this and the argument that goes underneath this headline ought to have been a game changer in the rather pathetic slanging match between Gatwick and Heathrow with all the strange arguments they muster and that you have to walk past on your way through the airport telling you why their airport should be the expanded one. That actually we've got far more going on at Schiphol and actually Birmingham has got better connections to Europe than Heathrow or Gatwick. It's a very good article, well worth reading. But it didn't get replayed or picked up much in the mainstream media and that's part of my point that where open data is being used it's not coming through as open data to the readers, to consumers of news. In the United States there are interesting, quite fun websites like Follow the Money and Maplight and there is a completely different or if you like a more developed ecosystem that picks up more than just journalists, more than just NGOs but there are websites and APIs that are doing things that allow you, the citizen to have a quick check on what's going on. Things like, you know, is your doctor on the take from pharmaceuticals? Use pro-publicas dollars for docs app. Finding out Maplight which stands for money and politics, like shedding light on money and politics. So looking at specific causes in the Senate or the House and seeing who's been paid what to vote which way. So being able to look up by keyword particular debates and see who's in the pay of whom for voting in a given way. That exists and it's rather useful but it's not happening in many other countries that I can see except on rather small scales. And the other thing that's causing people to shy away, journalists to shy away from open government data in my humble opinion is something like that which is that there is a confusion between data and statistics. If you put them together in people's minds it's oh well I'm going to have to do percentages and I haven't done that since school and oh it's all going to be terrible. I'd rather just read a press release and turn that into a story. So that's holding people back. There is a journalistic role though. There is a lot of data out there that needs interpreting, sifting and I don't think there's an army of armchair auditors out there. I think journalists need to be doing some of this stuff and using if you like the multiplier effect of mainstream media to bring things to the attention of their readers. Otherwise what might happen is something like this, this is one of my internet heroes is Tony Hearst from Open University who does a wonderful blog o useful.info. And he, because he can, wrote some code which simply took a data set and wrote automatically filled in the blanks, wrote press releases for any given county or CCG in the National Health Service about diabetes prescribing and he's done several others. So you can get the journalists completely out of the equation if they don't get their act together and start understanding open data and get an app that will write press releases and therefore if you like stories done entirely automatically. Presumably they can then be read automatically as well. When I was talking about my working paper to somebody at ODI she said, oh you mean big data has won and what I think she meant was that in the public imagination there is more recognition for the words, the keywords big data than there is for open data currently and there are all the missteps and misapprehensions and worries about big data privacy and all those problems and open data is not really in there and unlike Becky's mother-in-law or mother-in-law test, my father test what do I do with my time. I talk about open data and he looks blankly at me and he hasn't got any terrible disease. He just looks blankly at me because he doesn't know what it is that I'm doing with open data and what open data is and he's the sort of person who's educated enough to make some use of it. He needs something like the Daily Telegraph, his paper of choice to actually not just write using open data but actually spell out the fact that that's where they got their stories from. So going back to the question, does open data need journalism? Well, there is stories, there are stories in open data, there are leads to stories, it's not just about statistics. You can find things which will lead you to stories. This is what I tell journalists when I'm talking to them about open data but you look at the sheer numbers of journalists that I and others train and you think of them as part of the population of journalists worldwide and it's still scratching the surface. Data minus openness is a bigger story than data plus openness. In other words, where governments don't release stuff or they distort it or they refuse to release it or they won't release it under FOI, that's a story too and that's not being written about very much and there's plenty of stuff out there which is not really good enough. If you look at Open Knowledge Foundation's website they identified, rightly in my opinion, 10 key government data sets so if you can't read it from back there, budgets, companies, elections, emissions, legislation, maps, post codes, spending stats and timetables, public timetables. That should give you for the 97 countries they're reporting on, 970 data sets. 837 of them exist. 539 of the 837 are up to date and 312 are machine readable. Of those 312 open 106. So we're down to 11% out of the possible population of countries which are sort of self-selecting on that list, the 97 are countries which claim to be doing stuff with open data and I think 106 out of 970 if I scored that in a school exam I'd expect a bollocking, wouldn't you? So does open data need journalism? Well of course the answer is yes but it's a two-way thing. Open data, we, I consider myself in the middle now I'm a retired journalist and I'm a dataholic and passionate open data advocate and somewhere in the middle the open data community needs to talk to journalists and journalists need to understand what open data is and could do for them and they need to publicise each other. It's a two-way street and it's not happening. I noticed a tweet earlier today from somebody who's not here an American journalist said reporting without data is a mere anecdote. Data without reporting is just as blind. I think I'll leave it at that.