Not so very long ago, processing large amounts of data was a tedious business, riddled with human error, machine failings and limited reach.
These days, information availability can feel like a tsunami. There’s so much of it, all the time, all around. It’s become easier than ever to share information and images, sometimes involuntarily.
The sheer abundance of facts available all the time can mask what’s missing, namely, synthesis and understanding of the facts at hand.
The constant flow of information can also mask that we don’t really have all the information necessary to assess specific environments or track changes.
The rise of citizen science projects has sought to harness both the ability to share information and the need for more facts on the ground.
A positive example of this is the Capture the Coast project getting underway in the United Kingdom. Financed by lottery funds to the tune of £1.7 million ($2.7 million), several universities and non-governmental organizations are collaborating to train 3000 volunteers to gather data on species up and down the UK coastline.
This data will be collected and analyzed by the various institutions to better track and understand climate change.
A somewhat less positive example of data sharing can be found in Wyoming, which recently passed a law that makes it illegal to gather and transmit data from open land (including photos or sample results) to the state or federal government.
In effect, this means that you can be arrested if you are a concerned citizen or scientist who is documenting a particular issue. And the issue at hand here is mainly the documentation of high levels of E. coli bacteria in streams due to poor ranching habits and bad herd management.
But once a law like this has been passed, it can be applied to anyone who is collecting data that could make someone else uncomfortable.
According to this Slate article, while other states have similar laws that protect the powerful agricultural industries from a concerned citizenry, Wyoming’s law is the first to actually criminalize taking a photo on public land.
Rather than embrace collaboration that connects and supports a better understanding of the environment, these moves seem to be an attempt to turn back time, to go back to an era when information could be stashed in a filing cabinet somewhere in the basement, or simply shredded.
But these days, it’s like trying to hold back the tide. Will this kind of obstructionism slow understanding that points the way to better solutions? Probably. There might be gaps here and there, but the data will still flow.
It’s a shame that some people would rather service the gears and methods of outdated structures and habits.
It doesn’t add up now, and it never will.