Talk:EGovernment

An emerging theme is:

'Is egovernment just government?'

Which is also expressed as:

'Taking the "e" out of e-government'

These two phrases essentially express the sentiment that e-government initiatives have been hitherto almost exclusively consumed by a focus upon technology and that this can easily distract those involved from the overall aim, which is the enhanced provision of public services, in which the "e" or "electronic" dimension of government, although pivotal, is merely a component.

Another emerging theme is:

Is international or pan-national e-government fundamentally undermining the sustainability of national sovereignity?

In other words:

Is e-governemnt 'federalism by the back-door'?

ericross

---

I replaced "e-citizenship" with "e-democracy" in the issues section for two reasons:

1. There was no wikipedia term for "e-citizenship", but "e-democracy" had been recently created.
2. "E-democracy" is already in wide use as a term, whereas I've yet to see "e-citizenship" mentioned anywhere. Correct me if I am mistaken.
3. "E-democracy" and "e-citizenship" are essentially the same thing. To be an active citizen is to be an active small-d democrat.

Stevietheman 23:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

What's with all the undefined terms in this article? Is it proper to include all these here _before_ they are defined?

Stevietheman 16:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point Steve.

I've "included everything that I've included" because each item is a highly relevant e-government issue.

But what I have not done (yet) is to (personally) undertake an exercise to define all those terms which are not yet defined elsewhere in wikipedia.

I think that an exercise to remove undiably relevant issues (until definitions of those terms have been created) would be a disservice to wikipedia readers.

The value gained by learning, for instance, that 'e-records' is considered an e-government issue, is in no way undermined by discovering that wikipedia does not contain a definition of it.

Another issue is whether to remove the hyperlink in question.

I think that such a move might presuppose that the reader will obtain more benefit by there being no hyperlink, which, although this may indeed be the case in certain instances, does not eliminate the benefit to be derived for the wikipedia readership as a whole by the extent to which the 'empty' hyperlink acts as a prompt for those willing and able to supply the requisite definition.

There are examples of vitally important mathematical theorems defined in wikipedia where a few of the terms of the theorem have not got wikipedia definitions.

(This was true of Thurston's conjecture for some time, but is (to a large extent) no longer the case)

Should these fundamental theorems therefore be removed until the definitions are entered??

ericross

---

Well, certainly a term doesn't _have_ to have a hyperlink until somebody decides to create the article for the term. I'm not suggesting that the terms be eliminated, but that their links to nowhere are questionable. The hyperlink can be created _after_ the new article is created. It just seems cleaner that way.

Stevietheman 16:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Any value to be gained from the 'empty link as a prompt for readers to create a definition'?

ericross

---

Not that I can see. If you want to create all these links, create a stub article for each and ask for more content on those pages.

Stevietheman 05:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Ok, Here are the stubs that need creating:

1. online government
2. discussion lists
3. freedom of information
4. data protection
5. e-citizenship
6. e-enablement
7. geopolitical boundaries
8. e-procurement
9. e-health
10. Internet Addiction
11. e-taxes
12. social cohesion
13. economic migration
14. regional autonomy
15. e-records
16. e-recruitment
17. e-management
18. e-publishing
19. e-readiness
20. m-government

ericross

---

I added the cleanup-verify tag because the quote from Nadar has no attribution. Will also add the cleanup tag and such. --Woohookitty 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)