The information presented in the Top City Vendors bar graph represents only a slim variability of data types, as there are only three available: vendor title, dollar amount, and fiscal year. Records in this case are categorized squarely by time and amount.
Given that this dataset is one of the most straightforward lists to be found on the LA Controller’s site, I find its simplification to be indicative of many of the social and administrative problems apparent in all the respective datasets located on this site. We can view each of these datasets as not necessarily reflecting the biases of Ron Galperin, Los Angeles City Controller, but of the Los Angeles government as a whole, whose organization of Los Angeles’ funds is an opaque and mysterious affair.
As was already mentioned by my classmates, the data available in these sets are only readily accessible to the administrative elite or politically savvy; and I mean this in the sense that while this information is publically available, its precise and detailed information is kept guarded by bureaucracy and privileged knowledge.
For example, knowing that the city treasurer spent $501,200,595.00 in 2015 tells me nothing about what that money was actually spent on, leaving me, as a citizen of Los Angeles, in the dark about the administrative processes that deal with this city’s funding.
In remembering that Wallack and Srinivasan describe ontology as being any organization of differing variables based on a group’s common perception of knowledge, I believe it is safe to say that this information is organized for the benefit of those who are processing the data in the first place, which are Los Angeles city officials. This type of data organization privileges those already in an elite position, so I believe it is ineffective as a dataset meant for the civil population.
I appreciate your passion for this topic! I totally agree with your assessment that this information is structured in a way that makes it readable by the few rather than the many, and I too found the vagueness of the information upsetting, especially by a government office intended to serve the citizens rather than the government itself. At the end of the day, these datasets are supposed to justify the city’s actions to the citizens, which it falls short of. Great analysis!
I enjoyed this post a lot. It was really refreshing to see your personal feelings about the topic. Like what you said, while this data shows the spending, it does not shed any insight on why and what. I feel that this is the case with many of these datasets. It is transparent in showing data, but not motive. This analysis was cool, and I’m looking forward to seeing more of your posts.