Google map gjorde det muligt at forklare min familie og venner hvad det var at jeg arbejdede med. Men skal man være ærlig og det skal man jo så er det jo på den anden side ikke hele sandheden. GIS er MEGET mere end hvad Google præsterer og sikkert også meget mindre end hvad Geografi i virkeligeheden kunne være. Så spørgsmålet er om Google er godt for Geografi og GIS? Ligesom med alt andet når det drejer sig om Google så kan man se det fra to sider som hænger uhjælpeligt sammen ...
Google map all of a sudden made it possible for me to explain to my family and friends what it was that I did for an earning. But to be honest and that is something you must be it is NOT the whole truth. GIS i A LOT more than what Google present to the world and probably also a lot less than what Geografi is all about. So the question as always when discussing Google it has two sides and they can't be viewed on their own.
Martin and Matt have put together a provocative session for AAG called “Is Google Good for Geography?“. I agreed to be the GeoWeb punching bag (a.k.a NeoTard) and take on the masses of PaleoTards converging on the AAG. What I find most exciting about this session is it is not just traditional GIS vs. GeoWeb, but also the potential detrimental impacts of the political economy created by the GeoWeb. What are the implications of massive corporations like Google and Microsoft shaping how the public perceives geography? There is heavy fear of corporate control of geographic data amongst Geographers, and trepidation about what the implications are for academic research and the potential for hegemonic tendencies and disenfranchisement of under represented groups. We experienced a bit of this when one such article called us out for corporate control of data with GeoCommons. This got me exceedingly irritated at the time since all the data in GeoCommons is released under Creative Commons with attribution, but that is another story