Open data is not transparency until ordinary people can use it

Governments increasingly publish spreadsheets, and that is good. But publishing is not the same as being understood. A file with thousands of rows, unexplained column names and no way to link spending to a place or a decision does not let a resident, a local journalist or a small business answer a simple question like "what did we get for this money?"

We think transparency should be judged by use, not by volume. Useful data comes with plain-language explanations, consistent identifiers so that datasets can be connected, a way to search and compare, and a named person who answers questions about it.

The objection is cost: smaller authorities say they lack the staff. That is true, and it suggests sharing tools and standards between authorities instead of dropping the idea.

What would change our mind: evidence that raw publication, without further effort, reliably leads to the scrutiny and reuse that open-data advocates expect.

A useful test for any public dataset: can a motivated non-expert find a real answer in under ten minutes?