Data and Knowledge Ethics The Bega Valley Data Commons is concerned with data, but not only data in the technical sense. It may hold public documents, forum discussions, local observations, resource lists, service information, meeting notes, maps, timelines, stories, questions, offers of help, records of need, lived experience, community memory and formal datasets. These are different kinds of knowledge and should not all be treated the same way. During Phase 0, the Commons must develop habits of care before it develops larger systems of collection, analysis, publication or advocacy. 1. Data is situated Data does not arrive from nowhere. A number, story, document, post, map, memory or observation is produced by someone, somewhere, under particular conditions and for particular reasons. It may reflect what was counted, what was missed, who was present, who was absent, who had authority, who felt safe enough to speak and who had already been excluded. The Commons should treat data as situated knowledge, not neutral material. 2. Knowledge has different conditions of use Some knowledge is public and can be freely shared. Some is shared within a limited group. Some is personal, sensitive, cultural, operational, speculative or incomplete. Some may be true but still unsafe to publish. Some may be useful but not appropriate for the Commons to hold at all. A central ethical task is to distinguish between what can be known, what can be recorded, what can be shared, what can be interpreted and what can be acted upon. 3. Public does not always mean ethical Information may be technically available but still require care. A council document, social media post, public comment, meeting remark or published statistic may be accessible, but that does not mean it can be stripped of context, republished carelessly, used against people or folded into a Commons record without thought. Availability is not consent. 4. Consent matters Where knowledge is personal, sensitive, identifying, cultural or gathered through relationship, consent should be considered before it is recorded, shared, quoted, archived, analysed or reused. Consent is not a one-time checkbox. People may consent to discussion but not publication, to being heard but not archived, to one use but not another. They may later need to withdraw or revise what they have offered. The Commons should prefer slow consent over fast extraction. 5. Aboriginal knowledge requires specific care The Commons exists on Country and must not assume that all knowledge is available for open discussion, storage or interpretation. Knowledge relating to Aboriginal people, Country, cultural practice, places, family, language, history, community authority or lived experience may require specific protocols, permissions or guidance. Some knowledge may not belong in the Commons at all. Where the Commons is unsure, it should pause. Good intent is not enough. 6. Lived experience is not raw material People's experiences of disability, poverty, housing stress, exclusion, institutional failure, care, trauma, racism or service gaps should not be treated as extractable evidence. Lived experience can be powerful and politically important, but only when handled with consent, context and respect. The person is not the dataset. 7. Community memory needs protection One purpose of the Commons is to help local memory persist: what was promised, what was tried, what failed, what worked, who helped, what changed and what remains unresolved. But memory can also be contested, painful, partial or politically charged. The Commons should hold memory carefully, allowing correction, context, multiple accounts and the possibility that some records may need to be restricted, revised or removed. 8. Evidence should remain connected to context The Commons may help turn scattered knowledge into evidence. A forum thread may become a resource list; a repeated concern may become a pattern; a pattern may become a map; a map may become a submission. At each stage, the Commons should ask what context may be lost as knowledge becomes more formal. Evidence should clarify rather than flatten. 9. Data should not be gathered without purpose Before gathering or organising data, participants should ask: why is this needed, who benefits, who may be exposed, who will hold it, who can access it, how long should it remain and what happens if the context changes? A commons should not become a warehouse of unmanaged information. 10. Sensitive knowledge needs boundaries Sensitive knowledge may include personal information, health or disability information, family circumstances, legal matters, financial hardship, service use, cultural knowledge, children's information, conflict material, allegations or traumatic events. Such knowledge should not be posted casually. It may require private handling, restricted access, anonymisation, consent, referral elsewhere, or a decision not to hold it. 11. Anonymity and identification both carry risks Anonymous information can protect people, but can also reduce accountability or make claims harder to verify. Identified information can strengthen evidence, but can also expose people to harm, pressure, stigma or retaliation. The Commons should not adopt a single rule for all cases. It should develop careful practices that consider purpose, risk, consent and context. 12. Open data is not always the right goal Some data should be open. Some should be shared. Some should be restricted. Some should be temporary. Some should not be collected. Openness is not the highest principle in every situation. Care, consent, cultural authority, privacy, safety and community benefit may take priority. The question is not simply "can this be opened?" but "under what conditions, for whose benefit and with what protections?" 13. Interpretation should be accountable Data does not speak for itself. When the Commons interprets information, identifies patterns, summarises discussions or draws conclusions, the interpretive step should be visible: what sources were used, what assumptions were made, what was left out and who was involved. Interpretation should be open to correction. 14. The Commons should resist extraction A data commons can become extractive if it gathers local knowledge and converts it into reports, funding arguments, institutional intelligence, academic outputs or public claims without returning authority or benefit to the people whose knowledge made those outputs possible. Who benefits from this knowledge becoming organised? If the answer is mostly external institutions, funders, researchers, consultants or founders, the project has drifted from its purpose. 15. The Commons should create benefit The ethical purpose of holding data and knowledge is not accumulation. Knowledge should help people understand conditions, remember what matters, coordinate action, protect vulnerable interests, strengthen local agency, improve decisions, challenge false accounts and make useful connections. If holding knowledge does not create community benefit, the Commons should question why it is being held. 16. Phase 0 standard During Phase 0, the Commons does not yet need a complete data governance system. It does need a clear ethical posture. That posture can be stated simply: Do not extract. Do not expose unnecessarily. Do not flatten context. Do not claim authority you do not have. Do not treat knowledge as ownerless. Do not confuse openness with carelessness. Do not collect what you are not ready to protect. The Commons should earn the right to hold knowledge by showing that it can hold knowledge well.