Draft blog post on federal and congressional editing

From Wikimedia District of Columbia
< Internal:Public Policy
Revision as of 21:33, 25 August 2014 by Econterms (talk | contribs) (→‎Draft post: insert opinion: we welcome them)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Workspace: Public policy Status: Draft

Draft post

Congress edits Wikipedia: Our perspective as Wikipedians in the nation's capital

By Peter Meyer and James Hare

This past July, programmer Ed Summers created CongressEdits, a Twitter feed that posts update every time an edit to Wikipedia is made from an IP address belonging to the United States Congress. This feed relies on how edits to Wikipedia are attributed: those who edit through a registered account have their edits attributed to their username, while those who edit without being logged in have their edits attributed to their IP address. The range of IP addresses used by Congress is public knowledge, so it was trivial to match up IP addresses with edits. In fact, Wikipedia administrators have been watching out for Congressional edits for years.

CongressEdits, however, provided a new level of visibility to these edits. The Twitter account has around 30,000 followers as of writing; by comparison, the English-language Wikipedia has 1,400 administrators. The visibility and resulting press coverage generated a lot of interest in Wikipedia on the Hill—particularly since some of the edits are less than constructive. That said, they are mostly the kind of juvenile or disruptive edits that Wikipedia deals with every minute of every day without incident, only notable because of where the edits are coming from. Over the years Wikipedia has developed sophisticated technologies, including filters that prevent certain edits from even happening, that ensure that most trivial vandalism gets swiftly undone.

Wikipedia DC welcomes edits by Congressional staff and the staffs of federal government agencies. Government staff are experts in areas of public interest, including very new hot topics. Our common goal is to make a better online reference work, with notable, neutrally phrased, verifiable content. We can overlook minor discretions and work with Capitol Hill and all federal employees to forge a path forward.

Recently, Wikimedia DC partnered with the Cato Institute for a panel on editing Wikipedia on Capitol Hill that was held on August 18. You can read more in U.S. News and World Report. Cato and Wikimedia DC both agree that Congress does have a part to play in Wikipedia—not political advocacy, but transparently improving the quality of information about legislation and other Congressional activity. This includes not just direct edits to articles, but making data about government more open and machine-readable for reuse in highly visible third-party platforms like Wikipedia. There is a great potential for Wikipedia as a platform to increase awareness of Congress' activities, a potential we should not overlook.

Best practices for federal employees

Wikimedia DC is interested in developing best practices for employees at all levels of government. The National Archives and Records Administration has been working with the Wikipedia community since 2011, pioneering government engagement with Wikipedia and showcasing the potential to serve the public.

[Integrate notes from below]

Notes

There's been recent news of inappropriate, anonymous edits to Wikipedia from Capitol Hill, presumably from Congressional staff. It's not worrisome-

Wiki DC is trying to help shape guidelines for the ethics of editing from Capitol Hill, from government agencies, and from quasi-governmental nonprofits. Wiki DC is tracking the guidelines we can find, to learn from and compare.

Our Cultural Partnerships Coordinator, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, is a leader in this area.

  • Generally we think NIH, EPA, and NARA have good sets of rules. (with perhaps tweaks)
  • A good principle is that a user should offer a conflict-of-interest (COI) statement if they are editing agency-related content on work time. I think that's not a hard rule and they are not all "paid editors." (this may take discussion)
  • And this applies to the congressional branch and congressional staffers.

Michelle Newby of Cato Institute had already suggested that at our next Legislative edit-a-thon we offer a draft COI statement for congressional staffers. we have several models to work from. We can't require it but we can recommend it and learn from variations.

I also endorse Dominic's point of playing judo when these stories come up; vandalism is commonplace and yet still considered newsworthy, which presents an opportunity to say "hey, that's true, are you aware there's a movement underway to fix this?".

may have a staff editathon next week. suggested using a congressional user page template based on NARA

suggested a congressional sign-on similar to Donovan House PR statement. look forward to WMDC blog on COI issues.

We can quote Dominic as a NARA expert.

a blog from WMDC would help inform the discourse we can show more thoughtfulness than most of the media reports, and the press seems to be actively seeking the Wikipedia perspective. we should proactively communicate it to the press.

there is a risk of the anti-Congress backlash causing more harm than good.

That is what I think we should continue to be emphasizing, and not the sensational aspects of the story.

I have been doing some communications work on this front, though trying just to just talk about agencies and not Congress. Representing NARA, I spoke to another reporter, who is pitching a story to PCWorld, on Wednesday. Mostly, I am trying to point out that there are agencies whose missions (whether it's about government records, public health information, cultural heritage, government scientific research, etc.) align with Wikipedia's work, and who need to get savvier about ethical Wikipedia contribution. And then to give simple tips about Wikipedia editing for agencies, like creating individual accounts, making disclosures of affiliation on your user page, and avoid directly editing articles where you have a conflict of interest, like your agency or director (but learn to use talk pages, etc.).

For background, I also published a blog post for GSA's DigitalGov blog in July, early on in the @congressedits saga. This grew out of a similar post I sent to the government-wide social media managers listserv. https://www.digitalgov.gov/2014/07/30/why-congressedits-matters-for-your-agency/ I also spoke to NextGov and FedScoop in the wake of that post: http://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/emerging-tech-blog/2014/07/anyone-your-agency-editing-wikipedia/90173/ http://fedscoop.com/twitter-bots-like-congressedits-target-agencies-wikipedia-behavior/ At NARA, we are walking a thin line. We don't necessarily want to seek out any press attention around things like ethical editing and COI (rather than our actual Wikipedia programmatic work) because every instance carries a bit of risk of negative attention, but we do believe we are leaders in within the federal government, and don't mind any positive press. In terms of NARA modeling ethical behavior on Wikipedia for other agencies and institutions, I produced the following timeline for internal use which might be useful background information for anyone representing WMDC as well:

As early as July 2011, NARA’s Social Media Team developed internal guidelines for staff editing Wikipedia. In September 2012, NARA posted these guidelines publicly on Wikipedia, after they were reviewed by general counsel, in order to promote transparency. In conjunction with the guidelines, NARA also published a blog post explicitly addressing conflict of interest on Wikipedia and detailing our approach. In October 2013, after his full-time hiring, Dominic McDevitt-Parks posted his job description and a FAQ (general counsel-vetted) about his work to his Wikipedia user page, going far beyond standard disclosure practices on Wikipedia. In May 2014, NARA created a Wikipedia template for staff user pages (general counsel-vetted) which standardizes and enforces conflict-of-interest disclosure statements by verified NARA staff Wikipedia editors and allows tracking of the accounts via a Wikipedia category.

Also of note is that HHS also has guidelines on Wikipedia that go back to 2012, but I don't know the background here about how they came to be or how they are used (it seems likely they came from NIH's Wikipedia work).

(shorter phrasing:)

NARA has a Wikipedian-in-residence, starting summer 2011 -- Dominic McDevitt-Parks.

NARA has an officially collaborative project with Wikipedia's project GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) -- posting photos, videos, etc. It is described including citations to press coverage at Wikipedia's project pages for GLAM/NARA.[1] At events at NARA, Wikipedia volunteers sometimes scan photos or documents for uploading to Wikipedia Commons, or transcribe some holdings through the Wikisource project and technology.[2]

From Dominic McDevitt-Parks:

Relevant publications by or about NARA:

References

  1. ↑ GLAM/NARA project pages at Wikipedia. Press coverage is listed and hyperlinked.
  2. ↑ Partnership for Public Service; Booz Allen Hamilton. Jan 2013. #ConnectedGov: Engaging Stakeholders in the Digital Age page 16-17.
Retrieved from "https://wikimediadc.org/index.php?title=Internal:Public_Policy/Draft_blog_post_on_federal_and_congressional_editing&oldid=8493"