Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff

I am in a room with several Congressional staffers. They are interested in exploring how they can contribute information in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and best practices. In light of recent media reports, they are concerned with public perception of their participation on Wikipedia, even when edits are made in good faith. They are open to suggestions from the Wikipedia community. Harej (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A good starting point would be to see how the PR industry has started to adopt this statement - Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms Perhaps adapting that for those in Congress, or coming up with specific best practices would be useful. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Have them check at WikiProject Library of Congress (a small project) and look at GLAM/Projects. LOC does not have a GLAM project going on, but the staffers have access to the LOC. So they might prompt LOC to set up a GLAM project. And considering how the federal government funds things, the staffers could slip in an appropriation specifically for a GLAM coordinator. – S. Rich (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 to Fuzheado's comment. I'd also want to know why congressional staffers would want to edit WP.  Assuming good faith, it would be to correct misinformation.  But I forsee a variety of controversial issues such as WP:SOAP, editing a page to artificially increase or decrease its validity and WP:WAR with other WP editors.  The third party solution seems like the most pragmatic solution for now. -- kosboot (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 for Fuzheado's comment, plus a few suggestions
 * A GLAM project, or perhaps just a special tour with somebody from the Architect of the Capitol's office for Wikipedians. Maybe staff (or Washingtonians in general) just don't realize the importance of this office and its occupants in the history of art and architecture in the US, as well as political history of course.
 * Wasn't there a previous "scandal+agreement" with Congress and Wikipedia about 2005? Somebody should look that up and see what was agreed.
 * If that isn't relevant, figure out some way for the Congress and Wikipedia to come up with some sort of "binding" agreement. I'd guess wouldn't mind serving as a figurehead "signer" if Congress could come up with anybody of equivalent stature to actually promise something! (Of course somebody would have to ask Jimbo)
 * Note that it is an election year. My recollection from just after the SOPA blackout was that both my Senators and all the nearby Congressmen were stumbling all over themselves to figure out how to please the "internet vote." Can staff motivate this type of folks to actually earn some internet votes?
 * Note also that Wikipedians do not control the Twitter-bots and that almost anybody can set one up. Voters and journalists will likely get tired of watching what folks on Capitol Hill edit on Wikipedia, maybe sometime in 2020?
 * Here's the nub of the issue. Journalists are watching for some kind of propaganda/scandal to come out of Congress. Sure it never happens, I know.  Well, actually our articles on candidates just become an awful mess during the campaigns.  Sure some voters just get carried away, but also politicians, campaign staff, and probably Capitol Hill staffers also likely get carried away. A good example was the Newt Gingrich article in 2011-12.  His campaign manager participated openly in the article, for awhile. Can Capitol Hill do anything to alleviate the problem?
 * Perhaps the easiest solution would be to have staffers just promise to disclose all politically related edits. That way we can review and remove any (unintentional) bias that creeps in.  It's only the folks who hide it that will get in real trouble with the press.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A capitol idea, assuming the honesty of people in politics . . . Trackinfo (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Let them in. Possibly bounce the discussion into | Reliable Sources Noticeboard for more discussion.  (e.g. There have been discussions such as reliability of reviews of scientific literature put out by advocacy groups.) I think like any advocacy group input it should not be taken as unbiased since they will be in good faith to their mission using wording and selectively framing things from their POV and to their mission.   But there are two things about it that would make it acceptable and sometimes desired.  First is when the advocacy group is significant to the topic events -- e.g. what AARP says about Social Security is due some weight in article and may be the only clear material on the topic.  Second is that things are all shades of grey with nobody perfect so just try to get the best one can and to get more than one POV source.  It is not so much whether they have a POV or motives since anyone expert has to have motives for doing effort, it is more whether they let other POVs also be fairly presented and keep their own input within reputable word-choice spin and selectively presenting points versus flat-out lying, and I think Congress is keenly aware of that kind of line.  Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Congressional staffers are also in a good position to take photos of notable people (mostly of their boss and people meeting with him or her). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, I say assume good faith, have them read WP:IRS, WP:5P, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, etc. and then let them edit knowing what is expected of any editor. If they create content that violates WP:NEU I am sure other editors will call them out on it. If anything what would be helpful is if a project like GLAM is started, so they can be guided through their editing, so they don't fall into any pitfalls that new editors might experience.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Background
See Wikipedia talk:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff.