DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET WEB SITE
J. Kevin Webster
Founder and Chairman
No. 10 Web Site Independent Users’ Group
Independent Users’ Group
This paper was emailed to Number 10 prior to my meeting on Wednesday, March 29th at Downing Street with James Humphreys, Editor of the web site and Russell Oppenheim, Assistant Editor. I was accompanied by my wife, Lurline. The red sections of this paper set out the results of our discussions.
Background to the Independent Users’ Group
I originally formed the Users’ Group in late 1998. As a result of working with such groups in the computer industry in the early ‘90s, when I worked as a technical author with IBM, I knew how vital "feedback" from the users of our products could be in producing better documentation.
It was my initial feeling (and remains so) that the Prime Minister’s web site should be the main portal to the workings of the British government and be internationally recognised as such. The main problem that I saw with it at the time was that there was insufficient interaction. It appeared to be little more than a place for peoples’ "moans and groans". Most of all, I was concerned at the number of complaints from users of the site that felt their messages were being politically censored, or otherwise rejected without explanation.
My intention was therefore to provide a facility whereby users of the site could refer their concerns to a completely independent group that would act as arbitrators. The IUG is not a formal organisation as yet, but rather a very informal group of site users who contact one another by email. Our members come from all over the country and we also have overseas members (in the US and Canada presently).
Since the site was re-launched in February of this year, we have seen many improvements, yet there are still areas that concern us greatly. Foremost amongst these are the ability of posters to submit anonymous messages, accusations of censorship and the lack of contributions in the "Have Your Say" section from the PM, ministers and officials. These concerns will be expounded later in this paper. Above all however, we seek to establish a professional relationship with the administrators of the web site. We recognise that running the site is a sometimes-difficult job and that our task is to both support the No. 10 staff as well as criticise. We believe that the site deserves the very best resources, in terms of site design and navigation and we want to see it flourish. We feel that in knowing more about how the site is managed and hearing about future plans will assist us in providing an independent service to site users, in line with our founding principles.
We would highlight the following areas that we believe need addressing:
Contacting the Prime Minister via email
People have been writing to the Prime Minister for centuries. Most people accept that they will not always get a personal reply from the PM, but they do expect that their correspondence will be officially acknowledged. With the introduction of the web site, many correspondents are using this medium in an attempt to contact the PM.
It must be made clear in the introduction to the site and on the "Have your Say" exactly how one can do this. We would suggest that there be a method, such as that used in the USA by the White House, whereby emails sent to the President are automatically acknowledged, with a promise that, although a reply will not always be provided, the correspondence will be read and passed on as necessary. A separate email address, such as PM@whatever.gov.uk would filter such traffic away from the pure debating sections.
Number 10: They have looked at the US system but their feeling is that it is a little too impersonal. They told me that the amount of normal correspondence arriving at No. 10 over the last few years has steadily increased, to the point where the staff who deal with it are already overburdened. The Editor’s view was that if he provides an email address on the forum pages for direct contact, that will allow his team to filter any particularly important messages out. I asked if it would be possible for them to directly forward any sensitive matters that required personal intervention (a la "write to your MP" mode) to the relevant government department and reply to the correspondent informing them that this had been done. He said he would like to be able to do this and would look into it further.
Responses from the editorial team
The heavy volume of postings in "Speakers Corner" generated by the re-launch of the site must obviously pose problems for the admin team. We agree with the view of the Editor that it is impossible to respond to every one, (or even at all). You would have to have an inordinate number of staff to handle such responses and it would "clog up" the already burgeoning discussion pages.
We believe however, that the topics in Speakers Corner that specifically relate to the site’s operation (such as "Suggested Topics") should have more responses.
There is of course the option that correspondents could address their concerns to the Users’ Group, rather than the site Editor, especially where they are complaining of political censorship. Provided that the Users’ Group is assured that the Editor will look into cases referred back to him by the UG, this might ease the burden on the admin team somewhat. I think many of the points that correspondents bring up could be handled by the UG without having to refer those points back to Number 10.
Number 10: Pointing out the massive numbers of messages received, the Editor said that his six-strong team are always hard-pressed to read every posting every day, but they do try to achieve that. He was very responsive to the idea of the Users’ Group acting as a referee and said he would give us every co-operation in that respect.
Input from government ministers and officials
We have yet to see the outcome of the "Policy Forum" section, but we are very concerned about the lack of ministerial responses on the web site. This is in fact the "Number One" criticism that we have seen. It is our view that the Policy Forum format is the right one, and that Speakers Corner should be reserved for purely public debate.
Number 10: They told me the first Policy Forum response would be on the site in the next few days. Since our meeting, Jack Straw’s reaction to the "Parenting" debate has been published. My initial reaction is good – I hope the government really do mean what they say about taking public opinion into account.
One of our members has suggested a return to the "Expert View" contributions that were seen on the "old" site. He says that people are more likely to respect the views of expert commentators who are not members of the government. We suggest that such expert commentators are accorded the privilege of an identification icon, in order to combat impersonators.
The question of ministerial responses is pressing. We feel however that although the number of topics has grown considerably, users often tend to mistake the "Speakers Corner" section as one in which they can directly address government departments. We believe that if it’s made clear on the site, perhaps via links to other sites, where people can expect to get official responses to their queries, this problem may partly be solved. It would be great if the PM, ministers and senior officials could be persuaded to add their contributions to Speakers Corner now and again, though we recognise the difficulties to which all busy working people are subjected.
Number 10: This was their first priority. They realise that they made some rash promises at first, without coming up with a suitable format to address it. They are going to introduce an online discussion feature where a senior minister will be lined up to take and answer questions interactively on a particular day. So far, it’s being proposed that the first such discussion may involve Agriculture Secretary Nick Brown. Asked whether the PM actually sits at a PC and reads Speakers Corner messages, the Editor said that Tony Blair does that occasionally, though of course he can’t afford too much time, but at least he is making the effort to keep in touch with what people are saying on the net.
The question of anonymity and the need for user registration
Allowing users to post messages anonymously has been an unmitigated disaster. This has produced a massive increase in contributions and, though we don’t want to restrict access, we feel that an immediate return to the process of registering one’s details to post messages is needed.
There may be concerns of security on the part of some users, who may feel they may be subjected to covert surveillance as a result of identifying themselves. The considered view of most IUG members is that anyone who has a legitimate point to raise should not be afraid to speak out. There could be safeguards provided by the site to address these concerns.
Number 10: A registration system is being introduced very shortly. Details are being worked out with the software developers, but they want it to have a simple interface.
Standards of courtesy and the use of offensive language
It is expected that correspondents should obey all the rules of "netiquette" and not use obscene language. We feel strongly that personal attacks on individuals that infringe the existing laws of libel must be resisted. Whilst we accept that politicians normally expect people to write unflattering things about them from time to time, we feel that many of the comments on the site are not worthy of publication.
We are concerned that the "language filter" that is designed to automatically exclude messages containing offensive language is defective. It excludes words that are in common, polite usage. We wish to see it discontinued. If it is not possible to provide constant monitoring of messages by Number 10 staff, then we suggest that the Editor stress in forum introductions that (upon the restoration of registration) offenders will either be given a warning or barred from the site.
Number 10: We had extensive discussions on this one. The Editor asked me if I thought that the filter should be removed or more extensively edited to permit words such as "bomb" and "anarchy" to be used freely. I told him that my personal view was that it was best removed, since most users are adult enough to read swear words and that children using the site would see little (if anything) they couldn’t read on their school wall. I added that after registration for site users, it would be easier to remove offenders’ messages and stop them using the site. The Editor feels that he would like to use some kind of "yellow card, red card" system, as used in soccer and be able to "suspend" users for a period of time. Since the meeting, Russell Oppenheim has emailed me, saying that he has edited the filter to remove all but the very worst obscenities.
Accusations of political censorship
By far the majority of critical postings on the site relate to accusations of political censorship by Number 10. The Users’ Group accepts that messages are not deleted solely on account of their political content, yet we also understand why some correspondents might feel this has been the case.
In supporting the Independent Users’ Group, Number 10 has an avenue to which it can refer such matters. We would expect that the site’s Editor would agree to any complaint referred to him by the Users’ Group being fully investigated. For our part, the Users’ Group would seek to assure the Editor that we would only take such action if we could not resolve the problem on the basis of the evidence presented to us.
Number 10: The Editor said that he was inclined to delete any postings that were blatant electioneering, regardless of which party or candidate was being supported. It was his view that this would reassure users that the site was not being used for Labour Party propaganda. I said I thought he should think again about this one, because such a policy would severely restrict debate. I said that it was usually obvious when someone was electioneering, and that, often as not they "shot themselves in the foot" with their comments. I further remarked that deleting this kind of posting really would be political censorship, even if it was applied even-handedly. He would give this some further thought.
Site administration in general
With the very large number of people now using the site, we have seen the initial improvements in access times, as compared to the "old" site now overtaken by events, with the result that it now takes just as long to view pages as it did before. We believe that the re-introduction of a registration procedure will cut down the number of users and improve access times. Nevertheless, we would like to see further measures introduced or brought back:
Number 10: I was informed that they had just done a "clearout" that would improve the access times and that they were working with the software developers to further improve response times. Once again, it was all a matter of resources and funding.
Editing and Self-Removal of Messages:
We would like to see a facility to view a posting before it is finally submitted. For example, using Netscape Communicator, editing your posting can be very difficult. Internet Explorer is easier to use in this respect. One of our members suggested there be a facility for any correspondent to be able to personally remove any of his/her own postings after they are published. Several members say that when replying to a post, they should be able to read the message to which they are replying as they write. This was possible with the "old" site.
Identification of Editorial Staff:
I made one post in the Policy Forum on the web site that discusses suggestions for the site in which I said that I felt the Editor should identify himself by name and provide an email address where he can be contacted. I drew the analogy to the Press, where newspaper editors are known. I realise that this may well result in much flak being directed to the Editor and yet I think that it would go a long way towards providing a little more confidence for users.
Number 10: The Editor had given this some weighty consideration. He told me that he wasn’t personally afraid of "going public" but that after the exposure of his boss, Alistair Campbell, there had been many accusations of "spin doctoring". He did say that he had authored one Cabinet report where he had suggested that he should identify himself as the person who had written the report. I told him that this really was a matter for him to decide. He says that he is going to publish an email address on the discussion pages where correspondents can write to him directly.
Quotes taken from messages emailed to me from some of our User Group members:
"The political debate is stimulating and informative. I think that it has value in the UK and could be an excellent forum for citizen participation and interaction with government. I wish you good luck in developing the User Group and with the site development."
"1) When you press the reply button the original posting or response disappears and it is not always easy to recall all the points made.
2) Possibly with a view to discouraging posters to talk to each other, I find it difficult to open the e-mail addresses and the "outlook express" system is not installed on some public computers."
"My bottom line is things need to be made clearer. There may be no need for substantive changes. I can't comment on much of the site's procedures because I simply do not know what they are. This is the problem. A quick suggestion- you know those icons in the forums? (message, Official reply etc) It might be nice if the User Group could have one. That'd raise the profile a bit."
"I think the No. 10 Downing Street Web Site is an outstanding opportunity to have a really sensible and serious Board without all the usual dysfunctional nonsense!"
"I don't mind the idea of a few CLEAR ground rules if there's to be active debate. Swearing, libellous, that kind of thing. I can see no reason whatsoever for restricting legitimate and inoffensive vocabulary. It's inexcusable. Another thing.... a posting can be extremely offensive without using bad words. I'm sure that you will have seen examples, just as I have. Are they to be censored too....? Where does the line get drawn? Just because a person is an unenlightened bigot doesn't mean they don't have the right to be heard. And a site like No10 attracts minority opinion like moths to a candle. (and even majority opinion can be bigoted, more's the pity)"
"I must say that the attitude of the web-master seems to be much more positive and responsive. They seem to acknowledge people's desire to see official participation in discussions and I believe them when they say that at present they are over-burdened with work. I am sure that they are also worried that ill-considered statements by officials or ministers might leak out via discussion on the web-site and get into the press.
I see the policy forum as a mechanism to encourage discussion with some official participation, but with minimum risk to the government. But I do not think that so far they have been a terrific success. They are on moderately non-controversial subjects, with no official participation during the discussion. I find the questions also restricting and do not allow anyone to question the basic assumptions behind the proposal"
"Regarding a facility where one had the option of giving an email contact address, my feeling is that one should be prepared to stand by one's words and in any case, aliases are frequently used or second e-mail addresses given - probably advisable as I recall someone receiving direct and graphic propaganda from Timor.
Where an e-mail address is displayed, it does add credibility to what is written but on the other hand it also soon becomes apparent as to where the nutters are coming from. (I even miss some of them!)
The fact that the Government has decided to consult with you and to see how it can improve the service is a good sign as it means that they are concerned about their lack of credibility and that many people are now sick of spin doctoring."
"If I have any point to add to your discussion it is just maybe two: #1 That people realize the potential audience that views or reads these messages when posted, and # 2 The importance and the freedoms granted by the use of this site or known this is a open forum for all it’s really a privilege. 20 years ago just think could we have imagined such a site?"
26th March, 2000
Conclusions:
Thanks again for all your input and for trawling through this lengthy tome!
Kevin
March 31st 2000
POST SCRIPT - JUNE 2004
The Number 10 web site took an entirely different direction just a few months after that meeting. The discussion forum disappeared entirely. I find that regrettable, but it had become practically impossible to control.