Police wiki

First, as part of the review of the 1958 Police Act (and in what can only be described as an audacious communciations strategy), New Zealand Police have launched the Police Act Review Wiki to allow New Zealanders to suggest wording for the new Act.

Superintendent Hamish Mccardle, who is heading up the review, said of the foray into social media:

Launching a wiki version of a statute is a novel move, but one we hope will yield a range of views from people interested in having a direct say on the shape of a new Policing Act.

The wiki is open to anyone – no registration required, and has already had a couple of edits. Like Wikipedia, however, if you are not registered your IP address is attached to every edit.

I think that this is a terrific initiative and hope that it does provide a viable channel for Kiwis to get involved in the process of reviewing the Act. I would, however, have expected to see some very clear guidelines for potential contributors. This is something that the Canadian’s got right and we could follow their lead on this.

Otherwise, in terms of the principles of public sector social media, it is a very impressive implementation.

Update 27/9/07

There are now clear behaviour guidelines posted on the About page.

Consultation blog

The other example of social media being used by a public sector agency for consultation in the headlines this week is the report of a discussion document issued by AGIMO, the Australian Government Consultation Blog [PDF 600KB].

As (rather unfairly) reported on TechCrunch, this document seeks feedback as to the Australian public’s appetite for a Consultation Blog.

Interestingly, the paper specifies moderation as an issue for discussion:

Moderation in some form is likely to be necessary as some people may choose to post inappropriate content to the discussion forum. This can have the effect of discouraging others from participating in the forum and also expose the operators of the forum to legal liability.

Two options for moderation are presented (before and after publication) and people are invited to voice their preference. This approach seems reasonable enough to me – down to the draft moderation policy attached as an appendix.

Reading the paper, what seems to have invited criticism is the fact that they are not really talking about a blog per se. This reinforces the rather clunky feel of this process and, incidentally, undermines the purported irony of a consultation process for a blog about consultations. They seem to be talking about something more akin to the (shortlived) UK Cabinet Office’s Have Your Say site.

In any event, as public sector organizations begin to deploy social media to better engage with their publics it is inevitable that there will be the occasional oversight or miscued execution. What is obvious, though, is the sense of building momentum around public sector acceptance of social media.