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

Background

On July 25 I participated in a meeting with staffers working for various members of the U.S. Congress. I gave a basic demonstration of Wikipedia's rules, including Neutral Point of View, Notability, Verifiability, etc. I also did some practical demonstrations, including an edit to an infobox using VisualEditor, an edit adding a source (not in VisualEditor), a talk page comment, and a spelling correction. It was an informal yet informative session.

Some of those in attendance shared some of their own experiences making edits to Wikipedia. One person (logged in) added information on awards won by a Congressman, which was considered to be biasing the article even though the intent was simply to add factual information (not necessarily to make said Congressman look good). Another person reported that valid, constructive edits were often reverted; this person would often edit war so that an administrator could intervene and make a decision. These are not ideal or acceptable scenarios. During the discussion I emphasized transparency—identifying who you are and who you work for—and I emphasized engagement. As part of this, I encouraged people to follow the Conflict of Interest guidelines and avoid articles where they have a conflict of interest.

Ideas were floated for proper engagement. One person suggested edits from group accounts for the member's office (which I expressed stated is not allowed). I suggested that staffers create individual accounts and then engage strictly through the talk page. This allows transparency with minimal risks. We have not come up with a consensus but we created this RFC to get more input from the Wikipedia community.

These staffers are interested in participating in good faith, and I believe there is a potential for developing best practices. Input from the community is requested and appreciated. Harej (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)