It's Time for a Wiki White House

Barack Obama's campaign promise to use the Internet to "create a transparent and connected democracy" will be put to the test when he launches a new White House Web site on January 20.

On that day, the Bush administration's stodgy, wheezing version of whitehouse.gov will be carted off to the National Archives in its entirety, leaving precisely no legacy - and no limits.

Obama is already being touted as the first Internet president, but the Internet is about more than e-mail blasts and rallying the likeminded. If he and his team truly embrace the paradigms of the modern Internet -- as defined by blogs and YouTube, Facebook and Google, instant messaging and crowdsourcing, wikis and reader comments -- Obama's whitehouse.gov will bring unprecedented accountability to the White House. It will offer a vastly better way for the American people to relate to their government -- and maybe even learn to trust it again.

Imagine a White House Web site where the home page isn't just a static collection of transcripts and press releases, but a window into the roiling intellectual foment of the West Wing. Imagine a White House Web site where staffers maintain blogs in which they write about who they are and what they are working on; where some meetings are streamed in live video; where the president's daily calendar is posted online; where major policy proposals have public collaborative workspaces, or wikis; where progress towards campaign promises is tracked on a daily basis; and where anyone can sign up for customized updates by e-mail, text message, RSS feed, Twitter, or the social network of their choice.

And that's just for starters. Because the Internet doesn't look kindly on information that just flows one way. To live up to their promises, the president and his staff are going to have to do more than just talk -- they're going to have to listen, and respond. So imagine a Web site where the president regularly answers questions sent in by citizens; where ordinary people can vote up or down items they want brought to the president's attention; and where Americans from across the political spectrum engage in honest debate.

That last part, of course, is the most problematic. The virulence and low signal-to-noise ratio of unrestricted commenting on the Internet has been a source of despair to people who run far less prominent Web sites. One can only imagine the kind of hostility and nuttery the White House site would evoke. But another way to look at it is that the imperative of user participation, along with the inevitably huge demand, provides an opportunity to develop best practices in harnessing mass Internet participation.

The goal should be to create a process whereby good ideas, relevant personal stories, informed opinions and perhaps even consensus on some issues can bubble up from the public. And while that may sound impossible, organizations like Wikipedia provide one model for handling vast quantities of user-submitted content with great if not perfect success. That model calls for a huge number of community volunteers working under the guidance of a small number of staffers. The White House is uniquely positioned to mobilize a small army of volunteers to monitor public comments should it choose that route.

I spoke to several experts who occupy the intersection of technology and politics, and they strongly believe it's time for a cutting-edge White House Web site. New York Law School professor and technology expert Beth Noveck dismisses the current whitehouse.gov as "brochure-ware," and stresses that a key function of the next White House Web site should be to solicit public input. "It's not only about channeling information to the president, it's about creating a national conversation around issues of public importance," she said.

Andrew Rasiej, a Democratic Internet strategist and co-founder of techpresident.com, envisions a whitehouse.gov "where citizens might feel like they are invited to participate in the actual process of governing through the incorporation of their ideas, their energy, and their willingness to hold members of Congress accountable."

"I'm not saying that every single moment inside the White House needs to be a reality show," Rasiej said. "but I do believe that an open and transparent White House will capture the imagination of the American public to be engaged in their civic lives in a way that will transform the country."

And to make sure the site doesn't simply turn into a propaganda vehicle, Steven Aftergood, the head of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, wonders: "Maybe there's a way to institutionalize a dissenting view, so you really have not the pretense of debate, but actual debate, that is accessible to the public... Maybe there's something like the equivalent of a devil's advocate on the White House Web site, who criticizes administration policy." At the very least, it seems to me, some of the site's staffers should have journalistic rather than PR backgrounds.

A 21st-century Web site could even address one of the most serious problems afflicting American public discourse: The inability to agree even on basic facts. Embracing "wiki culture" -- by having members of the public contribute to an evolving body of information and ideas -- could help develop a shared set of facts and assumptions. That could go a long way toward repairing the deep political fissures caused by our increasingly fractured media. It might even help build an American political common ground.

All this may sound like a lot to hope for, but Obama has already shown that he recognizes the transformative power of the Internet. A key part of his Internet-heavy campaign was the my.barackobama.com site, where top staffers and supporters alike wrote blogs, created and joined groups, organized events, raised money and mobilized volunteers. The campaign's tolerance for dissent was tested early in the summer after thousands of Obama's more liberal supporters formed a group opposing his stand on warrantless wiretapping laws. The group was not squelched. To the contrary, Obama posted a response.

And there are already auspicious signs that Obama intends to continue using the Internet in compelling new ways. His transition Web site, change.gov, launched with not only press releases and position papers, but a blog -- and several nascent opportunities for public participation. "The story of bringing this country together as a healed and united nation will be led by President-Elect Obama," the Web site states, "but written by you."

Perhaps the single most striking aspect of the Bush White House has been how opaque it is. More than with any other White House in history, the public has been unable to see in -- and the president and his top aides have been disinclined to look out. This may well have been entirely by design, but the results were disastrous. Inside the bubble, the absence of dissent and lack of accountability were contributing factors to Bush's legacy of poor decision-making, unchecked politicization, unremitting spin and arguably illegal assertions of unfettered power. Outside the bubble, the result has been a deep and abiding mistrust; a loss of faith in the competence of government -- and its good intentions.

The kind of transparency Obama has so far only talked about isn't just a neat campaign promise, it's essential to winning back America's trust and confidence. And after nearly eight years during which the president routinely ignored, mocked or mischaracterized his political opponents, imagine a president and his staff engaging in respectful dialogue with supporters and critics alike. It would be enlivening to our democracy.

The crowning achievement of the Bush-era White House Web site was Barneycam, the online video adventures of the president's Scottish terrier. But the Internet is an enormously powerful social and political force that demands transparency and genuine interactivity -- not pet videos. The public and the press would do well to keep a close eye on the development of the next White House Web site for signs of whether the Obama administration will live up to its potential.

(This post originally appeared on the NiemanWatchdog.org Web site.)

Follow Dan Froomkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/whitehousewatch

Comments

[Blabrmouth]

First of all, great post! BUT, wisdom of the crowds and the long tail don't work in creating policy. If for no other reason than the people engaging in the democratic approach most often times won't have all the details available to give informed decisions.

[shadowgm]

One more thing ...

... if you connect to a government website, especially a 'Wiki White House,' your ISP will be logged, and your posts subject to review. Nothing new there ... except with the USA PATRIOT Act still lurking about, anything you do from that ISP would now be fair game for investigation.

The Bush Administration may be out the door on January 20, 2009, but their legacy remains.

[AnupamSaraph]

Great! Yes we can change the world together on a governance wiki!

For contributing your vision and agenda an to the US pages of the Governance wiki see: United States of America Wiki at the url: http://government.wikia.com/wiki/United_States_of_America.

[shadowgm]

No, we can't.

Let's get serious, people. All the Facebooking and Wiki pages in the world are not suddenly going to replace our system of government.

What the social networking did was connect like-minded groups and energize them. It did not replace the process of voting, and, if you will notice, President Elect Obama is not picking Facebook groups for Cabinet appointments.

It is essential to understand that private opinion - the output of social networking and netroots efforts - informs public opinion, and may ultimately influence policy at some level. But it cannot replace it without becoming that which we despise - power held by a select majority. I doubt you'd all be cheering this hard if it was Karl Rove suggesting Wikis and Facebooks as replacing a tired and stale system of governance.

[rf-hawaii]

Yes we can.

In appropriately smaller ways ...

Good ideas must come from somewhere. Bad ideas sometimes need to be proven so.

[shadowgm]

Private opinion (social networking, netroots) informs public opinion.

Our system of government was designed with checks and balances. The problem was that we were ill equipped to deal with an administration that wantonly ignored those provisions, whether they ignored them outright, wrote signing statements to redefine laws to their liking, or selling us a bill of goods using fear.

I believe those principles still hold. Barack Obama is not so much reinventing government, he is restoring it.

[shadowgm]

Sorry, Dan, I'm not sold on the 'Gosh, wow, Wiki!' phenomena. With all due credit to the folks at mybarackobama.com, my personal experience was that a particular group was less interested in reading about the issues and more interested in Facebook and YouTube.

And, as someone who used to work on an online game, there's an infinite store of problem players as opposed to your long-term, serious customers. Add staff to handle the problem kiddies, and eventually, you've a staff that is busy chasing crocodiles instead of draining the swamp.

It also ignores the underlying questions of trust and accountability. You could have the Wiki House website, and if the administration is packed with the thieves and liars we've had over the past eight years, you'd still get nothing but the official line. I don't think Obama's success is solely because a bunch of people got together on Facebook, or started networking; the Bush line has always been a house of cards, and it was inevitable that it would fall over.

[Mercy8 om]

Why not create a paid staff that oversees thes kind of internet exchanges. We clearly need to create new jobs. That job would be a useful one that everyone in the country would benefit from because it would plug people into the system in a truly dynamic and productive way.

There could be an ongoing poll on things like how many of us want there to be a war crimes tribunal. Maybe having one would help to create trust in government. It's hard to trust governemt when the people in it can get away with murder.

What seems to be missing in this country is genuine accountability for actions by those in authority. Right this very minute Bush is checking off his list of people to pardon. When are people in government going to walk the walk? We seem to live in a Leonore Helmsley world where only the little people pay for their actions...and sometimes unjustly.

[shadowgm]

There certainly was not an absence of people who felt the Bush Administration needed (and needs) to be held accountable for its actions.

And I think, given the nature of the corrupt, Bush, Cheney, et al wouldn't have budged an inch.

[Mercy8 om]

As I get older I see how the past is revised and it is distressing. It's like growing up in a dysfunctional family and having all those wounds to heal on our own while the parents go on to have lovely lives once all the children leave home. When the holidays come and the family reunites all those wounds are forgotten but the scar tissue is thick and tough to move through. Reagan was one of America's greatest presidents is one revision that really knocls the wind of the sails. For one thing, this great man undid so many of the regs that we are now finding caused the economic crisis we are in! Bush 43 will be later be described as a hero for getting rid of Sadam Hussein. We are fighting for our lives economically because of that stupid war not to mention that all the bad guyy that we are supposed to be afraid of are now growing in numbers that likely rival the proliferation of rabbits because he destabilized the mid-east. No matter how the historians distort the truth there are those of who have lived through the messes these wackadoos have created and we are paying attention. They can't fool all of the people all the time.

[AmericCanuck]

It's already started on change.gov
From www.change.gov
"Join the Discussion
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 05:10pm EST
Today we're trying out a new feature on our website that will allow us get instant feedback from you about our top priorities. We also hope it will allow you to form communities around these issues -- with the best ideas and most interesting discussions floating to the top.

Today you can join the discussion with our health care team members Dr. Dora Hughes and Lauren Aronson. They want to hear what worries you most about the health care system as it currently exists.

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in and share your story. We look forward to reading your responses!"

Wooot. The internets are a good thing.

[indraadnan]

This is the bit that I find most compelling: "We also hope it will allow you to form communities around these issues": I know that points to website communities, but isn't there also more to think about?

What I have found so exciting about this campaign is the way it has caused new leaders to emerge in the local communities. With so many millions of people to include at this time, it would be a pity if everyone spent all their time focussed on the White House when they could be becoming strong community activists / organisers themselves.

[bubbuh]

"...wheezing version of whitehouse.gov will be carted off to the National Archives in its entirety....."

Would that be the original version or the heavily revisionist version?

[rpr]

Oops, the blog SW is a bit, umm, limited...
What about the Internet Archive?
http://web.archive.org/web/%2A/http://whitehouse.gov

[rpr]

Getting closer...
http://web.archive.org/web/%2A/http%3A//whitehouse.gov

[rpr]

What about the Internet Archive?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://whitehouse.gov

[raoulhubris]

What we really need is a Wikitution, an open source constitution that does not protect the interests of the privileged. an economy that is not a pyramid scheme.

[bubbuh]

There are already words for that: mob rule.

[shadowgm]

In California, it's called the 'initiative process,' and perhaps the most visible outcome has been the repeated efforts to legislate discrimination against same-sex couples seeking the legal status of marriage.

The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's not something that can be improved by Wikirule.

[zitlight73]

Bush will probably use crayons or and Etch-a-Sketch to write his memiors.

[ShephDJ]

This is the important point: "One can only imagine the kind of hostility and nuttery the White House site would evoke." One basic way to avoid the nuttery is to accept comments but not post them for public visibility (what Change.gov does now). Most of the nuttery are encouraged mainly by seeing their willynilly words on the screen as soon as they hit 'enter.' Instant gratification! (Check out some of the posts below.) Take that away, and things do settle down.

[GuyRC]

Whitehouse.gov is a great example of the alternate reality that Republicans reside in. It should be preserved, like an extinct species in a jar with formaldehyde, for future kids to gawk at.

[LoisLane51]

No Bush legacy!

What about no terror attacks since 2001?

Good grief...wake up!

[MJinCanada]

Umm, let's see -- will you count the assaults on health clinics that provide abortions? The police raids on groups planning peaceful protests against the government and RNC? The gas (fortunately not toxic but severely irritating) thrown into the daycare room at a Dayton mosque?

And how many terror attacks before 2001, that weren't home grown troublemakers?

[preemptivelove]

the biggest terror attack on american soil was on bush's watch. just to refresh your memory. THAT is the bush legacy.

[shadowgm]

The Bush Administration started on January 20, 2001. It's dishonest to say, "Hey, look, there's been no terrorist attacks since 9/11!" when the first and most significant happened on their watch. If you're a football team and you lose 7-0, you don't get credit for holding your opponent to the one touchdown/extra point. There's no trophy for an almost shut-out.

Furthermore, your argument is ad hoc ergo propter hoc - this, therefore because of this - the reversal of cause-and-effect.

[JustMyWords]

Whoop-de-doo. We had hardly been overwhelmed by terror attacks BEFORE Dubya hit the White House, either.