Did Vice President Joe Biden -- or his staff -- botch a statement regarding a new effort to eliminate unneeded federal government websites?
It appears that might be the case. A statement from Biden's office reads: "There are almost 2,000 separate websites across the federal government." It goes on to say that the administration will shut down or consolidate 25 percent "of the 2,000 sites over the next few months and set a goal of cutting the number of separate, stand alone sites in half over the next year."
That figure, 2,000 websites, was the number Biden and other officials involved in the campaign used at the announcement, and it was reported by many of the media outlets that covered the story. Unfortunately, the number may be misleading.
The confusion arises from the difference between top-level domains and actual websites. Macon Phillips, the White House's director of new media, explains that there are almost 2,000 top-level domains in the government, but 24,000 websites.
There are top-level sites, such as www.whitehouse.gov, where a website is attached directly to the domain. But then there are secondary sites, such as the Office of Management and Budget, which is at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
"Under many of these [top-level] domains are smaller sub-sites and microsites resulting in an estimated 24,000 websites of varying purpose, design, navigation, usability and accessibility," Phillips writes.
We suspect the officials wanted to keep the presentation simple and understandable to a group of reporters with varying degrees of technological sophistication. Talking about the nuances of Internet technology might have been an unnecessary complication. Unfortunately, the simplification may have gone a bit too far, erring on the side of imprecision.
So while the campaign has an ambitious goal of cutting out unneeded websites, the actual reduction in sites might not be as dramatic as the reduction in domains.
If the administration eliminates half of the stand-alone top-level sites, but leaves many of the secondary sites intact (moved to other top-level domains when needed), the overall change will be minimal, at least from the perspective of the users of the sites.
On the other hand, if the plan is to cut the top-level sites and take all the secondary sites under the top level at the same time, that could be huge.
Some clarity at the announcement June 13 would have been nice.
Posted on Jun 14, 2011 at 7:26 PM3 comments
FCW blogger Steve Kelman is big on the government's using contests
, so we're pretty sure he'll like what the Interior Department is doing: Inviting members of the public to design a logo the department can use on its swag -- t-shirts, hats, water bottles, etc. -- with a $1,000 prize up for grabs.
Interior is running the contest using crowdspring.com, a website set up just for such projects. Department employees not eligible.
The department wants a logo because its official seal, with 10 colors, is a little too complex for use on shirts and hats, according to the description posted at crowdspring.
"The logo must appeal to the 70,000 employees of Interior, as well as (in alphabetical order) cattlemen/ranchers, coal miners, conservationists, farmers, fishermen, historians, hunters, Native Americans and tribal entities, offshore oil and gas producers, recreation enthusiasts (boaters, hikers, campers) and others," reads the contest instructions. "We recognize that this is a lengthy list and include it for a sense of the breadth and scale of our missions."
Whether the effort nets a useable logo for the agency, it's another encouraging sign of the government's growing embrace of social networking, crowdsourcing and other such tools.
Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 7:26 PM1 comments
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has become the latest government official to learn about the double-edged sword social media provides.
McHenry held a contentious hearing May 25 with Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, and who may be nominated to head it. McHenry accused Warren of lying about past testimony and then, when Warren had to leave to meet other commitments, of lying about an agreement between McHenry's staff and her about the scheduled time for her testimony.
Almost immediately, McHenry's Facebook page began to fill up with posts denouncing his demeanor and conduct.
A sampling of the comments:
"Your disgraceful treatment of Ms. Warren is yet further validation of my decision to move away from North Carolina. You are a bully, sir, and politically so regressive as to be a fossil. I hope your mother is disappointed in you. You ought to know better."
"Just checking to see if you have apologized yet. We will stick around. As long as Ms. Warren sticking up for us we will continue to stick up for her. Kind of like as long as the big banks continue to give you money, you will continue to make sure they screw the rest of us. Well not quite the same, but you get the idea."
"I heard the conversation: You were rude, arrogant and peevishly childish. Our country needs people to work together to get us out of this rut. Your behavior shows you are not interested in that."
A few supportive comments were mixed in, but the critics dominated the page.
The Food and Drug Administration had a similar experience recently when it announced it was seeking an injunction against an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania for selling unpasteurized milk to a buyer's club in Maryland.
Such "raw milk" is legal in many states, but not in Maryland. Advocates argue that pasteurization destroys beneficial properties as well as pathogens, and that proper production techniques can keep it safe to drink. The FDA disagrees, but what really angered the agency's critics was the revelation that it had been targeting the farmer for more than a year, including infiltrating the buyer's club with undercover agents.
"Raw Milk has sustained our civilization for centuries. Pasteurized milk has poisoned us for 50 years. GET OUT OF MY FOOD SUPPLY."
"Could you post where we CAN buy raw milk? Let me get this straight. Raw milk is bad and [genetically-modified foods] are good?"
"I find it funny how the FDA has determined that all the foods that the human race has been consuming since the dawn of history are now suddenly unhealthy for us. Really, it's a crime to sell or consume raw milk, the ONLY kind of milk people drank until about a century ago? Yet it's ok to eat chemically enhanced, processed, unnatural foods that are proven to make us sick. FDA=Hypocrisy."
After the flood of comments began, in early May, the FDA reset its page so that only FDA's own official posts would show by default. Visitors have to click a link labeled "most recent" to see the posts from others. In announcing the change on its page, FDA wrote: "We have changed the default view of our fan page to make it easier for people to find FDA information. Thanks for all your feedback!"
We'd like to hope that McHenry, FDA's leaders and other government officials who may be besieged by such Facebook feedback in the future take it to heart. The social network and government's use of it is giving the public an unprecedented opportunity to communicate directly to government officials. A government truly interested in listening to its constituents now has a direct way to do that.
Posted on May 26, 2011 at 7:26 PM2 comments