Taking a Closer Look: The Government & Social Media in Action

Here I would like to look at effective ways the federal government of Canada, as well as the provincial government of Ontario, have used forms of social media to connect with their publics.

The federal government has its own internal wiki, called GCpedia. This past fall the Chief Information Officer of Canada announced that it had been working successfully. The site, a “collaborative text editing environment for federal government employees”, grew to over 8, 600 members and across 95 federal government departments. It began as “a repository for government information", but grew in its uses by the collaborators on the site. Users began to place documents on the site to be shared instead of being stored in their email accounts and being sent around when needed, which would take up bandwidth.

Government agencies have made themselves accessible on all platforms of social media, as well on mobile applications. The Public Health Agency of Canada have a page on their web site encouraging users to “stay informed and stay connected”. The agency is on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, with widgets for users to add to their own blogs and social media sites, and mobile applications available.

The provincial government in Ontario is also present in social media. “The province is employing a variety of Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, RSS and blogs to enable government employees to share information and collaborate on various projects.” The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Affordable Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources and Foodland Ontario all have Twitter accounts, which provide informational updates to their followers. While Foodland Ontario has over 3,000 followers and MNR has over 1,000, MAAH only has over 200. How effective are these initiatives if they are not getting attention? Does this show that the public is only interesting in engaging certain agencies in certain forums?

The Ontario Public Service also has its own version of a social networking site, in lieu being able to access Facebook, called OPSedia. It allows users to create profiles for themselves, write blogs and connect with other members of the OPS. However it is a strictly internal entity. This means is it is not a true form of social media, with access to the public and ease of information sharing. This attempt to control access to information on the government’s part shows there are still many hesitations on their side to embrace fully what social media is, as well as a fully open discourse with the public.

The Development of Government in Social Media

The possibilities of social media have been strong, not only on our personal lives, but on the government and its policies. While this may seem like a technological determinist point of view, there are changes in how people are searching for and receiving information. It is not so much that the forms of social media immediately changed society, but rather enough people chose to use and engage in these forms of media that the government had to not only take notice, but develop policies for their employers, and for how they would incorporate it into their strategies.

In Ontario, the government’s first response to social media sites such as Facebook and Youtube were to not allow them, as they were seen as being used by employees for personal use and therefore deemed inappropriate. “Personal use” is an interesting term. While most companies have a policy regarding emails, email is integral to how organizations function and communicate, and it would be preposterous to consider a company not allowing email. If employees are allowed access (with certain restrictions) to email and phone, should a site like Facebook be completely banned? Are employees not allowed breaks and lunch hours? At government offices, the Facebook site has been blocked from being accessible.

As forms of social media evolved sites with different purposes emerged, providing useful platforms for the government to use to their benefit, and allowing for a more democratic space for citizens to connect back. There are limits to how connected people want to be to the government via forms of social media. According to Ken Cochrane, former Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada,

“[Canadians] see Web 2.0 as interesting, but there was also cautionary feedback. They don’t want the government to use the technology just because it’s cool – they want such decisions to be based on solid business requirements,” he says. “Canadians expect the government to be serious.”

There are many forms of social media that provide great resources for professional use. LinkedIn for example, allow users to put up their work and educational information, like an online resume. Users can connect to former employers, provide information on what industry they are working in and display what experience they have. Twitter is another prominent social media site that can be utilized for professional uses. While often in the news because of celebrity use, Twitter can be used as an information sharing site, allowing for easy connecting of citizens to each other and prominent figures in different industries. Organizations and individuals on Twitter share information, reply to each other, and “retweet” what others have said to create a greater sense of interaction and interconnectivity. This has advantages for both citizens and the government. People can openly express their opinions, and when a large number of people are talking about something on Twitter, it gets attention. If used how it is intended, it can truly be a democratic form of participatory media, which any citizen able to send a message to a governmental figure or agency.




This is great in theory, but these sites can be criticised about how democratic and useful they really are. Are changes being made because of what citizens are writing about on Twitter or blogs? Who is managing the social media account? A lot of official accounts are run by others, and when it comes to a government agency on Twitter like the MNR, it is not revealed who is running the account. It cannot be known if what people are responding with is being read and considered. There is the chance that there is just an appearance of democratization and rather very little leverage actually given to others.

However, as social media has developed and more and more people are own sites like Twitter and Youtube, it is necessary for the government to be on these sites and find out which methods work for their purpose. While it is not a perfect system,increased forms of access and connectivity are an impovement.

Introduction : Defining Social Media & Government

Welcome to Government 2.0: Social Media and Government. This blog is my final project for CS400H. As we have learned about forms of participatory democracy online this semester, I have chosen to examine the ways in which citizens can engage with government via social media, the ways in which the government participates in, as well as limits forms of social media and Web 2.0.

First, I need to define what I am referring to when I talk about social media on this blog. According to Wikipedia, social media is "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.” Social media is used by individuals, as well as business, for personal and professional uses. Social media can take the form of citizen participation/journalism, or be used for more social and personal reasons in the form of social networking. Social media ranges from blogs, microblogs, wikis, to the uploading of video and pictures such as Youtube and Flickr. The ease of access to publishing and the encouragement for anyone to create and upload content has created a citizen filled media sphere, online at least.

Throughout this blog I will be examining social media in regards to its involvement with the government. This blog will mainly focus on Canada’s government usage, with comparisons to the US government spotlighted as well, to compare how two democratic governments have embraced social media.

The government cannot ignore social media, as it has become so ubiquitous. If the citizens are engaging in it, and government wants to engage with their citizens, then the government should be using it as well. However, the way in which this is done needs to be utilized properly, as not all forms will actually be beneficial. Also, when the government is in social media, it is important to critically examine how much citizen participation and interaction can actually occur without the government trying to control every output.