Review and improve the Principles help page

[RichardTaylor]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/principles

This would probably be best done on a Google Doc.

Google Doc open to all for comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g6BYWCbPSaZIUmjxWvPh8qh7JNUOO4l5M-yjrP3m6eg/edit

This local set of principles should reflect the wider strategy

https://www.mysociety.org/2021/11/24/the-need-to-repower-democracy/

We could actively encourage wider public input?

[RichardTaylor]

At https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli/issues/5483 @garethrees has written:

We want to build a culture of fact-based journalism.

Getting things like that added to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/principles is the aim of this ticket

[RichardTaylor]

Perhaps this would be a good place to collect our campaigning aims.

• Link to, and quote relevant sections from mySociety's Reforming FOI paper.

There is further relevant content in WDTK inbox thread with the subject: "What should we try to get on the agenda of the new Information Commissioner?"

[RichardTaylor]

An idea I've had is asking the CEO and trustees to sign up to the principles - actually putting their names and signatures at the bottom.

This might prompt updates as we get new CEOs / trustees.

The advantage for the service would hopefully be more weight being given to the principles and aims of the service when considering takedown requests.

[RichardTaylor]

At https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-private/issues/69#issuecomment-1235276818 we have a statement:

The archive is sacrosanct

I thought that was worth pulling in here for consideration.

We have also had

I put less value on archive integrity

in internal discussion

My view is that running the archive is at the core of what we're doing. We should give significant weight to keeping the substance of FOI requests and responses in the archive, however that doesn't mean that on occasion the balance of interests might fall such that right thing to do is to remove something from public view or even delete it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1do_pLs-x9PLpbHgCS43nQJE90qMZiqiB2DNjyexnc34/edit?disco=AAAAcPOHh8k

[garethrees]

Should cover our position on longevity to some extent https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/934. We can't make guarantees, but we can at least set out what our aims are.

[RichardTaylor]

We have

WhatDoTheyKnow’s guiding principle is that it is a permanent, public archive of Freedom of Information requests and responses, open to all.

already published at

https://www.mysociety.org/2021/12/16/whatdotheyknow-transparency-report/

[RichardTaylor]

I keep thinking about listing the principle of least surprise / least astonishment here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

If we have it as principle we could still, as with other principles, breach it, but consider carefully why breaching it is justified.

Examples:

• Should we buck the trend and call our Transparency Report a Moderation Report? https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/1170#issuecomment-1308753587
• Should we keep the system which hooks users in, letting them write their request before registering? (Which is very clever, but surprising).

Perhaps this is related to accessibility, and using plain English, we could have a set of principles covering those areas.

[garethrees]

I keep thinking about listing the principle of least surprise … If we have it as principle

I think our principles should be largely domain-specific.

In many cases I agree with the principle of least surprise, but equally support being contrarian and building from first principles. I think it's one mental model to keep in mind as we make decisions, but it's not what we exist for.

[RichardTaylor]

The National Union of Journalists code includes: "Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information"  https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html

We could consider something along those lines. It does set a high standard though; in the face of lots of attempts to suppress information - resisting all of them can be draining.

[RichardTaylor]

I propose adding a statement on acting in a timely manner.

We have a policy of minimising redaction, we should say explicitly that it follows from that, that, in cases where we have had to remove eg. a whole attachment from public view due to a small problematic element, we will work to re-publish the remaining material promptly. [Ideally we wouldn't remove unproblematic material at all, but sometimes due to redaction challenges we might].