Here in the Victorian Government in Australia we are starting to use a some of the new social media. We have had a whole of govt continuous improvement blog up for over two years now and currently have a number of groups playing with wikis and sites such as Ning.

These tools have been something of a challenge as we are so used to living our lives inside the “safety” of the firewall where we can control all.

These media are a particular threat to some in the IT and corporate communications areas as they by-pass the usual gatekeeper function and threaten the status quo.

However we are slowly changing direction (despite having the turning circle of a supertanker.)

I know the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, but when you bring in terms like Government 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Office 2.0, Mobile 2.0, PR 2.0, etc., it looks like noise to me.

Why not use the more known Web 2.0 moniker and adapt it to different environments, e.g. government, enterprise, etc?

You’ve really pointed out key points that need to be addressed or at least made aware of. It almost makes me start to think that perhaps the government should just stay away altogether. But how can they? Mr. Drapeau surely has an interesting journey ahead of him since this initiative is completely different from any other undertaking that the government has since gotten involved in.

Maxine, because you posed such key questions, I’m wondering if you yourself started thinking about possible solutions. If so, please DO share them with us. You’ve really got me thinking now. :o)

I wholeheartedly agree that Public Affairs is the home–and needs to be the driver–for much of the social media tools applied to gov’t.
I do work with DoD’s New Media group and we view part of our role as internal consulting function to other areas of DoD re: social media tools and solutions. As the communicators, PA must take the lead. It’s about communications; technologies are just enabling tools.

Regarding putting a face on government agencies in social media, this is a challenging one. It’s tough for agencies to maintain the authenticity and truth that characterizes social media and still maintain the “face” of the agency.

In some agencies–DoD, included–a group other than Press Ops is managing blogger and other social media relationships. It’s difficult to send a consistent message when the messengers come from two separate groups.

It’s, of course, a PR nightmare waiting to happen when legacy media recieves one message and communication and social media receives another.

What further complicates this is that those managing social media relationships and communications on behalf of a given agency are operating by two different sets of rules: old media and new media.

It’s also challenging to balance employees’ ownership with the “official” message from an agency. This leads to a related question: can just anyone represent an agency as the “human face”? Can this be a volunteer position or only an official public affairs role?

He’s quite right about putting faces, personalities and access to the people that make the decisions. Since Mr. Drapeau’s presence in the social media scene, I have started to change my views on the Government. Maybe this IS hope for the future.