Manual WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency Report for 2022

[RichardTaylor]

A WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency Report was produced in 2021. This ticket is for a 2022 version.

[garethrees]

Linking back to #910, which links out to all the issues from last year that we'll need for putting it together.

[garethrees]

Would be good to include some sort of section on #1128 to demonstrate difficulties in reporting data breaches by public bodies.

[garethrees]

Need to implement #975 after this as we didn't manage to after the 2021 report.

[RichardTaylor]

We've received an email stating:

the report will be published alongside the annual report

Last year the original aim was to make the report a page or two within the annual report, though it eventually became a blog post.

Should the aim be for a page or two in the annual report or another blog post, or indeed some other presentation eg. a page on the site as part of the help page system - the later might help bring in some dynamic elements and help with the transition to a future [more] automated report.

[garethrees]

It'll be a blog post again. The mySociety annual report will be slimmer than last year's. It's not something we can spend a load of time on.

[sallytay]

Work will be taking place to compile this year's report over the next 6 weeks.

The timeline for this can be found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S9hmm5eh9WYyGaP7evQsDEDTBCD6WUbi7YZ64N8wOVA/edit#gid=419463079

As Gareth mentioned this will take the same format as last year, using the same figures as last year. With one potential addition to add the number of referrals that we have made to the ICO and the number of user data requests as we now have this data available. No other changes will be made this year.

The title of the report will be the WhatDoTheyKnow moderation report. This is how it was referred to last year within the annual report https://2021.mysociety.org/#transparency. In addition the report content is largely being about our moderation of the site

The reason for this was to make sure that readers of the report were able to see more clearer that it was related specifically to WhatDoTheyKnow, rather than being related to the whole transparency programme.

Gareth and I will collect the data between us and I will compile and draft the report. which will be shared with everyone before a final draft is agreed.

I've set up a milestone https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/milestone/6 for the data collection and I will be creating the tickets to add to this, based on last year's

[RichardTaylor]

The title of the report will be the WhatDoTheyKnow moderation report. This is how it was referred to last year within the annual report https://2021.mysociety.org/#transparency.

The title of the blog post last year was: "WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency report".

"Transparency report" would be in-line with Facebook, Twitter and Google.

All the top Google hits for "moderation report" relate to exam score moderation.

I'd go with "Transparency Report".

Given the presence of the word "WhatDoTheyKnow" in the title I don't see there's much opportunity for confusion about the scope of the report.

I wouldn't refer to "moderation report" in wider mySociety document either.

our moderation of the site

I read moderation as being about things like breaching our house rules, use of the service for non-FOI correspondence.

In terms of transparency the key information I want to see is about the takedown of substantive FOI requests and responses, the frequency of that, and the reasons for it.

Producing a moderation report suggests we're interested in moderation. What I think we're interested in is keeping substantive FOI requests and responses published in the face of challenges.

[garethrees]

The title of the blog post last year was: "WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency report".

Yeah; not ideal that they were different (though definitely on the molehill scale of problem)

"Transparency report" would be in-line with Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Didn't realise this was a winder convention.

Given the presence of the word "WhatDoTheyKnow" in the title I don't see there's much opportunity for confusion about the scope of the report.

Here's what last years would have looked like if we'd have used transparency report

oops "teport" – you get the gist though 🤦

I do think having "transparency" in multiple contexts does make it slightly more difficult for an external reader to parse, though not to the point of objecting to using it. I'm 50:50.

Producing a moderation report suggests we're interested in moderation

It's both – both about how we've had to moderate, and how we've only taken minimal action on requests in the face of lots of threads around prominence reduction.

[FOIMonkey]

To me, the bulk of the thing seems to be about moderation decisions, so moderation fits best.

I have no strong opinion either way though 😐

[mdeuk]

To me, the bulk of the thing seems to be about moderation decisions, so moderation fits best.

+1. Although we have referred to such data internally as "transparency report", I don't think this name necessarily makes much sense based on the context we're using to present the data in the annual report.

The only point of contention is how we present the handling of cases from the Tracker (#1496), but I think, at the moment, we can probably keep it simple just by including it as a discrete heading within the overall report.

[RichardTaylor]

To me, the bulk of the thing seems to be about moderation decisions, so moderation fits best.

The bulk of takedowns are "moderation", because we're removing material which is not a request for information, or response, or related correspondence.

The important cases we care about though relate to substantive FOI requests and responses.

Last year's report stated:

822 requests hidden from WhatDoTheyKnow in 2021

and

Reason for removing from public view	Total number
Not a valid FOI request	701

We used "request" two have two different meanings: both a correspondence thread on the site, and also a request for information.

This year we could disambiguate the two .

[RichardTaylor]

Reason for removing from public view	Total number
Not a valid FOI request	701
Vexatious use of FOI	29
Other (reason not programmatically recorded*)	124

Last year's report stated:

*Current processes do not create an easily retrievable list of reasons beyond the two above, but we are hoping to improve our systems so future transparency reports can include a more detailed breakdown.

What features/tickets will help reduce, or breakdown, the "other" category in the future?

I suspect many in the "other" category will in-fact be vexatious or not-FOI just not recorded as such. How can we deal with that?

We now have the request wide prominence reason, which might enable review and categorisation.

We're also aware that our records don't include deleted threads, which are rare.

[RichardTaylor]

This matters because we do huge amounts of work to keep FOI requests and responses published. We're overwhelmingly successful, we only fail in a tiny handful of cases, and where we do, [almost?] always we openly explain what we've done and why - albeit not always drawing attention to it.

Concerns:

• We give the impression that we take down more substantive FOI request/response content than we do, damaging our reputation, and deterring impactful use of the service.
• By focusing on take-downs of whole correspondence threads we minimise the importance of redactions made within correspondence threads.
• That we give the impression we moderate FOI requests, when in-fact we rarely do. One area we do, on occasion, is in determining if a request for others' personal information is fair - typically such cases are not purely moderation decisions, they're linked to legal (GDPR/defamation concerns too).
• That the WDTK admin team are seen as a user-generated content moderation team, when our concerns are mostly about maintain the archive in the face of challenge, reducing legal risk arising from running the archive, and dealing fairly and transparently with takedown requests.

Hopefully we can address some of these issues in the text of the report, and again make public commitments about how we hope to better in the future.

[sallytay]

Thank you for all the comments on this.

For the name of the report, I had considered some of the implications of calling it a Moderation Report over a Transparency Report.

Having just spoken to @crowbot on reflection, we don't want people to view this in a way that suggests we're interested in moderation. A lot of the report is about moderation, but it also covers other areas and the key message is that we are being transparent about what we do in running the site, which may get lost.

As a result of this, the way forward seems to be to call the WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency Report - making it clear in the mySociety wide annual report that this is for WhatDoTheyKnow, rather than the whole Transparency programme. Which I don't think would be too difficult.

To address some of the other comments:

We used "request" two have two different meanings: both a correspondence thread on the site, and also a request for information. This year we could disambiguate the two .

I agree we could do this better this year, and I will try to make sure the text reflects this

Last year's report stated:
"Current processes do not create an easily retrievable list of reasons beyond the two above, but we are hoping to improve our systems so future transparency reports can include a more detailed breakdown" We now have the request wide prominence reason, which might enable review and categorisation.

Unfortunately the request wide prominence reason feature wasn't introduced until very late in the year, meaning that it will have had some impact but not as much as we would have liked. This means that we can say have improved our systems, rather than we hope to - so still a step forward.

Ref comment: #1170 (comment)

I'll have a think when drafting the report, how we can reflect this better in this years report.

To note that we don't have much time/resource to change it hugely from last year, but we can definitely make some improvements to the text.

[sallytay]

I've completed the first draft of this year's report. Using the data collected, as detailed in https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/milestone/6

As previously note this will again be a blog post and is based on last years report.

I've tried to address the comments and suggestions made on this ticket, where possible.

To note there is no scope to add any further data to this year's report.

The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zyx199QXztShKwvo1cACsp2eQ29CdZ4ski0RDgtnW5E/edit#heading=h.539xhettfq97

Could you add any comments, suggestion etc by Friday 2nd December.

@garethrees will also need to review when he is back from leave, before the final draft is approved.

@MyfanwyNixon and @crowbot any comments or suggestions would be appreciated always

If you think of something that could be improved/added to next years' report, please create a ticket for this

[crowbot]

Thanks @sallytay, I've had a look through and made some suggestions.

[MyfanwyNixon]

Same - apologies for what looks like a lot of changes, but are really only minor wording suggestions etc.

[sallytay]

Thank you for all the comments and input on the draft Transparency report.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zyx199QXztShKwvo1cACsp2eQ29CdZ4ski0RDgtnW5E/edit#heading=h.539xhettfq97

There are a few comments left unresolved that I'll go through with Gareth next week

[sallytay]

The final draft of the WhatDoTheyKnow Transparency report 2022 has been completed and reviewed by @garethrees
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zyx199QXztShKwvo1cACsp2eQ29CdZ4ski0RDgtnW5E/edit#heading=h.539xhettfq97

This will be published as a blog post on the same day as the annual review in published, which is scheduled as Thursday 15th December.

To make sure that this is in Wordpress on time for the link to be added into the main review document, if you have any further comments please can you let me know by 10am Monday 12th December

@MyfanwyNixon and @crowbot could you also take a look at this before I add it into Wordpress on Monday morning

Thank you!

[MyfanwyNixon]

Thanks! I've checked and made a couple of tiny tweaks (eg removing a spare full stop and making style consistent). Great job shoehorning a load of disparate numbers into an orderly state.

Once the post is in Wordpress we can give the URL to Lucas so he can link to it in the main review.

[crowbot]

Looks good to me, thanks Sally - I've made one suggested tweak to the wording to make it clearer that the escalation path for review is with me, not directly to the chair or trustees. I'm keen that people don't just blitz the trustees when they're annoyed. L

…

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 16:13, Myfanwy Nixon ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks! I've checked and made a couple of tiny tweaks (eg removing a spare full stop and making style consistent). Great job shoehorning a load of disparate numbers into an orderly state. Once the post is in Wordpress we can give the URL to Lucas so he can link to it in the main review. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1170 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAAWYBR37PGWPUHMTX3H5TWMICLPANCNFSM5UYM3CIA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sallytay]

Published on 15 December 2022 at https://www.mysociety.org/2022/12/15/whatdotheyknow-transparency-report-2022/