Do we really want representatives of government joining in our discussions on social networking sites?
I came across this story on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7326992.stm and found that Tom Watson, the Cabinet Office Minister for e-government has also blogged on the issue http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/ . The jist of the idea is that government needs to engage with citizens where they are. I guess that means rather than just putting information out there and hoping for the best.

While of course I think it's a good thing for people to access the information they need when they need it, I'm a bit worried about the debate as set out in the BBC article. I probably feel this quite strongly because I'm a good example of the stakeholder they've got in mind... I'm a member of three of the sites namechecked in the article.

They point out that MumsNet has got 100,000 members and that if the members were physically in one place (say Wembley stadium) then there would be midwives, health visitors and other professionals to know something about the issues under discussion on hand to dispense advice. I think this slightly misses the point.
If 100,000 mums were together at Wembley stadium they'd be there because they were looking for something organised, they'd be motivated about something and they'd be in the mood to hear things and gather information. They thing about social networking sites and chatrooms is that often people are there because they want a chat.
I know, it's a shocker isn't it. If I want to chat to women who gave birth around the same time I did, in addition to comparing what we think about the various organic babyfoods on the market, how to get babies to sleep through the night etc. we'll also chat about Cat's wedding dress fittings, Pinkie's mad dog, Rachel's marriage breakdown. We're giving each other support, we're a community, I may never have met them face to face but I know much about their lives and celebrate the good times and send (((hugs))) for the bad times.

So here, interspersed with the message I've just posted on Tom's blog are a few thoughts(.com).

Tom, as a member of NetMums, MumsNet, BabyCentre and more social networking sites/ chat rooms, I'd say one of the joys of the sites is that they are peers interacting rather than sources of official information.
If we are discussing breastfeeding, there are midwives, NCT breastfeeding counsellors and health visitors in the debate but they are there as equals (usually as mums themselves) not dispensing advice from on high. I've used this example for a reason and am currently writing an entry on my own blog that sets out more detail.
As those of you who've read my posts on these issues before will know, my son gave up breastfeeding at 9 weeks. We had real trouble, not (as it is always assumed) with latching on but with him being tiny and me big chested he couldn't get what he needed... The breastfeeding counsellor was good but by the time I saw her my son had zero interest in going back to the struggle of breastfeeding. I mixed fed sitting up late at night to express for as long as I could, I desperately wanted to breastfeed but it just wasn't to be. I couldn't get a professional other than my GP to engage constructively with me on the issue of bottlefeeding because the government advice is to breastfeed exclusively. The best advice I had was from other mums who successfully mixed fed, or who went through the same thing. The last thing I'd need in a chat with them would be a HV butting in to say that government advice is that we shouldn't be discussing bottlefeeding because breast is best - and if you don't think that could happen, then you've never visited a baby clinic in London!
http://www.thoughts.com/rose22/blog/bottlefeeding-with-love- and-other-insults-53538/   Again I'd say I have found a few diamonds in terms of the health visitors and the official advice I've been given - basically the problem was trying to find anyone who would give me the time to listen to my specific situation. That's something that a community member can get and give to others as they have empathy and experience.

I'm all for Whitehall communicating in the fora and language that we use in real life but not a nanny state intrusion into what the BBC correspondent on the article that brought me to your site rightly describes as being more like a gathering of friends in a coffee shop than a Wembley stadium rally.
As noted above a chatroom is more like a conversation in a public place - if we wanted formal advice we'd seek it out. We generally don't want formal advice, we want the (((hug))), the empathy and the I went throught this last week, here's my experience.

I'm very keen to know how the busy stressed out civil and public servants I know are going to find time to interact in a way that's relevant - there are more than 50 active chatrooms on babycentre alone...
Civil and public servants are often horribly overworked.  I know this comes as a shock to those who think their tax money is spent on wastrels, paperclips and free internet access for the lazy gits but the majority of public servants do actually care about what they do, really do want to make the world a better, happier place for all and work jolly hard to achieve it.
If the interaction was taking place in time-limited, themed debates, then there might be some opportunity. But the majority of discussions take place on chatroom boards over several days with participants from around the world logging on when it is appropriate for them. And there are thousands of them, loads of thread per board, loads of boards per chatroom, loads of chatrooms per site, loads of sites...
Monitoring them all, joining in on them all would require so many manhours I wonder whether there would actually be any contributions of value or whether someone would log in and just write "You can get the information you need on breastfeeding from your Health Visitor, breastfeeding counsellor or www.NHSdirect.org.uk" which would be pretty worthless.
I think the point is these communities support each other outside the big tent of government. It's like chatting to the neighbour down the road with a similar aged baby in a society where we no longer know our neighbours. It's not like popping down to the baby clinic where the official advice is also there.

Worth noting too that while politicans have participated in online chats and debates on these sites, the format is crucial - not ways of dispensing a view from them but a conversation that requires listening to the other participants and what's important to them. If this point is not taken onboard I fear this sort of e-government initiative will feel like an intrusion into the private sphere more than the well-intentioned project that it undoubtedly is.
And this for me is the key point. The chats have been chats - both Nick Clegg and David Cameron have been on MumsNet and Nick Clegg actually answered a question I posed about maternity/ paternity leave, comprehensively, taking into account the perspective I was coming from. He didn't just tell me that his policy was X and assume that covered what I wanted to know. I hope that would be the approach that all government or political reps using these fora would take.
With the mums I've met, online and in the real world, from all walks of life, all backgrounds, they know the official information is out there. But sometimes it's not what they want.