So whilst Wikipedia welcomes specialists (there are far too few), in general if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest then the user should restrict themselves to article talk page commentary & suggestions, and let independent editors decide whether & how to update the page. But a concerted effort amongst several civil servants to maintain a specific position (aka “spin”) risks being seen as sockpuppetry/meatpuppet, for which the response risks block to all involved… we need the experts, but they must be open and careful how they interact

Given that large numbers of people are likely to use Wikipedia to glean information on topics such as pandemics, terrorist attacks, etc. I think it ought to be the responsibility of government departments to ensure that the information that Wikipedia (and a small number of other sites) contain is as accurate as possible.

Indeed, in the case of future threats to public health and safety, erroneous information on popular websites might well actually damage or derail departments’ efforts, so there is a clear public interest in engaging in this kind of activity.

Citations from reputable sources, such as government experts add credibility and should be encouraged.

Another advantage of Wikipedia (not shared by any government sites I am aware of), is that article changes are recorded in an auditable trail, which the user can access and view.

If government officials are to engage like this, I would like to see them editing as registered users rather than as anonymous editors, and for their user page to indicate such that they are editing in the capacity of civil servant or other public capacity (there could even be a formalised UK government standard for presenting this ‘government editor’ ID to the public).

Given that large numbers of the UK use Wikipedia are also likely to use the site to glean information on topics such as pandemics, terrorist attacks, etc. I think it ought to be the responsibility of government departments to ensure that the information that Wikipedia (and a small number of other sites) contain is as accurate as possible.

Indeed, in the case of future threats to public health and safety, erroneous information on popular government websites might well actually damage or derail departments’ efforts, so there is a clear public interest in engaging in this kind of activity.

Citations from reputable sources, such as government experts add credibility and should be encouraged.

Another advantage of Wikipedia (not shared by any government sites I am aware of), is that article changes are recorded in an auditable trail, which the user can access and view.

If government officials are to engage like this, I would like to see them editing as registered users rather than as anonymous editors, and for their user page to indicate such that they are editing in the capacity of civil servant or other public capacity (there could even be a formalised UK government standard for presenting this ‘government editor’ ID to the public).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Information

The most “Wikipedian” way of approaching this is to have an article entitled something like “Public health information” containing links to various government’s sites; people from other countries can then fill in the blanks where appropriate.

Then, add a link to that article from the Swine Influenza and 2009 swine flu outbreak pages with the text as something along the lines of “In light of the World Health Organisation’s classification of Swine Influenza as an imminent pandemic, people should seek advice from [public health officials] on how best to avoid and reduce the spread of infection.” It wouldn’t hurt to stick it in one of the “alert” boxes you often see at the top of pages.