From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is there any example of governments using wikis? I think the US Defense Dept uses wikis. (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand examples:

Matt (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi I am a member of quite a large team working on a "wiki plus much more" dedicated to Goverments and e-Government, the project is based in London, UK, but has a global focus, is anyone interested in getting involved?

ps. it is our intention to copy all content over from the site to wikipedia to ensure both sources are comprehensive, complete and up to date

September 2006


An emerging theme is:

'Is egovernment just government?'

Which is also expressed as:

'Taking the "e" out of e-government'

These two phrases essentially express the sentiment that e-government initiatives have been hitherto almost exclusively consumed by a focus upon technology and that this can easily distract those involved from the overall aim, which is the enhanced provision of public services, in which the "e" or "electronic" dimension of government, although pivotal, is merely a component.

Another emerging theme is:

Is international or pan-national e-government fundamentally undermining the sustainability of national sovereignity?

In other words:

Is e-governemnt 'federalism by the back-door'?



I replaced "e-citizenship" with "e-democracy" in the issues section for two reasons:

  1. There was no wikipedia term for "e-citizenship", but "e-democracy" had been recently created.
  2. "E-democracy" is already in wide use as a term, whereas I've yet to see "e-citizenship" mentioned anywhere. Correct me if I am mistaken.
  3. "E-democracy" and "e-citizenship" are essentially the same thing. To be an active citizen is to be an active small-d democrat.

Stevietheman 23:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think E-citizenship has connotations of online voting, registration, etc., whereas E-democracy is more just modern democracy utilizing ICT.

Lanma726 23:32, 29 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Hi I am a member of quite a large team working on a "wiki plus much more" dedicated to Goverments and e-Government, the project is based in London, UK, but has a global focus, is anyone interested in getting involved?

ps. it is our intention to copy all content over from the site to wikipedia to ensure both sources are comprehensive, complete and up to date

September 2006


Undefined terms[edit]

What's with all the undefined terms in this article? Is it proper to include all these here _before_ they are defined?

Stevietheman 16:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point Steve.

I've "included everything that I've included" because each item is a highly relevant e-government issue.

But what I have not done (yet) is to (personally) undertake an exercise to define all those terms which are not yet defined elsewhere in wikipedia.

I think that an exercise to remove undiably relevant issues (until definitions of those terms have been created) would be a disservice to wikipedia readers.

The value gained by learning, for instance, that 'e-records' is considered an e-government issue, is in no way undermined by discovering that wikipedia does not contain a definition of it.

Another issue is whether to remove the hyperlink in question.

I think that such a move might presuppose that the reader will obtain more benefit by there being no hyperlink, which, although this may indeed be the case in certain instances, does not eliminate the benefit to be derived for the wikipedia readership as a whole by the extent to which the 'empty' hyperlink acts as a prompt for those willing and able to supply the requisite definition.

There are examples of vitally important mathematical theorems defined in wikipedia where a few of the terms of the theorem have not got wikipedia definitions.

(This was true of Thurston's conjecture for some time, but is (to a large extent) no longer the case)

Should these fundamental theorems therefore be removed until the definitions are entered??


Well, certainly a term doesn't _have_ to have a hyperlink until somebody decides to create the article for the term. I'm not suggesting that the terms be eliminated, but that their links to nowhere are questionable. The hyperlink can be created _after_ the new article is created. It just seems cleaner that way.

Stevietheman 16:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any value to be gained from the 'empty link as a prompt for readers to create a definition'?


Not that I can see. If you want to create all these links, create a stub article for each and ask for more content on those pages.

Stevietheman 05:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Here are the stubs that need creating:

  1. online government
  2. discussion lists
  3. freedom of information
  4. data protection
  5. e-citizenship
  6. e-enablement
  7. geopolitical boundaries
  8. e-procurement
  9. e-health
  10. Internet Addiction
  11. e-taxes
  12. social cohesion
  13. economic migration
  14. regional autonomy
  15. e-records
  16. e-recruitment
  17. e-management
  18. e-publishing
  19. e-readiness
  20. m-government


I wonder if 'online government' requires its own stub, as it is more or less synonymous with e-government (sure there are etymological and semantic differences with these concepts, but still ...). Beside m-government, I'd also add g-government (GIS/GPS applications) and, more importantly, u-government (ubiquitous government) to this list. The last one will become a big issue sooner or later. Just a brief remark. Ari-Veikko (kuaran @

Isnt E-Government the same as Online Government? If this page was to be created, then couldnt it just redirect to E-Government? Xaro 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

e-governance does not have to include online government. There are plenty of cases where ICT systems are applied without online/web components. --rxnd ( t | | c ) 07:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I added the cleanup-verify tag because the quote from Nadar has no attribution. Will also add the cleanup tag and such. --Woohookitty 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reformat, Rewrite[edit]

What's up with this article? No disrespect to Ericross, but this article has almost no content. It's just a bunch of bullet points. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a PowerPoint presentation. This just about deserves an AfD. Mateo LeFou 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Most of the external links should probably be deleted as only loosely-related or, at worst, spam. Someone else do it, I'm lazy. Scott Ritchie 06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other stuff should be deleted too. I'll see if I can draw attention to this thing by yanking the obvious spam first. Mateo LeFou 18:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A disproportionate number of external links and of uneven quantity. I have done some more trimming.Tom Harris 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

De-list and describe?[edit]

I suspect that all the 'issues' lists could be usefully removed. Perhaps they could be replaced with a much shorter statement saying that the changes brought by moves to e-government potentially impact across the board. I'm not sure that trying to enumerate all the effects is useful. Any thoughts? Tom Harris 20:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. This article was just a list of implications concerning eGovernment, without any description. It's not encyclopedic to write "eGovernment would have a possible effect on purchasing ("ePurchasing"), voting ("eVoting"), legislation ("eLegislation")... Kaisershatner 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want someone to remove all the links, as some are useful. I'd start by editing the lists down and removing anything redundant. Then I'd work on a section at a time, turning it into a discussion of the issues, rather than just a list of links. I think it might need more than one person to contribute as the range of topics is quite broad. As the Wikipedia pages on editing say, don't be shy - go ahead and make some radical changes. Vidook 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "cleaned up" article is now an excellent example of "encyclopedia pathology"[edit]

A perfectly valid criticism of this article has resulted in a "cleanup".

The article is now tidier, shorter, more structured and thus more "encyclopedic".

Unfortunately, the article is also now far less useful or helpful.

The "sense of structure and simplicity" conferred by the new article (although, admittedly, the sense is not exactly effective, because the remaining content has not completely eliminated at least some of the "taxonomic promiscuity" of the subject) is itself highly POV.

The enormous list of different aspects of eGovernment (which has now been removed) sucessfully conveyed the potential (and in most cases actual) "all-pervasiveness" of eGovernment.

The new, tidy structure now gives the impression (albeit ineptly) of a more constrained, tractable topic.

This impression could not be more deceptive to anyone seeking to grasp the true implications of eGovernment.

Now the encyclopedia article reader who does not encounter an eGovernment-relevant issue (i.e, a"bullet point" on the list) which is relevant to their own occupation or personal interest will have to either remain forever in blissful ignorance or discover it elsewhere.

A laudable solution (although still inadequate in my view) would be to resurrect the "list of eGovernment-relevant issues) as a separate article and link out from the main article.

The obsession with "constrained relevance" which manifests itself in a "tidiness fetish" is so "dead trees" rather than the web, so "Brittanica" rather than Wiki, that it highlights the very shortcomings of a "traditional" attitude to encyclopedia articles.

Be structured, be brief, be tidy, when the topic is crisply defined using broadly accepted definitions.

When the subject has the taxonomic promiscuity and flux evident in eGovernment, the most use a reader can gain is to acquire a sense of the sheer scope and diversity of the issues that it affects, something that a well linked and commented list is best suited to provide, something that the very limitations of a paper encyclopedia article, with its exclusive dependence upon clarity and structure, cannot effectively satisfy.

- Just a brief comment that some of the abovementioned points sound good. In general, I think the entire e-gov entry should be completely rewritten, as the definitions are not the best possible ones, and the structure simply does not work well enough. The first paragraph is close to satisfactory as a brief introduction, but the following technology-driven section should be more systematic and be placed to some later numbered section of this article rather than being part of the introduction. And the random reference to UK and e-voting at the end of the introductory part sounds very strange. In addition, "the development and implementation issues" section should be rewritten and some new sub-sections should be added. This sections should start from e-gov development stage model and e-readiness issues and then address e-development and related issues. Lastly, as to the "big picture" of e-government-related topics discussed earlier in this site, the list of contents we drafted for the Encyclopedia of Digital Government might give a starting-point: Best, Ari-Veikko (kuaran @

I do not agree with the original poster (though I have much sympathy with Ari-Veikko's arguments). An encyclopedia is an organised body of information; if a topic is emerging or in flux, we should describe this, not exemplify it with a confusing body of random information which is of no use to anyone. There is no way that every aspect of e-government can be contained within a list, any more than all the aspects of physics could be. There may be no need to be especially brief online, but being structured and tidy is still vital. Tom Harris 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Basic Building Blocks of E-Government external link[edit]

This E-Development: From Excitement to Effectiveness, a World Bank publication edited by Robert Schware includes a chapter (5) on 'The Basic Building Blocks of E-Government' contributed by Randeep Sudan appears to have been added by the author User:Sudanr. I've moved it here for other editors to assess in accordance with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hyphen in Title restriction note?[edit]

When visiting this page, a note is given at the top of the page stating the correct title should start with a lower case letter, but does not due to technical restrictions. Should there also be a note that the correct title uses a hyphen, but cannot due to technical restrictions? This issues is listed on the technical restrictions page under "Characters with some problems but not totally forbidden", subtitle "Dashes". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

MSC Malaysia[edit]

I do not like the MSC Malaysia template on the bottom of the article. It would be more suitable on an article on e-governance in Malaysia. Even though I see above that there has been a lot of work on this article, there is more to be wished in terms of structure and content. --rxnd ( t | | c ) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Tom Harris 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in the eGovernment page, there is no mention of an important form of eGovernance namely "Government to Employee" or G2E. I propose that along with G2C, G2B & G2G, G2E alos to be included. The importance of G2E lies in the fact that the "automation of the intra Government processes & work flows conforming to the laid governmental rules/ regulations need to be achieved to significantly enhance & realise the objectives of other forms of eGovernance.

I am keen to create a seperate stub for G2E. Can I please get help regarding steps/ navigation to create that?

Inkroma4Gov 10:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

help me....[edit]

§Anyone can give the answer for this question : "Describe the tachnological factors as constitute the key components that should be considered in developing e-government to be succeeded" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested external link[edit]

Moved from article page. Originally posted by I would suggest placing here as a general resource, as I have found it has a website that is providing around the world coverage of current national government websites and more notable, from my view, more equal coverage than other sources, the same level of information for lesser developed countries, such as those in Africa. SiobhanHansa 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) on behalf of

how to improve a countries image through e-government?is it possible to have a better image internationally in relation to other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--Stwalkerbot 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources[edit]

It would be interesting to incorporate references in other languages, references to experts and thoughts in other languages that enrich the content. I have been navigating and there are good references about specialists in french language or spanish. I suggest to look for example Mauro D. Ríos or Leonardo Corte, only to choose two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


"E-government is government’s use of information and communication technologies, particularly Web-based applications, to support responsive and cost-effective government by facilitating administrative and managerial functions, providing citizens and stakeholders with convenient access to government information and services, facilitating interaction and transactions with stakeholders, and providing better opportunities to participate in democratic institutions and processes." In: Anttiroiko, A.-V. (Ed.) Electronic Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: Information Science Reference, 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SOA and E-government[edit]

-- (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

e-Government rating[edit]

There are several approaches to rate and compare e-Government policies and their efficiency.

In the article the UN rating is proposed.

This is a specific view of the subject and other ratings give other ranks very different because the point of view is different.

Another issue is that there is nothing in the Business to Governmen article. I think that the subject is of paramount importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1 = Sweden, mbork mbork!! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

e-Governance by country[edit]

At the time of writing this post there are only two countries included in the list (Canada and US). I consider presenting the situation on eGovernment in Europe, both at the EU level and at the country level. Is this considered ok? I'd like a second opinion before starting writing, just to avoid the hassle in case there is a fundamental reason why I should not do so. The references I have in mind are websites of the European Commission and national government eGovernment portals presenting the situation in each country.

Another issue I am considering is whether this information should be included in the relevant countries' pages in Wikipedia and referenced here only.

Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add here. Be bold.

Lanma726 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will start writing in my page and transfer here when ready.

Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following section that was inserted in the wrong place (e-Governance by country), without any citations:

(start of included section)

The Richards Theory

The government has previously operated a hierarchical bureaucracy where departments are 'silowed' - each department is segregated from one another e.g. there is no interlinking between the tax and health department. e-Government provides a solution by trying to build links or networks (Actor Network Theory), this fundamentally allows departments to unify, which in turn will improve communication and reduce costs.

However e-Government is not merely a concept of providing convenience for the user or reducing costs, but a way in which technology innovation is shaping our society (Technology determinism) and making it 'better'. Democracy is enhanced; e-Government allows the public to be more involved in the going-ons that have previously been restricted. For example MPs expenses can be scrutinized by the public.

We have to understand that e-Government has far broader objectives than convenience for the user and cost-reduction; it plays a key role in the development of society for the future.

(end of included section)

If someone can provide proper citation, then it could be restored; however this should be done in the correct context and certainly not overwriting existing sections.

Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Link requires registration[edit]

The 18 reference link, about the Cost of eGovernment points to an article in The Economist which requires registration to that publication/site.

¿Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should Obama's campaign really be considered a part of e-government?[edit]

In the "USA e-government" section, it starts out with "The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States has become associated with the effective use of Internet technologies during his campaign, and in the implementation of his new government in 2009.[37][38][39]"

Is campaign use of technology a part of e-government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be in there only if it is serving to introduce the rest of the article (which seems to be the intent but may not be clear). Also, the USA e-gov't section doesn't speak at all to past presidencies or state/municipal examples of implementation. E-gov is hardly a federal phenomenon. I will come back to some of this later with edits if I find the time. - Boonefrog (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased towards US[edit]

When reading this article from Spain, I find it very much biased towards (or based on, concerned with, using info on) the US and its own particular form/status of e-government. Shouldn't the US-specific information be better placed in its own section, including references to the FBI, 9/11 issues, etc.? A lot of the information here doesn't apply to other countries or e-governments! Warm regards from Spain, Ela Huguet —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

G4C model[edit]

The information about G4C models used in Korea e-Government is absent in this article. See:

  1. S. Y Moon (2010), Managing IT and e-Government: the Korean Case. Chongmok Publishing Co.

-- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gov 2.0 Redirect?[edit]

I noticed that when I searchd for Gov 2.0 I was re-directed to E Government. My understanding is that Gov 2.0, 'government as platform' is really a distinct and notable concept that has generated quite a bit of interest and articles. Here are some links that illustrate this point.

Tim O'Reilly - Government as Platform

With GOV.UK, British government redefines the online government platform

Gov 2.0: Now the real work begins

I'm interested in starting a distinct article on Gov 2.0, I'm very curious in what this community thinks? Tannians (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should be bold and start your article. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Transformational Government[edit]

The "Transformational Government" article has very little information and seems basically to be an advert for a specific set of policies, though it is hard to tell because it is so vague. I think that there may still be a bit of useful information that could be pulled out of it though, this article seems to be the most associated with it, and the sources could be useful; but it really doesn't seem like it would stand on its own as an article. Comments? anamedperson (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the Homepage for the OASIS Technical Committee that has developed the Transformational Government Framework standard - The standard contains a full explanation of Transformational Government and how it takes the earlier work on e-Government to another level. e-Gov and TG are definitely not the same thing and it is important to understand how one has evolved into the other. User:JohnBorras Johnborras (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for a possible merge for over seven months and no consensus has developed about the proposed merge, so I removed the "merge from" template from the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of the full list[edit]

Use of the full list runs afoul of copyright. See WP:Copyright in lists for an essay which outlines exactly why this is. YJAX's edit summary in the latest restoration of the content actually outlines the 2 major points, actually:

  • Choice of criteria lies on the source itself, not to be decided by a Wikipedia user. Precisely! The fact that the source has its own criteria for formation of the list means that it is copyrighted due to the creativity that went into forming it. Things like a list of the most populous countries, or largest cities by area, are based on non-arguable facts, therefore no creativity goes into them. This list is formed by "i) the state of e-government readiness; and ii) the extent of e-participation", which are subjective criteria that are each further based on some creative formula.
  • No evidence of copyright violation - See UN's copyright policies. Indeed. Ref #2, which is used as the source of the list, states this very clearly on page 4 of the PDF: "Copyright © United Nations, 2014

All rights reserved" followed by some more specific disclaimers about what you can't do with this content. Such a disclaimer demonstrates a copyright violation anywhere else on Wikipedia, and does so here as well. Therefore, I will be removing this list once again. If a full official copyright investigation is desired, I'll be glad to open one. Thanks, CrowCaw 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)