Newspaper Crowdsources 700,000-Page Investigation of MP Expenses

projector writes with an interesting project from the UK: "The Guardian are crowd-sourcing the investigation of 700,000 pages of UK MPs' expenses data. Readers are being invited to categorize each document, transcribe the handwritten expenses details into an online form and alert the newspaper if any claims merit further investigation. 'Some pages will be covering letters, or claim forms for office stationery. But somewhere in here is the receipt for a duck island. And who knows what else may turn up. If you find something which you think needs further attention, simply hit the button marked "investigate this!" and we'll take a closer look.'"

Comments

WhatTheyClaimed

[Tomun]

The mySociety folk that created TheyWorkForYou, PledgeBank and others have their own MP expenses site and also want your help. See here: http://whattheyclaimed.com/

Re:Waste of time?

[Halo1]

The Telegraph will publish the uncensored versions over the coming days.

Re:But will it work?

[stupid_is]

I commend the idea and the effort. But there are 700,000 documents, each with how many pages each? It's an interesting idea but will the crowd's enthusiasm hold up?

Each doc is usually around 1-5 pages - but there's so much redaction it's almost worthless (have a peek here). As to the crowd's enthusiasm - I can't see it waning unless the govmt get another crisis to hide this behind. Most folks want to see a significant change in the way MPs are paid, and this really kicked the Labour party in the knackers at the recent local & European elections (admittedly it may have been more akin to kicking them while they were down, what with the current PM being as charismatic as month old roadkill, and the Iraq war being such a success).

Re:I know this isn't the point....

[91degrees]

It's one of the more reputable newspapers in Britain. Has a moderate left wing stance and a well educated readership.

I cheated and RTFA.

[TapeCutter]

"Also, the Guardian's claim that there's a receipt for a duck-house in there is false, as that claim was rejected and no rejected claims have been released officially."

The Guardian doesn't make that claim, the summary does. The Gaurdian actually backs up your statement that it was rejected...

"...he admitted claiming £1,645 for a floating "duck island" in his garden...[snip]...a claim for a floating duck island designed to protect his ducks from foxes. This was rejected by the Commons authorities."

Re:I know this isn't the point....

[TheRaven64]

That depends on your political perception. It is registered as supporting the Labour Party. The same Labour Party that is doing the redacting here.

Maybe their online presence is different, but I subscribe to the Guardian's RSS feed and in recent months they've been much more harsh on the current government than I would have been. They've also been running articles claiming that the Labour party has abandoned its roots and the people it is supposed to represent. Maybe they are supporting the Labour Party in the abstract, but they certainly aren't supporting the current Labour leadership; even the BBC has been more moderate in their attacks on the government, and attacking the government is practically the official hobby of the BBC.