Websites that transmit requests to official authorities and publish the information received multiplied across Europe in the early 2010s. Their results ranged from a promising start to established success. The overview below sets out how the main platforms worked and what they had achieved.
The United Kingdom: WhatDoTheyKnow
Britain was first in Europe and led by a wide margin on the number of requests transmitted. WhatDoTheyKnow.com — covering England and Wales, with Scotland a separate matter — had filed 116,355 requests since its start in 2008, addressed to 5,761 official authorities. Richard Taylor, a volunteer at the website, said statistics were not yet published out of concern about drawing conclusions the data did not fully support, but that 73,833 requests had been marked partially or fully successful, with the total figure including those still in progress. The site is run by mySociety, an organisation focused on making it easier for people to take part in civic life; its aim was to have as great a proportion of FOI requests as possible made in public, so that requests and responses stayed easily available.
Asked about notable information obtained through the site, Taylor pointed to a summary of 366 findings, one for each day of the previous year. Among them were the money Kent Council spent on travel abroad, how much oil the British government kept in reserve, and how many kittens South Wales Fire Service had rescued since 2011 — 77.
Germany: FragdenStaat
Measured by number of requests, the German site FragdenStaat.de — "ask the state" — was probably second in Europe, though on a smaller scale. Since its start in August 2011 it had transmitted close to 1,000 requests, including several multiple requests for the same information. System administrator Friedrich Lindenberg described the first months as an incredible experience, noting that the site accounted for about a third of German FOI requests and had featured in several campaigns, with most users falling between activists and ordinary people with an interest and some persistence.
At the time, 77 requests had received a full answer — for example, the €710 million cost of conducting a controversial 2011 census — while 53 had been partly answered and around 300 were being processed, delayed or rejected. The Anfragen (requests) page sorted results using icons legible to non-German readers. One notable case concerned a paper on the corruption of members of the German parliament, produced by a parliamentary research service that then claimed copyright to prevent its distribution; the site's project manager, Stefan Wehrmayer, added a feature allowing more people to request the same report. Lindenberg said about 400 people used it, creating an interesting dynamic whose effects he was not sure would be entirely positive. A fuller account of the German site's origins appeared in an interview on the Alaveteli programme website.
Spain and the EU: TuDerechoaSaber and AsktheEU
The Spanish TuDerechoaSaber.es ("your right to know") was an ambitious newcomer, built on the same Alaveteli platform as the British site and launched with the twin aims of helping people obtain information and of promoting Spanish access-to-information legislation. Victoria Anderica, a campaigner and project coordinator with Access-Info Europe, a pro-transparency organisation based in Madrid that helped launch the site together with the civil-rights group Fundación Ciudadana Civio, said: "Freedom of information is recognized as a fundamental right, so request for access can be done also without a law, just by exercising the right." Since its start in March, the site had transmitted some 400 requests.
Another Alaveteli site based in Madrid, AsktheEU.org, was run by Access-Info with support from a range of civil-society actors. Since its launch in September 2011 it had transmitted around 100 requests to EU bodies and institutions, about a third of which were classed as partially or fully successful. For context, in 2010 the European Commission received 6,127 applications for documents and the Council received 9,184 requests, according to annual transparency reporting. The site also offered a request guide on how to approach the EU institutions and what to expect.
Requests kept in public view
A feature common to three of the four sites was that filed requests were published on the web, revealing a journalist's interest in a story before publication, or hinting at the campaign an NGO might be preparing. Richard Taylor noted that many journalists monitored the site for releases, and that because requests could not be made privately, some journalist requests were made elsewhere. The German site offered a possible embargo, letting reporters file requests and receive answers privately before releasing the material once a story was published; Lindenberg commented that the press had nonetheless been reluctant to use it.
Scandinavia and beyond
Two further sites using the same concept were Informatazyrtare.org in Kosovo and Spinfo.org in Macedonia. No comparable sites aimed at the general public existed in Scandinavia, partly because access legislation there had a longer tradition and less felt need to introduce the concept to the public. In Sweden, tips and techniques were provided by the journalists' union on a members-only site, while the Swedish association for investigative journalists, Föreningen för Grävande Journalister, ran a public site with tools and recent case-law in Swedish only. In Denmark, Aabenhedstinget.dk ("openness meeting") collected case-law, good examples and legal news.
Norway was a distinct case, with an official government site, Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal (Electronic Public Records), offering guidance on how to request information, some download options and a "shopping basket" for documents. Partly available in English and, because Norway is closely linked to EU legislation without being a member state, it could provide a useful shortcut to documents of relevance beyond Norwegian borders. Outside Europe — with acknowledgement to Toby McIntosh at Freedominfo.org — were the US sites FOIA Letter Generator, started in 1996, and Muckrock. Civil-society sites had also been established in New Zealand, Chile and Brazil, while the site in Mexico was run by the state and the one in Honduras by the country's information officer. A directory of the transparency platforms discussed here is maintained under the tag for WhatDoTheyKnow.
Frequently asked questions
What did these websites do?
They let members of the public submit freedom-of-information requests to official authorities and, in most cases, published both the requests and the replies online so the results were available to everyone.
Which platform handled the most requests?
WhatDoTheyKnow in the United Kingdom, which had filed 116,355 requests to 5,761 authorities since 2008, of which 73,833 were marked partially or fully successful.
What was the drawback of publishing requests openly?
Because requests were visible, a journalist's or an organisation's interest could be revealed before a story or campaign was ready; some platforms addressed this with an embargo option, though take-up by the press was limited.