Talk:Network of the Department of Government Efficiency

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Former DOGE employees

[edit]

search "Former DOGE employee" "DOGE workers quit"

make a section about exit interviews of fired or quit ex-employees in the news? for example:

Edward Coristine

Sahil Lavingia

D.K.

Merici Vinton

Piñanana (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
Coristine is still in the government. Like many other DOGE members, he has been integrated in the agency to which he was detailed. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete: Original research and POV, should be either deleted or rewritten

[edit]

Just because there are journalists' articles that discuss political and business connections of people who are related to the DOGE, that does not mean it should take a Wikipedia article to proclaim this. So which serious scholarly source has done a research on this and dubbed the whole thing "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency"? The lede reads in large part like a description of controversies surrounding Musk's role (official or unofficial, legitimate or illegitimate) and the personnel he used...

A possible choice to consider should be rewriting the article into "Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency" or "Controversies involving the Department of Government Efficiency". And in that case, there should be a lot of work to do to make it into a proper article. It will sound much more neutral as well. What big government agencies or figures do not have "networks"? When "Network of Biden/Soros/the CIA/North Korea's government" comes, Wikipedia will turn into a political propaganda leaflet. Deamonpen (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to wave one's arms about original research than it is to identify it.
The title "Criticism of Controversies" makes no sense at all. Selbsportrait (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written "Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency". Writing a whole article to demonstrate YOUR vision about an institution's "network" without a strong scholarly source that identifies that "network" as such, shows its basic structure and/or lists main arguments regarding the good or bad of the network...etc is WP:OR in a nutshell. Not to mention the lede is highly incoherent and does not reflect that "network" content.Deamonpen (talk)
"Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency" would misread what is being done in the page. There's a Response page for that. And it would break the symmetry that is imposed on Wikipedia's pages: hence why it's a "response" page, not a criticism page.
What you call a "vision" follows from sources you sidestepped by demanding "serious scholarly source", which is as preposterous as to suggest that the concept of network is somehow loaded.
To come in hot while misreading what is being done is far from being constructive.Selbsportrait (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So which serious scholarly source has done a research on this and dubbed the whole thing "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency"?
A "serious scholarly source" is not and likely will never be a requirement for this sort of sourcing on Wikipedia; this or any other article is treated politically agnostically -- if one side is unhappy with the outcomes, that's a them issue, not a Wikipedia issue. If you have suitable sources please feel free to edit the page. Whether or not an article (just in case it needs stating) is politically disfavorable to one side or the other literally doens't matter, and we don't care. We only care what WP:RS say under our policies. A million angry partisans have no power over that. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, just because there are sources, it does not warrant an article. It is a matter of WP:N.
Secondly, if there are sources about subject A (there are DOGE employees who worked for Andreessen) and subject B (Musk's position is poorly defined by the government), these two should NOT be combined into the synthesis "This is the network of the DOGE, led by Musk, Andreessen, Thiel". That is WP:OR. So what is the purpose and the structure of such a "network"? Who owns it? Why "network" (implying everything is connected into a singular entity) and not "networks"? And even among the journalists, who defines it as "network of the Department of the Government Efficiency"? What degree of popularity does this name have in such sources to guarantee a Wikipedia article with such a name?
This is another example of the original research: User:Selbsportrait decides, without any source at all, that there is an order of importance when it comes the people they apparently deem as important actors in this network:
Edit 1 by me
Edit 2 by Selbsportrait
Edit 3 by me
Edit 4 by Selbsportrait
Your title, your table, your "order of importance" all reflect a bias that has no credible source as basis. Deamonpen (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The order of importance is simply a matter of convenience, to order the various ties. There's no need to have a "serious scholarly source" to know that Trump is more important than the Federalist Society! If that sentence bugs you, we could delete it because we can let go of meta-discursive statements, i.e. statements to orient readers.
No claim remotely close to "This is the network of the DOGE, led by Musk, Andreessen, Thiel" has been made on the page.
The kind of network we're looking for is a social structure consisting of a set of social actors, networks of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should also add that the *only* reason to order ties thematically is to help readers validate an information provided in the sources, especially regarding Musk and Trump ties. To sort them alphabetically would also introduce a bias: it would favor Musk over Trump, and perhaps Andreessen above all. Search for "alphabetic bias" for more. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selbsportrait, I'll take this here, since these details don't strike me as key to what the AfD closer will want to consider. I'm still trying to understand what the criteria are for inclusion in the table/network. You've said "The table is meant to be as exhaustive as possible," and you've also said "Ramaswamy isn't listed because he's not in one of the trackers," and you've also said "editors simply added the names as that appeared in the trackers and in the news." These three sets are not identical. Is there any consensus about which of the three makes most sense? or, if the rule is something else, consensus about what it is?

Assuming that the rule mentions trackers, can you provide a list of the RSs that are considered trackers, and how an RS is determined to be a tracker? For example, I assume that ProPublica's "Elon Musk's Demolition Crew" is a tracker, given the very large number of times it appears as a reference in the table. Ditto for the NYT's "Who Is in DOGE? Tracking Its Staffers and Allies in the Federal Government." Are these the only two trackers? If not, can you list the other RSs that fall in the "trackers" set? It seems odd to me to call certain RSs trackers but not make any mention in the body of the article that ProPublica, The NYT, and ____ started trying to identify all of the people, or some specific subset of the people in the network.

Re: "[Ramaswamy] disappeared months before the creation of DOGE," I don't see any confirmation of that in either the main DOGE article or in this Network article; this article is silent about him, and the main article dates his departure to ~1/20/2025. The table currently includes people who started advising/recruiting before the federal DOGE came into being, so again, it seems that Ramaswamy is omitted because he's not in one of the unnamed trackers rather than because of the timing of his departure. But if the rule is everyone whose "names ... appeared in the trackers and in the news," then he'd be included, since his name appeared in the news, albeit that he left around the time of the inauguration. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're looking for.
Ramaswamy is not listed in any of the trackers. There are no news showing any deed related to DOGE. Here's where you can find evidence of his departure from the project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Ramaswamy_steps_away
As for consensus, have you seen any dissent, and is there any source on the page you don't find reliable? Selbsportrait (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an idea: the last column ("See also") could be reserved for all the sources that track membership. Secondary sources would be inserted in the other rows to support other information not found in them.
A start of such list appears in the Classification section, but there are others already appearing in the See also column.
Once a list of such tracking sources is stable, we could use another key system to cite these sources. A bit like this. It could also be a secondary citation list, coded differently. Monographs sometimes use abbreviations or acronyms for that kind of system.
This would help alleviate the References section. Otherwise the trackers would dominate them, with a lot of calls to them. Check citation #104 to see what I mean.
Another advantage is that the list is made explicit, so that editors and readers alike can clearly see it.
One disadvantage is that there's a meta-communication component to this. It'd be like adding a legend to the table, i.e. information that only serves at explaining what we're doing. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like:
  • a clear statement about what the rule is for who gets added / not added to the table (you've given a few variants, and although they have a sizeable intersection, none of them are the same); and
  • a list of all of the sources you're calling "trackers," along with some explanation of what characteristics result in a source being designated as a tracker.
I didn't ask for "evidence of [Ramaswamy's] departure from the project." My points were twofold: the evidence doesn't substantiate your claim that he "disappeared months before the creation of DOGE", and some of the rules you described for the table suggest that he should be included. Which takes us back to the question of the rule determining the scope of the table.
"have you seen any dissent?" Yes, the AfD discussion has some dissent.
"is there any source on the page you don't find reliable? " No. I haven't looked at all of them, but don't anticipate some not being RSs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd like:"
Not sure why you think a quote fest that disregards everything I just said should make me work more for you.
"the evidence doesn't substantiate"
Yes, it does. Unless you call a tweet in December evidence of work?
"some of the rules you described for the table suggest that he should be included"
No, they did not.
"the AfD discussion"
There was no discussion to speak of, and arguing by blanket assertion has little merit. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you work for me. I don't know why you'd suggest that I think that. You said "I'm not sure what you're looking for," so I told you what I was looking for.
No, it doesn't. We go with what RSs say, which is that he left around the inauguration. My personal assessment of it doesn't matter, nor does yours.
Yes, they did. When you "exhaustive," that suggests inclusion. When you say "appeared in the trackers and in the news," that suggests inclusion too, because he was in the news for quite a while in connection with DOGE. But my main point is: the scope of this list is not clearly articulated anywhere, and I think that's a problem, and my sense is that some people in the AfD discussion think that too.
You dislike the word "discussion"? OK, but poll-like !votes (AfDs, RfCs, RMs, ...) are often called discussions. They're unlike regular talk page discussions in that the !votes are ultimately for the closer, and there doesn't have to be significant discussion among editors as long as there's discussion of the issue and policies in people's individual !votes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We seek an exhaustive list" isn't a rule, but an objective. Or rather an interpretation of what we did so far, in retrospect. There's nothing operational about it. That expectation can change. Imagine if Trump decided to ramp up to ten thousand DOGE teams!
Adding Ramaswamy "because we want an exhaustive list" would make little sense.
Suppose we show he's a DOGE member, with a role, an affiliation or some documented deeds. Or suppose you decide to present him as a special case, like a "founding father". Go for it. That'd be fine with me.
Nobody ever asked me to set anything in stone. In fact, I have never seen any page built that way. Do you have a prototype of a consensus we could try to emulate?
Here's how I imagine what you seem to be looking for: a sticky post with all the rules so far made all explicit, updated as consensus evolves. With a list of the sources we accept, of those we have rejected too, and why. That could save lots of time!
However, I have never seen it. So I presume it's not a requirement.
The dissent that matters here would be the deletion of an entry in the table or a query in this page regarding the member. Something that usually calls for reaching a consensus. Without that kind of dissent, anything goes, and that's fine.
I spoke of a "tracker" because the main one is ProPublica's:
https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/
Wired has its map, but also in-depth analyses:
https://www.wired.com/story/next-stage-doge-elon-musk/
It also has reports on specific events:
https://www.wired.com/story/department-of-labor-doge-usds-payment/
The first one could count as a small tracker, perhaps not the second.
My earlier suggestion was to answer your question *directly on the table*, by keeping the trackers in the "See also" column, and moving citations that support specific information next to that information, like we always do elsewhere. Poor design choice.
The result would give you the real answer. Not just what I'm telling you. And that would improve the table. Justification alone does nothing. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'We seek an exhaustive list' isn't a rule, but an objective." OK, but "exhaustive" is determined in relation to something (e.g., exhaustive with respect to "anyone who has ever been mentioned in any RS" is distinct from exhaustive with respect to "anyone who has been mentioned in one of the sources designated as a tracker").
"Nobody ever asked me to set anything in stone." I'm not asking you to either, nor could you, as that is not how the project is built. "I have never seen any page built that way." An example of article content that is not set in stone, but has several clearly articulated consensus results: Talk:Donald Trump § Current consensus, though several of those are the results of RfCs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The example provided looks like jurisprudence. It is of the form "stop writing A". That's not like a decision tree: "to add B, you must have C". An explicit list of sources that meet C may reduce RfCs, but the most popular page of the wiki reaches consensus without that requirement.
Having a tracker suffices if it provides enough information for a row to be informative. Without one, enough support material could in principle compensate. Cells ought to be as complete as possible. Some entries can have more information that others, but too much white indicates bad design. Judgement and caution matters.
Social networks are usually graphs. The wiki has tables. A fully exhaustive network would not only track all the actors, but all the roles, locations, ties, and events. Add time stamps and we would have the complete timeline of who did what, when, where, and how. We're far away from that. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It got moved again, what is the name to be

[edit]

@Horse Eye's Back: and @OwenX: this article has been saved at AfD, renamed by Admin, now moved again... what is going on? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for a move to that title, unless I am missing something that was a bold move not an admin action. It has been reverted per WP:BRD and WP:MOVE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could call it back Workforce. It's fine, in retrospect. Surprised that "Network" could ever be problematic. That's on me.
No idea how to implement these things. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could call it a lot of things... But note that nobody appears to have made a coherent argument against calling it a network... And we have a few coherent arguments against workforce/employees/staff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a formal move request here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2025

[edit]

Network of the Department of Government Efficiency → Workforce of the Department of Government EfficiencyWorkforce of the Department of Government Efficiency – Simply, this feels like the best, most on-target, and simply best fitting clinical name for this, and I agree with the AfD close on the matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RS we have go beyond workforce in that they talk about people who are not directly employed by the Department of Government Efficiency... So doesn't appear to be on target and is less accurate/clinical. It might help the discussion if those who prefer workforce provided examples of that term being used to refer to the broad class under discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed a problem with say Boris Akis, who isn't allowed to work for government, and yet has provided "work", according to Lavingia:
https://www.wired.com/story/fired-doge-staffer-who-is-in-charge/
"Workforce" would mean a force that provides work, but in a more abstract sense than a technical one. The technical one seems to be related to a macroeconomic indicator.
Common words to refer to DOGE members are "staffers", "operatives" and "affiliates". I've seen "figures", "officials", "workers", "task force", etc. There are less neutral terms: "lackeys", "good squad", "thugs", etc. I can update the list if need be, to give ideas of the lexicon we could tap on.
"Affiliates" seems the most appropriate, "members" a close second. Neither lend a singular, collective term. "Affiliate" has commercial implications we don't want. From "member" I thought of a "network", with social network analysis in mind. Perhaps I should have thought of actor network theory instead.
So as I see it there won't be ideal solution. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Affiliates of the Department of Government Efficiency" actually sounds pretty good, I still prefer network but thats better than workforce or members... It brings to mind Social network analysis for me which is extremely close to what the RS appear to be doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization" and "a person or organization officially attached to a larger body" from Oxford. @Horse Eye's Back @Selbsportrait do we have a single source that uses the term? Is that necessary? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I laid out a number in the AfD, a clear example is this Propublica piece "While Elon Musk has departed the Department of Government Efficiency, the world’s richest man is leaving a network of acolytes embedded inside nearly every federal agency."[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you could have been asking about affiliated, we have that too "Many DOGE-affiliated staffers are young male software engineers from the tech world."[2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In its tracker, the NYT defines how it uses "allies" as associates tied to Musk or others (we should mention this to parry OR accusations) who have helped carry out the team's work:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/27/us/politics/doge-staff-list.html
The URL refers to a staff list, but it goes beyond that. NPR speaks of "DOGE-affiliated staffers", which is a bit weird:
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5288988/doge-elon-musk-staff-trump
If we look at the Newsweek list, it refers to people "affiliated" to DOGE:
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-list-staff-revealed-2029965
Wired does the same in its map, but also says that it plans to keep updating this as they "find more DOGE operatives or as known affiliates move to new agencies":
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-doge-silicon-valley-corporate-connections/
Journalists seem to be realizing that DOGE members are sent to agencies. Latest Wired piece mention DOGE affiliates:
https://www.wired.com/story/how-doge-set-up-a-shadow-x-account-for-a-government-agency/
Which makes me think that the Deeds column could be ordered by units to which the DOGE member has been affiliated. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, "Network" or any other choice works for me. But if "Network" is frowned upon and "Workforce" lacks precision, why not "DOGE members" or "Members of the DOGE" or even "List of DOGE members"? "Affiliates" instead of "members" would work too, and it would perhaps fit the sources even better. While "affiliate" might be a little too specific, "member" might be a little too general.
I suggest "list" because the topic is as much the members themselves as the lists created. Again, I have no idea about exopedian stuff. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like affiliates, I think there is a lot of RS using that term. I think there is sufficient RS for network too but that seems to draw a lot of criticism. I think members is wrong as that invokes the idea that there is some specific membership criteria which I have not seen in RS. Czarking0 (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Associates of the Department of Government Efficiency sounds like the best fit. It's used in some sources (as are all of these seemingly at some point) but it's the broadest yet tightest. It's a familiar word in the context of American english for the concept--we associate it (no pun, etc.) with things like employees or allies or friends or peers or cohorts. It can mean someone on payroll, a consultant, someone who pops in for one thing or some supporting function. It's a nice looking word and the title pops. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the coverage we may also have a notable topic of "Network of Elon Musk" or "Associates of Elon Musk" which might be an appropriate home for some of the stuff here that is more outlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Associates of Elon Musk could 100% be a viable SIZE and non-POV fork of this. Associates of Peter Thiel could be on it's heels.
@Horse Eye's Back--your referencing social network analysis was apt. Have you seen the page Mosaic effect that I built? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that with the people I would go with network as a lot of it is nonprofits, trusts, and that sort of thing even if we go with associates for this page. I had not clocked the existence of that page, at a glance it looks rather excellent and I will enjoy reading through it when I have some more time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A network could be any graph with links and nodes. A graph can be represented as a table, but with tradeoffs. There is information asymmetry: if we say that A has a relationship to B in one row ("is a partner", say), we'd have to say that B has the same relationship in A in another. In a graph, we would simply connect A and B with a link that denotes partnership. Even assuming assymmetry, hierarchies are more clumsy to represent: a table expressing the "is a sibling of" relationship would duplicate information, compared to genealogy trees.
One big advantage of a table is that it represents properties or predicates better: about some concept C, we can say P1, P2, P3, and P4. After all, any database, synopsis or chronology can be seen as a table. In our case, we want to list people connected to DOGE and to express that connection in terms of relevant relationships.
To represent all people connected to Thiel or Musk would be quite an ordeal. We'd need to separate that information in chunks, possibly projects. Before we tackle that, we need a somewhat conventional structure: having to reformat 100 tables wastes resources. The same can be said for the kind of pages we write in the wiki. However for database research it's critical: to establish (say) a timeline of connections between Mr. Y and Mr. Z along many projects, tables need to have comparable information: who did what, when, and how.
Since tables are summaries, and summaries are an art form, getting everything right at first would be a feat. To just correcting our current table is far from trivial. I'm merely adding keys and it'll take hours. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two fields where "associates" could conflict: law and business.
The concept of business associate carries a legal meaning: "A business associate refers to an individual or entity that performs tasks or services involving the use or disclosure of sensitive or regulated information on behalf of another organization. In many sectors, particularly healthcare, the term is legally defined. For example, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a business associate is a person or company responsible for handling protected health information (PHI) for a covered entity."
Source: https://apnews.ca/business/what-is-a-business-associate/
"Affiliate" would conflict if we analyze a network of companies: "An affiliate, on the other hand, is a business whose parent company has between 20% and 50% ownership."
Source: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/subsidiaries.asp
Even "member" could be problematic: "A member of a corporation is a person who has been admitted into membership in the corporation and who has a number of rights by virtue of membership in the corporation."
Source: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/corporations-canada/en/not-profit-corporations/members
As in economics, there's no free lunch in semantics. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Network seems apt in the title to me, though "Personnel" might be a bit more specific, and includes employees, as well as agents, contractors, consultants, and their employees. Lindenfall (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we ought to flip this around.
What terms in this discussion that we've considered are expressly NOT supported by ANY sources? Let's just omit those.
Of what's left, how is the weighting on sources/frequency to terms? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. If we look at our main sources so far:
- "staffers": low-level folks with some official work status, as opposed to allies, tho Politico and the Hill applied it to Davis and other bosses (search "core DOGE staffers" and "Meet the DOGE team" in the citations);
- "allies": expresses a relationship between top-level tech guys that Musk could consider his peers (tho Bloomberg extends it to associates);
- "associates": those with a tie with one of the allies (search for "Musk associates");
- "recruits": may have a military connotation we don't want;
- "members": generic term for anyone to which we can attribute membership of some kind;
- "affiliated with": does not express anything stronger than "is a member", but is not "affiliates";
- "operatives": Wired used it interchangeably along with "members", but it carries connotations we may not want.
I wouldn't mind calling them a network of DOGE operatives, but I'm not alone in this, and this is not a big hill to die on.
That's just for the first four sources in the list. If you want other terms, I can continue my search.
Our candidates seem to be (a) our actual title, (b) "DOGE X" where X is either "members", "operatives" or "affiliates", and (c) "List of DOGE X", with the same choices. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"DOGE Personnel" might be a concise choice, as, referenced by Politico, The Hill, Harvard and the Economic Policy Institute, among others. (I equally support "DOGE Network", though I think personnel is more specific.) Lindenfall (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/14/doge-lead-steve-davis-did-not-go-quietly-00452257
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5441656-doge-staffers-hiring-democrats-investigation/
https://ash.harvard.edu/resources/understanding-doge-and-your-data/
https://www.epi.org/policywatch/department-of-government-efficiency-doge-illegally-accesses-federal-government-systems/
@Lindenfall DOGE Personnel, DOGE Staffing, DOGE Staff? Doug Grinbergs (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since staff eliminates affiliates, consultants, contractors, Personnel seems better. Lindenfall (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does 'personnel' encompass the free floating sorts of figures that sources put them into?
Maybe...
People of the Department of the Government Efficiency? @Doug Grinbergs @Selbsportrait @Lindenfall @Horse Eye's Back — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personnel includes all employees, along with agents, contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, and their employees.Lindenfall (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to include allies. In context, the concept of personnel implies a contractual connection, something we don't always have. It may not be very different than "workforce".
Just take Elon Musk. Do we have any evidence he signed anything? SCOTUS might not have included him in the right to access data. Selbsportrait (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Network still seems most encompassing. Lindenfall (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename straw poll (not RFC)

[edit]

I don't think I see any real consensus yet but something's swirling toward a direction. These seem to be the most likely/ones we're circling the most:

  • Affiliates (of the Department of Government Efficiency)
  • Associates (of the Department of Government Efficiency)
  • Network (of the Department of Government Efficiency)
  • Personnel (of the Department of Government Efficiency)
  • Staffers (of the Department of Government Efficiency)

Maybe everyone rank most to least favored so we see at least what no one cares for, cut it to top 3 to narrow discussion? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Network > Associates > Affiliates > Personnel > Staffers for me I think. If I had to !vote today I think Network (barely) nudges out Associates. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we decide to keep "Network", we might need to make sure the structure of the page parries future concerns about it. So far there are two relevant subsections. The one about a comprehensive list clearly shows that a lot of reliable news outlets started to track down DOGE members as early as February 2. The main lists are in the Keys subsection.
    We still need to emphasize when our sources mention the network of operatives. This would clarify to readers that this concept is not used as a mere theory construct. Another task would be to determine a list of deeds that would suffice as to qualify as being part of the network. This would also help a future "Wikidatatification" of our table. So far, we have:
    - entering an agency
    - accessing to information systems to read, extract, delete or archive data
    - instructing an agency
    - interviewing federal workers or hiring prospects
    - appearing in media outlets (Cavanaugh, but also Lewin and Lavingia) or in political settings (Gracias)
    - representing DOGE in a legal capacity with news coverage
    And so on and so forth. You get the idea. That list of deeds (or tasks or actions) should be more or less complete by the end of the week.
    If you think of other ways to operationalize the process so that readers don't mistake this page as something subjective, I'll all ears. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it be as simple as table 1 for confirmed "staff" and table 2 for the broader array discussed? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're to exclude folks, I'd rather introduce them in background. To maintain one table is more than enough. As I see it, it's not a matter of employee/non-employee, but a matter of how much information we have to fill as much cells as we can. Take Jeremy Lichtman, Timothy Ronan, and Samuel Berry: Oversight, American (2025-07-16). "DOGE's Smoke and Mirrors: How the Agency Deliberately Avoids Transparency". American Oversight. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
    We know next to nothing about these guys, yet we have an official document (from an FOIA) that attests DOGE membership.
    There is also a problem with the Roles and Units columns: some have many roles, and many units, like Cavanaugh, Kliger, Lewin. This makes it hard to track who played which role where. We could unify these two informations, but at the expense of not being able to parse by roles or by units.
    One possibility is to clarify something like Status with types for the roles, the same way we typed the ties. For instance, Andreessen has been identified as a Musk ally. So we could write: "Ally – recruiter". This way, what you're looking for is solved: we have a network with personnel and allies. Like we say with our first sentence.
    It's hard to delineate when DOGE work stops. Lewin has now been nominated at DOS: does it put him out of DOGE, like we said of Coristine? Furthermore, that Coristine is officially out of DOGE does not mean much: "Whistleblower complaint alleges DOGE uploaded all Social Security numbers to an unsecured server - ABC News". Retrieved 2025-08-28.
    The deed is clearly attributed to DOGE.
    To emphasize the network instead of workers sidesteps these side issues. Our topic is the collective. We identify individuals because it allows us to see how the group has been formed. "Personnel" would have worked if DOGE wasn't so dodgy.
    I'm thinking out loud, but these are considerations I'm trying to determine for the construction of the page. So there. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch Lichtman, we now have a second source:
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/17/grant-termination-details-doge/
    Simonpour is also mentioned.
    Without any tie, however, we can't really tell which Lichtman it is. Adding this entry adds two white cells; three would have been too much.
    We're awaiting results of another FOIA request.
    Perhaps I should add that we also have the Targets page to work on, and that eventually we might even get to a full timeline. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, after a few hours of editing, we may have a robust table:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_of_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Table
    1. Its name is "DOGE associates"
    2. Columns are now: Name / Roles / Affiliations / Ties / Involvement / See
    3. Roles follow our sources, and comprise "Volunteer"
    4. Those with no official affiliation are identified as "DOGE"
    5. Ties will have types: Law; Musk; Startups; Thiel; Trump, perhaps some others - still working on this.
    6. Involvements allow nominal descriptions, which saves characters
    7. The See section is now reserved for Keys: the other cells will contain citations for specific claims.
    8. Affiliations will be timestamped when possible: this way we can easily see who left DOGE, like Gebbia, who joined Trump's new gig.
    So I think we can keep Network in the name, and preserve what has been said so far regarding other concepts. Those who have a clear employment status have both a formal role and at least one affiliation. Volunteers who "float around" DOGE (like Andreessen) are clearly identified as such. Volunteers who had a leg in and out (Gracias, Grabbia) are also identified as such.
    If that works for you, that's how we should iron out the details. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An update: the "associates" has been changed to "affiliates" based on these definitions:
    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1416
    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2868277 Selbsportrait (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I think we are holding something pretty simple yet robust:
    The DOGE network will consist of affiliates and allies. Affiliates are affiliated to at least one unit, and often detailed to others. Allies often have no affiliation except DOGE as a whole. There are exceptions, like Gracias.
    Looking at the early days of DOGE, up to November 2024, help see the importance of allies. They're the ones who brought in aids and associates, whom we could also call staffers or advisors.
    By using the concept of network, we don't need to make these relationships explicit. They flow naturally from our sources, but they can stay there.
    The distinction has been added to the Infobox. Another way to parry OR.
    Unless there are objections or suggestions, I will continue to work along these lines. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata contributions?

[edit]

especially if this article might be deleted, it would be great if people with programming chops could leverage the important work others have already done - take names, departments, source URLs and massage them into Wikidata ontology (super-obtuse, time-consuming 😕), instamagically enter corresponding statements Doug Grinbergs (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For that to work, we'd need structured data. Once we'll have a good table, why not? Selbsportrait (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I just stumbled upon this:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q132808612
Interesting. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here would be a better candidate for that kind of project:
https://dogetrack.info/about/downloading-data/
It's all in JSON already. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]