Topic: Developing a top level taxonomy for the 46 different Areas of Focus"?
Posts (1 - 20 of 41)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
|
|
camilla i think that is a good idea, i stumbled across this website a month or so ago, and pretty much was overwhelmed with the number of links etc. didn't return to the site again until today... I think websites like this one (wiserearth) and the bioneers etc. are great sources for networking amongst like minded individuals. The more simple and efficient the layout / navigation the more effective the website will be. I dont have any ideas at the moment (just put me on your payroll and i will figure it out though).
|
|
I agree, the site would be easier to use and navigate if we had a high level taxonomy into which all the current Areas of Focus would fit. Adam had spent some time doing that months ago, but do not know what ever came of his efforts. I do know that it was difficult trying to come up with only so many high level areas of focus, when the lower level areas were already created. I almost think the site would benefit from starting at the highest level with 20 Areas and creating new sub-areas under that.
But that would create technical problems. For example, how would material tagged with the old areas of focus 'convert' to the new areas? Not to mention the difficulty of deciding on what those twenty areas should be. |
|
Hey, all:
I would like to ask a couple of questions dealing with the hierarchy. Is it the desire to have only a 2-tiered system? I would describe the current system this way, with the top level and the actual AoFs being the 2-tiers. I have mentioned this before in another of the several topics devoted to this issue, so I wonder why a fuller, several-tiered system wouldn't be better organized? People could select at any level, from general to quite specific; e.g., I might select "Biology" or "Sustainability" right off the top, whereas someone else might select "Butterfly Habitat Loss" or "Amphibian Extinctions" from "Biology", or "Sustainable Inner City Development" or "Sustainable Global Trade" from "Sustainability". BTW, all but the last are real world topics--the last is a cruel joke. This would still be consistent with the 15-20 top categories, but if logically organized should be easier to navigate. Camilla, I did notice in one of the other topics you had a list of proposed top level categories. Could you offer it again or direct me to it? I have had some problem with some inconsistencies and omissions in the AoFs, and it would be nice to see these, and any I am not at all familiar with, be resolved, so this is a helpful subject. It would also be helpful to confine the discussion to one stream of messages, to cut down on the redundancies redundancies. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
Hey all,
We definitely need to reclassify and reorganize the 379 Sub Areas of Focus and 46 Main Area of Focus into a taxonomy which fits the ideal described - by Camilla to be "much more useable and much more easily navigable" by making "3-5 top level categories that all of the 46 main areas of focus would fit into". - by SustainableDavid to solve "some problem with some inconsistencies and omissions in the AoFs" by creating a "a fuller, several-tiered system" where "people could select at any level, from general to quite specific". I guess this should be one of the highest priority in this early phase of WiserEarth development. We must solve this problem now when the user base and the resource base is still relatively small, i.e. while the problem at hand is still within managable limits, is still relatively "small". An effective taxonomy coupled with a highly functional AoF portal page template adam is developing @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/74e8b37279c057c969dc47f0ee40ac1e would I suspect, be the nexus of WiserEarth dynamics. So, based on these considerations, here's my suggestion: 1. We need to reassess our current "379 Sub Areas of Focus and 46 Main Area of Focus" to solve "some problem with some inconsistencies and omissions in the AoFs". This could mean that we simply reorganize the current 379 Sub Areas of Focus into a new "xx" (read: any number) Main Area of Focus, or to the extreme of deleting some of the 379 Sub Areas of Focus and make new Sub Areas of Focus and Main Area of Focus. Either way, we need to make "xxx" Sub Areas of Focus without unnecessary redundancies and with a level of detail that can accommodate the wide variety of issues in our cause. 2. We can thus use a three-tier taxonomy where we have 3-5 top level categories to fit the existing 46 Main Area of Focus (or the resulting xx Main Area of Focus from step No.1), which will contain the 379 Sub Areas of Focus (or the resulting xxx Sub Areas of Focus from step No.1). 3. For the 3-5 top level categories, I can not find a better candidate than the excellent classification in the Earth Charter @ http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html which are: - Ecological Integrity - Social and Economic Justice - Democracy, Nonviolence and Peace 4. Anything more detailed than the three-tier taxonomy should be accommodated in the Sub Areas of Focus portal, which template is being designed by adam at this very moment. Try to have a look at adam's template, and you will see that we can do this under the "sub-topics" tab. The Earth Charter, by the way, is a result of a long process (over a decade) of global consultation between thousands of NGOs which represents millions of individuals with a whole range of backgrounds and progressive activities (you can read the history of this document @ http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=401 or http://earthcharterinaction.org/pdfs/TEC-ENG-PDF/ENG-Vilela.pdf) When you read the Earth Charter, you will notice the parallel of Earth Charter's 12 (of 16) main principles and some 53 sub-principles (under those 12 principles) with WiserEarth's 46 Main AoF and 379 Sub AoF. You will notice also that the Earth Charter certainly is doing a better job than WE AoF taxonomy at making itself "readable" and "usable" in compliance with the "usability best practice" that Camilla mentioned. So, for our problem here, I will first ask you to read the 12 (of 16) main principles of Earth Charter under the three categories mentioned above (and more importantly the sub-principles of each main principle), and then list WiserEarth's 46 Main Area of Focus under that three category to point out the benefit of using Earth Charter as a guide for WiserEarth Taxonomy. Without further adue, here's the list of Earth Charter's 12 main principles and folowing this list an example of how we can classify WiserEarth's 46 Main AoF under Earth Charter's three categories: *** ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY *** 5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life. 6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. 7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. 8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired. *** SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE *** 9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative. 10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner. 11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity. 12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities. *** DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE AND PEACE *** 13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice. 14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life. 15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration. 16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace. *** ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY *** Agriculture and Farming Air Animalia Biodiversity Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Conservation Ecology Energy Fisheries Forestry Global Climate Change Greening of Industry Health Inland Water Ecosystems Mining Plants Pollution Religion, Ecology, and Sustainability Sustainable Cities Sustainable Design Sustainable Development Technology Terrestrial Ecosystems Water *** SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE *** Business and Economics Community Development Children and Youth Civil Society Organizations: Nonprofits, Philanthropy, and Social Entrepreneurs Democracy and Voting Food and Nourishment Globalization Governance Human Rights and Social Justice Indigenous People and Rights Law, Policy and Property Rights Men Population Poverty Eradication Seniors Women Work *** DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE AND PEACE *** Arts Education Cultural Heritage Media Peace, War and Security From this excercise, we can learn the following things: - The distribution is skewed towards "Ecological Integrity" with the least number of Main AoFs under "Democracy, Nonviolence and Peace" - Some WE main AoF seems too specific to be designated a "Main AoF" status (such as Mining and Pollution, which may possibly be put as the Sub AoF of Greening Industry or Sustainable Development. Or Animalia and Plants which may possibly be put as the Sub Aof of Biodiversity. This is just my preliminary opinon though) - By now, I think you can agree with me that Earth Charter provides a better classification (least redundancy, and high usability) of issues into sub-principles than how WiserEarth divide and classify it's Main and Sub AoF. I personally haven't put enough time around the possible usage of Earth Charter as a guide for WE's AoF taxonomy, but the above analysis illustrate the possibility. If you can agree with my point, we can "put our minds" together to clarify this possibility and make it a reality. Which then leads us to michael's concern "but that would create technical problems. For example, how would material tagged with the old areas of focus 'convert' to the new areas?", which we must also resolve if we truly wish to use WE's AoF and AoF portal pages as the centres of dynamics between WE's entities (people, orgs, events, groups, etc.). I'll say it once again: solving our problem of removing redundancies and clarifying WE's AoF taxonomy, and then recategorized already tagged WiserEarth entities (people, resource, events, etc.) into the new taxonomy, is I believe a necessary path to take to make the future growth of WiserEarth a smooth one--however difficult this would be. And we MUST solve this problem while it is still within managable limits, is still relatively small (small user base, small entity base). This is why the "thinking/designing step" is the most important step in doing production of any kind, to prevent unwanted consequences after the product is released (this applies to buildings, electronics and cities as well as to earth charter and WiserEarth AoF taxonomy). Hope I'm not being too harsh on our current taxonomy design :) By the way, why haven't WiserEarth endorse Earth Charter? |
|
|
Bowo - From one perspective - I see where you are coming from: It is better to have things perfect before WiserEarth becomes very large. I have come to that conclusion on this topic and other topics as well.
Unfortunately, there is a drawback to that approach: Until WiserEarth has a significant user base AND true democratic systems in place, actions taken by WiserEarth are not representative of our community. Responding to our user feedback is essential, but is it really a 'community-owned' site if a few of the most active users recommend a taxonomy [a massive undertaking] and say it should be implemented for the entire site? Even adopting the Earth Charter, which sounds like it was developed in a participatory way, is not democratic on WiserEarth if a few of us say, "Let's adopt the Earth Charter." WiserEarth, like every non-profit endeavor, has to prioritize its resources. Especially technical resources. Right now there are focused on bugs and document upload capability. While, I think these conversations are important and epitomize what this space was created for, please recognize the inability and even the hesitancy to immediately respond to only a few members of the community. |
|
|
Michael - Yep, you got that one right about me, I am a perfectionist to some extent :)
I understand your point on the "democratization" process in WiserEarth. I looked it up in the Editor's Page upon my first week in joining WE (which is about 4 months ago). I'm eager to hear the latest development on this front. Regarding to the taxonomy reorganization and adoption of Earth Charter, I have to say my sorry for using a language which may have sounded "too demanding" and "too ignorant" of the resource constraint that WE staff are experiencing. This is what usually happens when I'm bursting with ideas and get over-excited :P (by the way, I do know about the resource constraint situation) If the reorganization of AoF taxonomy is considered too big a task to be tackled by our small user base, we can of course just discuss about it for now. This is what I mean when I said "If you can agree with my point, we can "put our minds" together to clarify this possibility and make it a reality." Well... other than the "make it a reality" part of course :) which comes from the over-excitement :) I just hope this won't turn into a "chicken and egg" problem of which comes first, huge user base (with "democratization" in place)? or site usability? I also think that we need to work on the taxonomy prior to implementing adam's AoF portal design to each Sub AoF. I imagine it would be much harder (technically) to reorganize the taxonomy once the portal is up and running. (but again, the NCI staff must've thought about this before I do). So, in no way did I mean to "force" my ideas to be implemented right away, it's just the over-excitement (and my lack of proficiency in the English language, which prevents me from selecting and using a more sympathetic language). Very sorry Michael. I do however, still believe in the importance of the design process prior to production. And again, I would love to hear the latest development in the "democratization" feature. By the way, what do you think of the ideas I presented on the taxonomy reorganization? at least on the "3-5 top level taxonomy" part. #P.S. I misplaced the "Democracy and Voting" Main AoF, which should've been placed under "DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE AND PEACE", and I would like to add another thing to "From this excercise, we can learn the following things:" - We can maybe pull out some Sub AoF into the position of Main AoF such as Sustainability Education, and Democracy Education (If i remember the naming right). |
|
|
Hey, all:
First, just one quick, friendly, gentle admonition for our friend Bowo. You have nothing to apologize for regarding your language and writing skills. In fact, it was quite a while before I realized you write from Jakarta, Indonesia. I am accustomed to reading often rather poorly written comments in many other venues by many educated in American schools. We in the English-speaking USA should have more writers with your skills and command of English. On the other hand, I suspect only a precious few Americans are able to converse at all, in virtually any of the native South East Asian languages. I do believe we do not have to wait until things are so vastly improved that they appear to approach perfection. The way to avoid the "chicken and egg" paradox is to realize we are not passive chickens or eggs, and go ahead and suggest changes which we as a conscientious group perceive to be useful. I actually think where and if we can make the site more useful and usable, this will promote greater participation by users. I don't think it would work as well the other way around. All else being equal, if I see a site that is well-organized and easy to use, and one that is not, I choose the former, and I suspect I am not alone. One of the problems with democracies in all times and places is participation. In many cases a minority of participants sets the policy for all. WE seems to be no different--if you scroll through the activity listing of People, after a few pages activity drops off to a very low level. An improved site would probably improve this situation. Ease of participation begets greater participation. WE is well organized, and this is due to the effort of talented, hardworking, dedicated people, but we as a part of the community can help improve it, to make it better. I would like to repeat my question about whether a 2-tiered hierarchy is the rule, or more levels can be implemented. To some extent, this can be done while maintaining the AoFs currently in use, but merely more logically reorganized, reflecting the principles Camilla has suggested. AoFs could be added where needed without creating chaos, but deleting AoFs already in use might leave some users and organizations in the lurch, with no AoFs selected. Michael, I do understand the constraints of time, people, budgets, priorities, etc., so I understand the need to be patient with processes that are beyond our control. In the meantime, however, I see no reason why reasonable improvements should not be ready when they can be implemented. Camilla has done some research on hierarchy and improved structure that deserves attention. Let's use some of that framework, add the feedback we have received, and put something together, that when the time comes, can be implemented. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Well said David.
Lesson learned. Million thanks. (You are too generous though with the compliments. I still have much to learn.) And again, very sorry Michael, if I've accidentally (and maybe subconsciously) undermined in so many ways the tremendous effort that has been put in making WiserEarth into it's excellent shape now. Never did I intentionally mean to do so. It's just that I've been pondering for a while on how to integrate Earth Charter's principles into WiserEarth, and it just happens that Camilla's idea on a 3-5 top level taxonomy, David's idea on a more-than-two-tier taxonomy, and Adam's portal template design "clicked" in my head, and got me overexcited on the possible integration into a workable solution, and on it's possible benefits to improve the current taxonomy. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, the best of intention is never enough, and the end does not justify the means. My sincere regrets, Bowo |
|
|
Thank you Bowo, Thank you David, Thank you Michael. All excellent comments.
The answer is yes, we can have a 3 tier taxonomy. As David points out, I think that a change to the current taxonomy will be critical to getting a critical mass of users to enable 'democratization' of the site to take place. At the moment, we are the WiserEarth community. However, I propose a evolution rather than a revolution in terms of the current AOFs - that is we build the next level up. If we do this, it shouldn't change any of the AOFs that have already been selected by orgs and people, it will just simplify the AOF page and the AOF selection box - both of which I believe is technically achievable. I think Bowo's suggestion for the Earth Charter's categories is a good one - but lets keeping looking at alternatives. If we cannot find any improvements to this. I would suggest that we propose this to WE users....and go from there. Your thoughts? PS the suggested AOFs I also proposed were used by 'Taking It Global' - check out their website, as it is also a good example for this discussion. |
|
|
ms camilla my apologies if my comments came across as deconstructive, compared to you and other contributers in this discussion i am a computer illiterate country bumpkin dazzled by all the pictures and links... after reading all your comments I will readily admit you would have to pay for my computer literacy classes in addition to putting me on the payroll all with no results guranteed. i honestly just saw your comment and the concept of simplification made sense to me as i was overwhelmed back to the metaphorical hayfields the first time i visited the site, and i am guessing there might be some others out there with the same experience judging by the number of users their level of activity etc.. the more i explore this thing though, the more i appreciate the great selfless work you and the other editors are doing, and the great powerful comprehensive database you have created. thanks for the great work, let me know if there is anything i can do to support you or your work.
|
|
|
*** TAKING IT GLOBAL ***
Here's what folks at Taking It Global did to classify the issues of our day ARTS & MEDIA: - Advertising & Marketing Culture - Arts - Freedom of Expression - Independent Media & Mass Media - Intellectual Property - Television & Film - Writing & Publishing CULTURE & IDENTITY: - Citizenship & Belonging - Ethnicity & Race - Gender - Religion & Spirituality ENVIRONMENT & URBANIZATION: - Animal Rights - Climate Change - Consumerism & Pollution - Natural Disasters - Sustainable Development - Water, Oil & Energy HEALTH & WELLNESS: - Diseases - Fitness & Sport - HIV/AIDS - Sexuality - Substance Abuse HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUITY: - Children's Rights - Civil Liberties - Disability Rights - Indigenous Peoples Rights - Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Rights - Refugee Rights - Rights of Minorities - Women's Rights LEARNING & EDUCATION: - Alternative Schools & Learning - Educational Technology - Informal/Experiential Learning - Literacy - Standards-based Education PEACE, CONFLICT & GOVERNANCE: - Arms Control - Good Governance - Peace Building - Youth Violence TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION: - Digital Divide - Internet Governance - Mobile Communications - Online Safety & Security - Telecentres - Universal Design WORK & ECONOMICS - Agriculture & Food Security Corporate Social Responsibility - Economic Migration & Migrant Workers - International Aid & Debt Relief -Labour Rights - Poverty - Social Welfare & Social Programs - Youth Unemployment & Entrepreneurship *** WORLD FUTURE COUNCIL *** Here's what folks at World Future Council @ http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org did to define "Key Global Challenges" we are facing: ENVIRONMENT "The key global challenges grouped together in this category concern our relationship with the planet that supports us. With limited natural resources, an increasingly urbanised and ever-growing population, and the looming threat of irreversible climate change, the need to reconsider the way we interact with our environment has never been more pressing. Paramount to this is the acknowledgement that we are a part of the global ecosystem and not its rulers." - Healthy Food for All - Clean Water for All - Safe Energy and Transport - Tackling Climate Change - Sustainable and Liveable Cities - Intelligent and Sensitive Building - Sustainable Use of Forests - Sustainable Use of the Oceans SOCIAL ISSUES "The key global challenges grouped together in this category are concerned with ensuring that people across the world can lead healthy and fulfilled lives. This involves embracing the diversity of human traits and capabilities, and acknowledging that we are all equal and yet distinct." - Human Rights and Responsibilities - Revitalising Democracy - Peace Education and Conflict Healing - Health and Medicine - Education and the Media - Indigenous People and Bio-cultural Diversity - Childrens’ Rights - Science and Spirituality ECONOMICS AND POLITICS "The key global challenges grouped together in this category are concerned with the organisation of human societies and the relationships between them. This involves fair and peaceful exchange, and an equitable distribution of costs and benefits in the creation of global welfare." - Good Work for All - Responsible Entrepreneurship - Monetary and Tax Reforms - Fair Trade - Reform of International Institutions - Nuclear Disarmament - Biological, Chemical and Conventional Disarmament - Socially and Environmentally Responsible Production and Technologies |
|
|
By the way, though not immediately related to our topic, I have some questions regarding the taxonomy design which should help us (especially non-NCI users) in considering changes to, and development of, our current taxonomy in the future, including finding suitable top level AoF. Here they are:
1. What is the general policy (guideline) of the taxonomy design? (i.e. How did the current taxonomy came into being and how will this guideline determine the development of the taxonomy in the future?) 2. Will there be a cap on the numbers of Sub AoF? (this will relate to JTHESSERT's concern of too many links) 3. What are the parameters in deciding that a particular issue be given the status of Sub AoF and given a corresponding portal page? (i.e. at what level of detail will an issue be given the status of Sub AoF, instead of a sub-topic within a Sub AoF) 4. Will the taxonomy be limited to three levels of Top AoF, Main AoF and Sub AoF? or will there be a fourth to accommodate the growing numbers of Sub AoF (some of which might also be too detailed/specific to be given the status of Sub AoF)? 5. If in the end we have, say, 1000 Sub AoF and 1000 corresponding portals, will this be OK? In other words, regardless of the difficulty in reading a list of 1000 topics to choose from, was the original intention of the taxonomy design to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals? Or is it expected that this will be solved by "simplify[ing] the AOF page and the AOF selection box" as Camilla mentioned? For example, by using a tree-like collapsible/expandable list of AoF (as MichaelK suggested in another discussion) while maintaining 1000 sub AoF and portals? 6. Is merging/deleting Sub AoF a possibility? or an absolute no? 7. Currently there seems to be a cap of 60 Sub AoF that a user can select (and perhaps any other WiserEarth entities such as orgs, resources, events, etc.). Why 60 instead of 10 for example? Is this number changeable? What role did this cap was intended to play in the first place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of assigning this cap ? 8. Other than the difficulty/impossibility of deleting/merging Sub AoF, I noticed that the design of the current taxonomy is actually quite flexible for change. This is because, WiserEarth entities can only be assigned Sub AoF (not the Main AoF, and seemingly not the Top AoF we are trying to find in this discussion), which means that the Main AoF is quite flexible for change (creating new, deletion, or merger some) without affecting the current assignment of Sub AoF to WE entities. Is this observation of mine agreeable? or the Main AoF, like the sub AoF are not changeable (no deletion/merger)? 9. At the level of Sub AoF with our 8000 or so user base, there seems to be discrepancies or anomalies which could be hints in developing/changing the current taxonomy. For example: Popular ones: - Human Rights Protection (10116 organizations) (300 users) - Environmental Education (13176 organizations) (1007 users) Not-so-popular ones: - Aquarium Trade (3 organizations) (24 users) - Male Circumcision (9 organizations) (24 users) - Shrublands (11 organizations) (35 users) This facts relates to question no. 3 above, in the way that, isn't "Aquarium Trade" an issue too specific/detailed to be put in the same level with "Environmental Education" within the taxonomy? While dedicating a portal to a deep and broad issue like "Environmental Education" makes a lot of sense, won't dedicating a portal page for a specific issue like "Male Circumcision" an overkill? Isn't it better to put issues such as this as "sub-topics" within Sub AoF? Or are these facts just caused by our too-small user base? Or are all of these facts OK in the sense that "the original intention of the taxonomy design was to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals"? (refer to question no.5) 10. Some Sub AoF seems alike or are about similar issues. For example, in "(Main AoF) Sub AoF" format: (Business and Economics) Ecological Economics (Business and Economics) Natural Capitalism (Greening of Industry) Industrial Ecology (Sustainable Development) Sustainable Development When a portal (such as the on adam is designing at the moment) is assigned to each sub AoF, "Discussions" on a topic, say "Calculating Earth's carrying capacity" may happen across four portals simultaneously. Is this ok? 11. Some Sub AoF can seemingly be put under more than one Main AoF. For example: - (Sustainable Design) Sustainable Materials Sub AoF--> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF. - (Greening of Industry) Life Cycle Assessment Sub AoF --> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF. That's about it for now, sorry if some are incorrect/unfounded and some are too critical, but I feel that these are important questions to answer if we wish to improve upon the design of our AoF taxonomy and prevent unwanted consequences from the design. I will of course try to put my mind around these questions myself and see what comes out. |
|
|
Hey, all:
Excellent comments all. Being able to ask questions and get answers is vital to progress. Camilla: Your comment "At the moment, we are the WiserEarth community." is perfect, and furthermore, is correct at any given moment. As long as we act conscientiously, we'll make progress (a lesson for Washington, DC, perhaps?) I know you had printed in another of the similar topics here a list of 8-10 categories to reduce the 46 down to a more manageable number, but I cannot find it now. Since this one topic has now dominated, would you please print that list here? That might also be a starting point, and seems similar to one that Bowo printed below. J.T: 'Yew ain't no country bumpkin.' I can tell you have writing skills, so don't sell yourself short. I would ask you sincerely, though, to find and use the "Caps" key on your computer. No one with your skills could not know what that key is used for. I also appreciate that you speak "Dog", so no hidin' your candle under a bushel. Bowo: Great questions. For clarity, I suggest we use conventional levels in this 3-tier hierarchy, i.e., from general to specific, Roman numerals, English letters, and Arabic numbers. Seems cosmopolitan enough. This way we can discuss lumping and splitting things more easily. Based on what I remember from Camilla's list, I would guess the categories in her list are I, II, III categories. Titles A, B, C would fill in below the top level, and above the existing specific AoFs. These specific AoFs plus added entries, would be the 1, 2, 3 level. I suggest this is used for our work, but it doesn't have to be retained for the WE community's use. I would like to ask two questions of my own here. 1) Will the user be able to choose as an AoF one of the upper levels, i.e., not a AoF3? For example, my interests are so broad, I could choose the general AoFs "Biology", "Justice", and "Sustainability", if they were available, and be done. These 3 would cover many, many more specific AoFs. As it is, when I set up my profile, I ran out of choices! 2) What is the difference between an AoF and a portal (or a subportal for that matter)? Are the terms interchangeable? I personally would prefer to have some limit on the total number of AoFs. What we have now is kinda overwhelming, but I think reorganizing will help. If we add no more than 10% AoFs (~30) that should fill in many possible gaps in an already pretty comprehensive list. I think we should try and resist the AoFs getting overweight, which is how I see adding a lot more. However, I will acquiesce to whatever guidance others provide on that issue. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Hey, all:
I have two quick technical questions for someone: 1) How many total bottom level AoFs are there? 2) When I scroll through the AoFs, a number is associated with each of them on the URL in the Status Bar of my browser. Do those numbers have any use but for the URL? Can it help to refer to them in our conversations? I have been looking at the AoFs to learn them and these two questions occurred to me. Thanks for the help. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Hi David,
For two of your questions, if I'm not mistaken: "What is the difference between an AoF and a portal (or a subportal for that matter)? Are the terms interchangeable?" An AoF (Area of Focus) is the label of an issue while a (AoF) portal is a special WiserEarth page (now it's just a regular wikipage) dedicated to describing an AoF and pulling together other WiserEarth entities which relates to that particular AoF. In the future, the portal will be more than a simple wikipage. Check out the template design on this @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/74e8b37279c057c969dc47f0ee40ac1e (It's about the sub-AoF "Global Beef Industry"). You can compare it to the current portal on the same topic @ http://www.wiserearth.org/aof/710 I think for both Main AoF and Sub AoF, the term used for the speacial page is the same: "portal" (not sub-portal). "How many total bottom level AoFs are there?" From the text at the top of the Area of Focus page @ http://www.wiserearth.org/aof/browse, we currently have 379 Sub AoF (bottom level AoF) categorized under 46 Main AoF. Bowo |
|
|
Hey all,
I've finished some initial work on exploring the possibility of using the Earth Charter to help improve WiserEarth's current AoF taxonomy. If you're interested, please read the results in following wikipage: "What If We Use Earth Charter as a Guidance for the Taxonomy of WiserEarth's Areas of Focus?" @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/f1800201c074b24c9c18cb1e8275e9c6/section/main And join the discussion in: "Should We Use the Earth Charter for WiserEarth's AoF Taxonomy?" @ http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/4380d7f3eb32dc67a15ce7806519a172 Million thanks, Bowo |
|
|
Hi Bowo,
You've really done an impressive amount of work regarding this reclassification. I'm going to print out a hard copy and read it over so I can develop a thoughtful response. |
|
|
Hi Michael,
It did took me quite some time to figure things out and proceed with the work. But the experience is rewarding in and of itself to keep me motivated. Helped me to put together some fragmented and scattered thoughts. Looking forward for your response. Bowo # Now, I really need to fix that broken printer of mine.... |
|
|
Wow, Bowo - fantastic work. You have been busy! Great document and chart. I will take a look at these suggestions in detail and compare the Earth Charter taxonomy to that of the World Future Council - I think both have merit and would address the usablity issue that we are trying to solve. I think adding either one or two levels above the existing taxonomy will solve usability issues - this is the main issue we would like to address initially, at least for the time being, until we have the resources to address all the other issues around the taxonomy. To David's question, for the time-being, users will only be able to choose sub-AoFs (to David's question) to add to their profiles as a change to this will require a much larger overhaul of the current taxonomy system. In terms of the restriction of AoFs - this has now been removed. Users can add an unlimited number of sub-AoFs to their profiles. The topics that I had included on an earlier discussion were indeed the ones that Bowo listed from Taking IT Global: ARTS & MEDIA: CULTURE & IDENTITY: ENVIRONMENT & URBANIZATION: HEALTH & WELLNESS: HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUITY: LEARNING & EDUCATION: PEACE, CONFLICT & GOVERNANCE: TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION: WORK & ECONOMICS To Bowo's questions: 1. What is the general policy (guideline) of the taxonomy design? (i.e. How did the current taxonomy came into being and how will this guideline determine the development of the taxonomy in the future?) It was driven by the content that was found through researching the 100,000 organizations that populate the organizations database. We had about 100 people all over the world (including staff, volunteers, interns) who inputted the data and helped to develop the taxonomy based on their research (if the work of an organization didn't fit with any of the existing AOFs, a new area was created. A naturalist also helped to consult on the AOFs and many of his recommendations were integrated into the list. 2. Will there be a cap on the numbers of Sub AoF? (this will relate to JTHESSERT's concern of too many links) No, I don't think there will be a cap, however, I don't imagine there will be more than a handful of additions - WE didn't presume to have covered all areas of focus, so this has purposely been left open for discussion and feedback. E.g. Men and Violence was added more recently as this had not been included and a number of community members felt very strongly about its addition to the taxonomy. 3. What are the parameters in deciding that a particular issue be given the status of Sub AoF and given a corresponding portal page? (i.e. at what level of detail will an issue be given the status of Sub AoF, instead of a sub-topic within a Sub AoF) The way for deciding whether a sub AoF should exist or not...is based on whether the existing AoFs are broad enough that they will include a number of organizations, but not too specific that it covers just one or two organizations. At the moment, the additions of the new AOFs was based on feedback from a number of members of the community - they justified the inclusion/addition of the new sub AoFs based on their expertise in the area. We wrote the new definitions/portals with the help of the community and then added these. 4. Will the taxonomy be limited to three levels of Top AoF, Main AoF and Sub AoF? or will there be a fourth to accommodate the growing numbers of Sub AoF (some of which might also be too detailed/specific to be given the status of Sub AoF)? Either a 3 level or 4 level taxonomy would work given the current number of AoFs - it is up to the editors group to decide which would enhance the user experience the most. 5. If in the end we have, say, 1000 Sub AoF and 1000 corresponding portals, will this be OK? In other words, regardless of the difficulty in reading a list of 1000 topics to choose from, was the original intention of the taxonomy design to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals? Or is it expected that this will be solved by "simplify[ing] the AOF page and the AOF selection box" as Camilla mentioned? For example, by using a tree-like collapsible/expandable list of AoF (as MichaelK suggested in another discussion) while maintaining 1000 sub AoF and portals? I don't believe we will ever have 1000 sub AoFs - again, we are not trying to grow the AoFs actively since this would be too many categories for anyone to navigate through. However, we may find that this list needs to extend a bit to include all the great work that is being done out there to address the issues of the day. In terms of collaboration, the current list of 379 AoFs is already long - I think we really need to improve the tools for collaboration (and usability) rather than increase the number of issue areas covered (which I don't think is an issue for users). 6. Is merging/deleting Sub AoF a possibility? or an absolute no? Indeed, this could happen....we haven't done this yet, so not sure how it would be approached from a technical perspective. 7. Currently there seems to be a cap of 60 Sub AoF that a user can select (and perhaps any other WiserEarth entities such as orgs, resources, events, etc.). Why 60 instead of 10 for example? Is this number changeable? What role did this cap was intended to play in the first place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of assigning this cap ? This is now unlimited. 8. Other than the difficulty/impossibility of deleting/merging Sub AoF, I noticed that the design of the current taxonomy is actually quite flexible for change. This is because, WiserEarth entities can only be assigned Sub AoF (not the Main AoF, and seemingly not the Top AoF we are trying to find in this discussion), which means that the Main AoF is quite flexible for change (creating new, deletion, or merger some) without affecting the current assignment of Sub AoF to WE entities. Is this observation of mine agreeable? or the Main AoF, like the sub AoF are not changeable (no deletion/merger)? Absolutely....as a result I think we could implement this new high level taxonomy relatively easily as long as the main and sub AoFs are kept in place. 9. At the level of Sub AoF with our 8000 or so user base, there seems to be discrepancies or anomalies which could be hints in developing/changing the current taxonomy. For example: Popular ones: - Human Rights Protection (10116 organizations) (300 users) - Environmental Education (13176 organizations) (1007 users) Not-so-popular ones: - Aquarium Trade (3 organizations) (24 users) - Male Circumcision (9 organizations) (24 users) - Shrublands (11 organizations) (35 users) This facts relates to question no. 3 above, in the way that, isn't "Aquarium Trade" an issue too specific/detailed to be put in the same level with "Environmental Education" within the taxonomy? While dedicating a portal to a deep and broad issue like "Environmental Education" makes a lot of sense, won't dedicating a portal page for a specific issue like "Male Circumcision" an overkill? Isn't it better to put issues such as this as "sub-topics" within Sub AoF? Or are these facts just caused by our too-small user base? Or are all of these facts OK in the sense that "the original intention of the taxonomy design was to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals"? (refer to question no.5) Again we want to be able to be as inclusive as possible, but without being too broad. The question is 'what is too broad' and 'what is too inclusive'. For example, the community member who suggested male circumcision was very passionate about the reason why this new sub-area should be included - he made a very good case for inclusion and so it was added. But by adding it retrospectively, it does not have many orgs tagged with that AoF. In terms of Aquarium Trade, there are organizations that work in this area and it would be too broad to put them in 'global trade' or 'fish', so for people who are specifically looking to address this area, Aquarium Trade really does describe the work being done. 10. Some Sub AoF seems alike or are about similar issues. For example, in "(Main AoF) Sub AoF" format: (Business and Economics) Ecological Economics (Business and Economics) Natural Capitalism (Greening of Industry) Industrial Ecology (Sustainable Development) Sustainable Development When a portal (such as the on adam is designing at the moment) is assigned to each sub AoF, "Discussions" on a topic, say "Calculating Earth's carrying capacity" may happen across four portals simultaneously. Is this ok? It is tricky avoiding cross-over in any categorization, especially given the extent of the fields of work that the social justice and environmental movement are involved in. Any Aof page can be linked to any sub-portal (and the same for sub-portals) , so that the issue of cross-over will be addressed. 11. Some Sub AoF can seemingly be put under more than one Main AoF. For example: - (Sustainable Design) Sustainable Materials Sub AoF--> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF. - (Greening of Industry) Life Cycle Assessment Sub AoF --> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF. Yes, they can....again, this cross-over is bound to happen. Over time, however, we hope to be able to minimize this redundancy as we improve the AoFs further. |
1 to 20 of 41 Posts
Does anyone have any suggestions for a list of top level AOFs from 15-20 for any category using an inverted pyramid for the content. This shorter list will help to make the AOFs much more useable and much more easily navigable.
i.e. We’d need 3-5 top level categories that all of the 46 main areas of focus would fit into.