WiserEarth API Developers
Your source for documentation and support
The WiserEarth API is the ultimate resource for building web applications that help "Connect You to Communities of Action". It is a language and message format used by a remote application program to communicate with the WiserEarth control program to access or write information into our database. This group is a place for developers to share information, fin ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Dec 10, 2008
Updated: Nov 23, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Posts (21 - 32 of 32)
|
Flag comment for removal johncoate about 1 year ago
I would think that an editor's main duty/responsibility would be to focus on accuracy. Helping the data be most accurate and up to date, esp on orgs who aren't doing it for themselves. Encouraging discussion - sure thing. Definitely. But again to me accuracy is the mantra for that role. I would be fairly conservative in metering out privileges that have to do with site governance, especially in this very early stage. For one thing, I don't think you need it - the workload isn't that great for such things, and I think it diverts people from the business at hand, which is making the index as good as it can be and helping people inhabit the place.
|
|
John, I agree that accuracy of the data should be a priority. Here is a discussion of what an "Area of Focus manager (steward? editor?)" could do: http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/1b34f5d30110d4732aae56b9e8439016
If we can agree that there is a need for quality-control in our data, then we'll need to organize volunteers, interns and well-meaning and informed users to help. However, as you point out, the demand for users with privileges is not high at this early stage of WE... so perhaps its too early to try to pinpoint editors' responsibilities. The responsibilities I have as an editor include checking the non-profit status and appropriateness of new content on WiserEarth, and removing it when necessary. Editors also edit the many protected pages on WE, which serve to describe or guide WE to new users. That is all I need my Editor status for. Perhaps studying the models of Wikipedia and other wiki sites is too much of a top-down approach at this pt. Since quality-control (updating, improving content) is what we need in the site to create value, I think we should think about how we can reach this goal. Once we figure out a system in place for WE users to improve the quality of WiserEarth, we'll be in a much better position to identify and distribute roles and responsibilities. |
|
John, regarding your comment: "Encouraging discussion - sure thing. Definitely.", our pardon as admins of the group for not making it clear that the reason why we encourage discussions is first and foremost because the group has only been partially set up. We need ideas and edits from group member to build a solid foundation for the group.
As you will see in other discussions labeled with "(SETUP)", especially "(SETUP) Group Vision and Activities", your concern on providing accurate and up-to-date information on organization profiles and AoFs are also a part of the activity this group wish to facilitate. More recently, through the "Share" and "Weave" initiative, we would also like this group to facilitate users who wish to help in populating WE's database. As for the accuracy of privileges and responsibilities of Editors, I think I resonate with you and Mike that there's no great need for it at the moment. A few trusted editors can do the job. I'm not sure how deep the privileges are hard-coded to the Editor status, but if possible, I would like to see the privileges to edit protected contents (AoF portal and guide pages) and manage a page (deleting/locking/marking protected content, org's, resource, wikipages, etc.) be separated. While the ability to edit such page should be given to editors with expertise in each AoF and in WE's guidance pages, the ability to manage a page should only be given to more trusted editors who understands WE's principles, content standard, etc. This way, we can easily separate the distribution of "edit" and "manage" privileges as needed. However, at present I'm not seeing any abuse yet of these privileges. So perhaps, there's no urgent need to separate the two yet, and the separation of these two might just complicate things a bit. The most important thing I guess, is that, editors should be people who can be trusted not to abuse the privileges that come with the status Thus, I would like to see some clear requirements on getting an Editor status and some responsibilities attached to it, including the possibility of revoking the status based on agreed conditions. ---------------- On AoF portals, I would like to mention the new portal template adam is designing @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/74e8b37279c057c969dc47f0ee40ac1e (compare it to the current portal for the same AoF (Global Beef Industry) @ http://www.wiserearth.org/aof/710) We will see there under the "People and Groups" tab in the "People" section, we have the following division: - Simply Interested - Experienced Activists and Workers - Experts I'm not sure how the template will actually work to facilitate this division, but I imagined that editing privilege for the "Knowledge" tab should only be given to the latter two (Experienced and Expert), which can be given a WE Editor status, while Simply Interested people (regular WE Users) can put up suggestions to improve the "Knowledge" tab in the "Discussions" tab. We can also accommodate Simply Interested people to contribute under the "Sub-Topics" tab, which can be made freely editable/add-able by regular users. Selected contents from the "Sub-Topics" can then be further refined by Experienced and Expert people to later on be moved over under the "Knowledge" tab. Just an idea. Maybe we can get adam to join this discussion and explain his thoughts when crafting that portal mock-up? |
|
|
One thing I do know from experience is that once you confer a right on someone or some group it is difficult to take it away without inevitable bad feelings and quarreling from those who see those rights or powers diminished. This is one reason - maybe the main reason - why I think it isn't a good idea to give away too much too soon, especially when it comes to governance beyond direct editing for accuracy and timeliness. It IS good to discuss it so when the system is more set you aren't groping around without having thought it through, but if there aren't real problems that need to be solved by granting a lot of powers to groups of people, then I wouldn't do it. There is plenty of time still for such things and it will be more clear later what's needed.
|
|
Hey, all:
I am sorry I have not been keeping up, but one clear distinction that must be made is that between a privilege and a right. In a cyber-community, I would say the distinction is not as clear as in the real world, but still here the rights remain with the owner and privileges are extended from that entity. As such, when you get down to it, only a very few have rights, but most of us have a big basket of privileges. The responsibility associated with the privilege is to live up to the ethics and standards of the site. We have a lot of autonomy within limits, to remind and even enforce these standards for others, and to exercise them carefully ourselves. Conventionally, rights are sacred, and can be exercised to extremes without consequence, and even then diligent due process is required. Privileges have no such guarantees of protection at all, and can be changed at the whim of the owner. The success of an entity can be measured by the fairness and discipline of those changes. I guess I have not seen any clear, official statement of conduct and activities, and for most it is not needed, but at some point such a presentation will be needed. Limits will be tested. All open Internet groups have growing pains, and WE are/is no different. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
thanks for those much-needed clarifications David, I might have been using them interchangeably, or without defining them.
|
|
|
This comment was removed by a WiserEarth editor for the following reason:
incomplete |
|
|
A while ago Bowo, you said: "As for the accuracy of privileges and
responsibilities of Editors, I
think I resonate with you and Mike that there's no great need for it at
the moment. A few trusted editors can do the job." I agree with you...
but now I'd like to discuss the possibilty of WiserEarth being much
more community-driven in regards to content management.
Instead of just one of two editors constantly reviewing new content, there could be many more users taking charge in monitoring material. Perhaps one or two editors (probably NCI staff) can still keep a watchful eye on new content, but these one or two editors can't possibly monitor all the other content, so we'll have to expand the number of editors on the site. What incentive do users have to be Editors? How do we prevent Editors from not overlapping on monitoring the same content? We can't pay users to monitor material...and it'd be inefficient to just let loose a hundred Editors on the site with no direction...I see a couple incentives... First users need to be motivated to manage their Areas of Focus and their Community groups. We need to encourage users to have co-ownership of their groups with other members so that they would be encouraged to monitor new and old content (and remove or update as needed) in their group. Currently, users interested in WiserEarth Editor status can message Peggy (as explained on the Bulletin Board). How do we create this incentive? - There are no formal guidelines currently, but perhaps Editor status can be tied in with managing an Area of Focus of Community group. Other thoughts? Secondly users need to easily access the information that requires monitoring. Currently the Area of Focus Stewards groups and Global Community Stewards are places for stewards to converge. How do we create this incentive? - These steward groups need their own unique group display to help them manage their areas of focus or groups. Can their aof's / community's organizations, resources, events, etc. be automatically fed into the group and displayed in an easy-to-read manner as new data is entered? All content for communities and areas of focus currently must be manually entered, which makes this a tedious process. While I think we need to work on establishing a core set of volunteer Editors, there is also another (and possibly others?) ways of making sure WiserEarth content is updated and relevant. As WiserEarth's google rankings increase and as representatives from organizations check their e-mails from WiserEarth, they can update their WiserEarth profiles themselves and also help enrich the general content of the site. So I think that a core responsibility of an Editor would be to make sure that an organizations e-mail address is correct (especially for large orgs), because otherwise we would have no way to contact these thousands of organizations. To sum up, 1. Find some committed Users/Editors for Community Groups and Area of Focus Groups 2. Automatically send/feed WiserEarth content into these Groups 3. Updating e-mail addresses for large or "umbrella" organizations should be a priority |
|
Mike, I appreciate your thoughts and resurfacing this discussion. As WiserEarth completes its first year, I definitely see the need for WiserEarth to engage the community further so that members will want to take on a more active role - given that this site is built for and by community, this is critical to its future success.
You talk about incentives, however, I think that there already are incentives for any WiserEarth editor on both a personal as well as a more a humanitarian one - that is for 1) editors to be able to share their invaluable knowledge with the rest of the community and 2) they will be playing a key role helping the worldwide nonprofit community and those that support their work. For those who are looking to experience more a 'community building role' as Volunteer Editors (I'm thinking that there are many students around the world who would be very interested in volunteering for this role), that their are plenty of ways for them to spread the word and, simultaneously, to build an addditional experience that they can add to their resume. Finally, I think that if there is a good description of the various tasks that editors can take on, then WiserEarth will be able to build up the active editorial participation that it desires and requires. |
|
|
I agree with what Michael said regarding the need for WiserEarth to be "much more community-driven in regards to content management." And his following points is spot on too:
The first one can I think be formalized into Editor "Roles" and given a set of tasks for each. The second one should probably be suggested in the WiserEarth suggestions group. This would however, require that the Area of Focus Editors group and the Global Communities group to be more hardcoded to WiserEarth's platform as compared to other groups. The third one should also be made part of the tasks of an Editor Role.
I think Camilla also pointed out three excellent incentives for users to volunteer their time and effort by becoming a WiserEarth Editor. More intangible incentives can be given to users or editors once the Recognize/reward User contribution in Profile suggestion is implemented as a standard feature in WiserEarth.
Thus, following up and summing up one of the first goal of our discussion here, I'd like to propose the following Editor "Roles" with attached set of "tasks" for each:
Note: Content here includes all entities in WiserEarth from organization page, to user comments.
1. General Content Manager or Content Manager We'll need to create a wikipage for this which will also contain step-by-step tutorials.
2. Area of Focus Editor or AoF Editor As described in the Area of Focus (AoF) Editor page (kudos to Michael) and will work in the WiserEarth Area of Focus Editors group. Any other ideas? 3. Community Steward As described in the Global Community Steward page (kudos to Michael) and will work in the WiserEarth Global Communities. Any other ideas?
4. Helper As described in the WiserEarth Helpers page but with more descriptions on specific skills offered as services to the community (general help, html editing, group development, graphic design skills, copywriting skills, proofreading skills, etc.). Will work within the WiserEarth Help Desk group.
5. Translator
6. Feature Developer
7. Any other ideas?
By formalizing the roles and responsibilities this way, maybe we can get a more focused effort from the editors community?
Any idea how to best assign this role to editors? (i.e. can an editor have more than one role? or should one rolet be limited to a specific time period (a month, etc.)?
Do we need to create a kind of community-designed master plan / timetable with specific goals for editors with respective Role (in their respective groups)? This would make it easier for new editors to "plug-in" and start contributing on a well-defined (yet evolving) plan of action.
Or, is this all too much? and we should just use the simple "Editor" status and encourage editors to go to respective groups as needed and desired? |
|
|
From comment section on the WiserEarth Community Roles page, is boatsie's suggestion:
"How about adding another role "Reporter" ... people who keep tabs on
activities occurring, new members joining, significant events of
interest and contribute to a weekly 'newsletter'... Eventually, AofF
stewards could be the contacts who contact Reporters regarding news in
their particular domains. |
|
|
Thanks Bowo for summarizing the roles on WiserEarth - those are spot on. Maybe those should be featured on the Editors Group home page, so people know how they can get involved. What do you think? I also like the idea of a 'reporter', although that may overlap somewhat with the role of Community Manager.
|