Topic: A Group to host a discussion on our rights as WiserEarthlings
Posts (1 - 20 of 27)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
A group on this would be nice, because there should be many topics regarding "rights" that can and need to be discussed. And "rights" would be a crucial part of WiserEarth's governance. An "open" and "public" group is a better way to facilitate these discussions than the simple forum (with topics) like this one.
I was just wondering whether or not this can be done in a group already setup to host this kind of discussions (just a guess): the "WiserEarth Governance" group, with the tagline "Rights, Obligations, and Relationships of All WiserEarthlings" @ http://www.wiserearth.org/group/WiserEarthGovernance The group however is currently set to "Semi-private" and "Invitation only". |
|
The need to give a voice to WiserEarthers/Earthlings/WE users (?) to collaboratively decide the rights and commuity guidelines for WE users is very important, however, i'm not convinced that this needs a new group. I like the idea of creating a discussion that all WE users can get involved in but link it from an existing group. For transparency sake, it is important to see how WiserEarth is governed and its overall editorial policy, so it would make sense to incorporate it into the WE governance group as Bowo suggested (and to open this up to all).
|
|
|
Im interested in opening up the Governance group too. What say you Governance admins? ;)
So.. want to emphasize also, that rights are important to determine whether to integrate certain suggestions for the site. But some of the suggestions may take a more lengthy debate. let's get a list of possible rights we could discuss... it can give us a sense of how many people are interested in taking this issue further. Rights to discuss... To post on other users' profiles - many users often post announcements on other users' profiles. For example, many comments were recently added about the pesticide spraying that is planned over the Bay Area. However, because our site needs to be able to view all the comments on the site to monitor discussions, this makes our work more difficult. Should we restructure the site to allow mass posts such as these? To prevent non-friends to post on one's profile - what if someone wanted to post something malicious in intent, or something private (like a phone number or address)? To view all deleted comments To delete comments on ones own page To have a permanent organization description In the future, certain organizations might be edited by users of conflicting opinions...how should these disputes be settled? Should organizations have ownership over their own org descriptions? |
|
Hey, all:
Yep, I be with Bowo and Camilla on this one. I have thought "WE Governance" was rather elitist sounding and the closed group validates my thought--its 'belongers' need a mirror. Unfortunately we are still talking to the 1% who are comfortable contributing to the process by means other than merely signing up. To this point--we are enlisting activists, but in many ways this is somewhat a passive site, which seems to me contradictory and ultimately unproductive. Why don't we contact the nearly 11,000 member individuals and ask them to open up and try their voice? WE would ALL benefit from what comes out. I would bet anything most of them would be downright flattered just to be asked. And to me, "WISER" implies active. To paraphrase something heard recently, 'the only true feature of aging is the erosion of ideals." There was a previous discussion of "rights" and WE, in which I pointed out that the term "rights" was inappropriate in this case--"rights" exist on an entirely different, higher plane--but "privileges" and "guidelines" make more sense here. E.g., we don't even have the "right" to entirely free speech here, not in the formal sense of a "right". It is helpful--almost vital for success--to clarify what we are talking about before we get too deeply into the discussion. Michael: To answer your question between you and Sheri on deleted comments, yes--I would at least like to just see what these comments contain, and I believe all should be able to, just to be aware of what is considered out of line. The source and recipient need not be included, as this serves no purpose. The reason ties in well with the above--it is helpful to know what the limits to privilege are. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Hey, all:
Sorry, Michael, we were writing apparently simultaneously, and I didn't see your last until I finished mine. It seems the four of us are together on making "governance" democratic--indeed, it seems integral to the site and the movement, which is why I don't get the logic apparent in a closed group on governance. Yes, improvements/changes to the site are tied in with the privileges here also, and they should be considered together. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Hey all, yea David I think itd be a good move to open up the Governance group for this discussion too, I left a comment there to request it be opened. According to the About section however there was always an intention to be opened. Contacting the 11,000 individuals has been done, but not for the purpose of site-discussion. Perhaps this idea can be fleshed out a bit..but I doubt it can happen.
I keep getting rights and privileges mixed. But I think I understand now. I talk about "rights" I think because its a word the public uses so much, more so than "privileges" which while more accurate isnt a word people use when they are referring to some thing they deserve. I googled rights vs. privileges and got an interesting site: http://www.semperliber.org/Rights.htm I feel some of the "privileges" I listed could be argued as being rights. For example, I think someone should be able to delete their own profile or comments on one's own profile if they wanted to. Unless this is some kind of security issue, I think being able to control one's identity and space online shouldn't just be a privilege that the WE team grants to their users. It seems online sites will vary on the rights of their users. |
|
posted my reply in wrong place:
I insert here an excerpt regarding how DailyKos assigns what they call "Trusted User" status to contributors: Trusted Users If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU. One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community. " Generally then, the active participation of a user and the 'feedback' (Ie, relevance as determined by community of users) which the participant receives determines being assigned "Trusted user' status. Something along these lines might be of interest in determining 'rights of users." I really like the idea of creating a group for discussion and determination and the GA prioritizing software would be ideal for this project. Perhaps by setting up the group and inviting participants we can lay the groundwork and perhaps even start with creating among ourselves some guiding principles (suggestions) which can then be used to begin the dialog (prioritizing) process ... Roger Eaton has since posted as well : good idea - I will set it up over the weekend - one thing I see right away doesn't work is the one message per author per round. That might not be so easy to fix, either. I will ask Marcelo right away. What I am thinking is that if we list rights, each of us might easily think of a number of rights to be listed separately. There will be duplicates - this is why I thought the prioritizing function should be mediated by an Editor, so the items to be prioritized are uniformly packaged and duplicates are removed. Hmm.. Needs some thought. I'd love to set this up, Michael. However, the new GA Forum is not quite ready. We are looking at Mid March and even then it would not be fully user tested. Do you think the WE folks would be willing to give it a try under those conditions? If not, then it will be April and that might be putting this key discussion off too long. Without the forum we could suggest and rate a list of WE Rights, but we could not discuss them properly, so I think we have to wait for the Forum to be ready. What say, shall we go ahead and set up for a mid-March beta (or alpha, really) test of the GA Forum to handle the prioritizing of Rights of WiserEarthlings? |
|
Just found this discussion - actually, Deborah (Boatsie) alerted me to it. Tomorrow I will post something about using the Global Assembly software for the "Rights and Privileges" discussion when we have it thought through. For now let me just agree about opening Governance.
|
|
As a member of the Governance Group it's fine with me to open it up. But since that group came out of the Partner Summit it isn't really for me to say it seems.
I do think the word 'privileges' is more accurate than 'rights.' This is still a system that is owned by someone. Even if they cede almost all control to the group I still don't think people exercise 'rights' because it isn't really a government of the people, by the people, etc. It's an online service and someone has to pay the rent and talk to the heat when they ever show up. About seeing deleted messages - shouldn't it depend on who did the deleting? If it's the user then I think they should be able to remove their remarks and that's that. IF someone with more advanced privileges does it, then sure, why not be able to have a look if you want? |
|
I too was thinking along johncoate's lines;
WiserEarth is a networking / web system paid for, and owned by someone... but available to anyone to utilize/ capitilize... thus he who pays will obviously make all final decisions. At the same time from the consumer/user level, it would just make sense to adjust some basic things; for example like Michael K mentioned, enable users to be able to adjust and modify their profile pages however they like... and also for users to modify 'title' page of organizations/ resources they posted... so as to not waste Editor's time with petty adjustments/ questions. I definitly agree with Sustainable David about the passive nature of most users of Wiser Earth. A worthy goal for the Editors and all users might be to try to come up with some streamlined/ efficient and creative ways to better encourage active participation -- especially from young people/ international users. There must be some way to tap into the vast Facebook/ Myspace Networks of young people. I am thinking even younger than the college/ university level -- some way to recruit dynamic highschool age activists, there seem to be a few on here, the more the better... if we could get more of the developing 'connectors' actively on-board this site, get them to bring their friends invite their friends and read/ learn... seems like the ability to influence would dramatically expand. If you delete a comment - than everyone can view it - that would just undermine the original 'censure' nature of the comment-deletion, and would seem to be counter-productive ... |
|
|
An idea would be for some of you MBA etc. 'edicated types', to collaboratively develop a blueprint for a sustainability/ '21century CHANGE' course; "Social Change/ Environmental/ (Networking)" or something along those lines: a High School Honors class program... with a curriculum that involves titles like The Tipping Point, The World is Flat, Blessed Unrest, etc.
A course that clearly addresses globalization/ the increasing need for sustainability, and that would naturally lead any intelligent participant to the WiserEarth website. And aggressively market the finalized version of the course-blueprint to the U.S. public/ private High School systems... just an idea |
|
|
At the beginning of this discussion, Michael mentioned the Global Assemlby (GA) Dialog. From Michael's message:
> How does everyone feel about creating a group to host this discussion > on the rights of WiserEarthlings? Roger Eaton from the GA Dialog is > willing to help us use the GA Dialog model to moderate/facilitate this process. The Global Assembly Dialog is ongoing with significant WiserEarth participation at http://globalassembly.net. There is also a group on WiserEarth devoted to the GA Dialog at http://wiserearth.org/group/GAdialog. For those who are not familiar with the Global Assembly, it is an online discussion where group participants write and vote on messages. The GA dialog proceeds in rounds, with each round having two phases, a writing phase followed by a voting phase. A threaded forum capability is being added to the process so participants can discuss the “candidate” messages as well as vote on them. The forum capability should be solid enough for a test run in two or three weeks, anyway before the end of March. The combination of electing messages in rounds with a threaded forum discussion should prove exciting and fruitful. Already, without the forum, we are getting good results from the GA Dialog. If we take up Michael's suggestion to try the GA software and it works out well, then I am hoping we can move towards embedding the GA technology in the WiserEarth environment. There are hurdles, but I think that by the end of the year, GA technology could be an important offering of WE to the global community. The About WiserEarth page at http://www.wiserearth.org/article/About has this to say concerning Wiser Earth's role: “What is missing is a map and directory of this network that includes the resources for communication and cooperation, created and managed by the community; in essence, an infrastructure through which to coordinate our efforts.” This is also what the Global Assembly technology has been designed to provide: a way to coordinate efforts from the bottom up. With the slightest encouragement I will begin setting up a WE Dialog on the GA model to continue our discussion of WiserEarthling's Rights and Privileges. We can start signing people up and then give it a go later in the month when the forum capability is ready. We should be able to bring in a dozen or two participants from the GA Dialog Group and a similar number from the Editors group and we should also publicize in the Governance group. Altogether we should have perhaps 25 or 30 active participants, which is enough to get an idea how the technology works. What say, shall we go ahead on this line? |
|
|
Well, there are so many topics to reply to here that I'd like to suggest creating an option herein in which users could reply specificially to each comment.
For starters, I'd like to respond to John's comments regarding the Governance Group and rights ... in terms of deleted comments, I reiterate how much I like the policy at Dkos where Trusted Users have access to and rights to 'hide' or delete comments as well as to view deleted/hidden comments. This is based on the number of TUs who vote accordingly. With that said, I believe the problem here at WE is the lack of synchronicity of discussions. I think to promote interaction, at the first level users should be able to view Recent Discussions and Recommended Discussions and thereby have the option of participtating in 'real time' in conversation. It appears right now that the Editors Group is where most of the discussion, decision are taking place ... and Editor's Group is not exactly by the mere nature of its name a place where users would convene to discuss some of the issues which are discussed here... For example, I love JTHessert's suggestion about members writing and promoting a course on sustainability etc. ... but what are the chances that those who are most intune with and versed in creating online courses are in fact members of the Editor's Group? It seems to me that chances are pretty good that this suggestion will be lost in the influx of ideas and offshoots of suggestions residing here at this particular topic. With all this said, I'd like to options like "Preview Your Comments" before Posting as an option here. It would be great to easily be able to modify what I've already written without having to cut and paste it into another document to edit it before I post here. The manner in which WE currently functions currently appears to me as a plethora of parallel universes and what we are attempting to do is to find a way to connect the organizations in actively creating a cohesive community. This seems ultimately to depend on our ability to engage a significant number of users in relevant topical discussions ... i think this calls for synchronistic vs asynchronistic communication opportunities ... live chat, active blogs or discussion forums where we are thinking and commenting more in real time or in much more timely manners than currently operating.... |
|
|
Regarding Roger's comment on GA software, how can we move this suggestion to a forum where we can reach a decision on it and have it moved to the 'inboxes' of all who want to 'vote' on this idea?
|
|
|
Just one more thing ... I note that users can view Latest Topics and Most Active Topics from Forum pages ... I just don't think this is prominent enough in the user experience ... the homepage has several 'live' sections to promote groups, individuals, etc. These spaces could be used to link to active discussions ... and could rotate throughout the day as activity dictates ... in a sense, this could function as a 'web 2.0' interface, taking the place of 'tags,' 'active users' etc until such time as WE decides on utlizing these tools.
|
|
|
to boatsie: I like the idea of a Trusted User (TU). But I wonder if a site like WE at this stage of development can handle it. Due to our heavy reliance on the "view all comments" and "recent activity" link, I think it'll be difficult to have a system that encourages users to post more comments or make more edits so that they could have leverage to govern the site.
I do agree though that rights and privileges can be determined by some sort of "trusted user" status, so thats why this discussion is so pertinent. The WiserEarth Editors group briefly touched on how users could "earn" this status too. Its a difficult question that needs more flushing out, and I think more careful planning that takes into account how this could affect the nature and activity of WE users. Part of this planning is figuring out why there is a need for "Trusted Users" or users with "Editor" status in the first place, which is why this discussion on "rights and privileges" is important. We need to be able to identify how a "trusted user" on WE is different than one on say DailyKos or Wikipedia. However you bring up great points: "I think to promote interaction, at the first level users should be able to view Recent Discussions and Recommended Discussions and thereby have the option of participtating in 'real time' in conversation. It appears right now that the Editors Group is where most of the discussion, decision are taking place ... and Editor's Group is not exactly by the mere nature of its name a place where users would convene to discuss"......"think this calls for synchronistic vs asynchronistic communication opportunities ... live chat, active blogs or discussion forums where we are thinking and commenting more in real time" As I mention, I believe the current structure is setup in such a way that we are dependent on it. It's probably not the most ideal structure we could have either. A blog is a start. It'd be an interesting experiment for me, I'm brainstorming right now how itd look like. Do you think you can translate your suggestions on promoting more "live" and active discussions into the "Suggestions" forum? It'd be helpful for us to continue elaborating. I've already heard in the past many people and staff suggesting a more prominent place for recent discussions and comments on the homepage. When the homepage is remodeled (we are discussing this currenty), active discussions will probably be featured, the question is just how. |
|
|
Hey all,
Before we create a group, and if we create a group we should agree on what we're talking about. So I think we should settle on whether we're talking about rights or privileges...or both? I think there are privileges AND rights on this site. In the case of deleting comments, I think that a user has the "right" to delete anything posted on his or her page. This could be information that is potentially harmful or private to the individual, such as details about their personal life or contact information. Why does a WiserEarth administrator need to know what is posted on someone's own personal profile? I can see how an admin. might have to permanently delete such comments on any forum, without allowing anyone else to see it. To say that it's a "privilege", sounds to me like the user is somehow being "rewarded" for something, when really it applies to anyone who signs up on the site. So to me, we need to be able to say something is a right, when its an inherent privilege. jthessert: "A worthy goal for the Editors and all users might be to try to come up with some streamlined/ efficient and creative ways to better encourage active participation -- especially from young people/ international users." See my comment below with boatsie. The fact that you and boatsie and others have pointed this out in the discussion topic makes it clear that encouraging a broader base of participation is tied with "Editorship" and "Governance". Without more users actively participating, who exactly are we "managing" or "governing"? RogerEaton: Since we are already having this discussion anyways, and since we need a more efficient method of organizing and introducing more ideas and people to this important discussion, I would love to see it proceed. We have to make it clear though, this is not necessarily a project that is involving the active participation of much of the WiserEarth staff or resources. However, I personally will be involved. I propose that the subject be "Rights and Privileges". I'm not sure how we should frame this yet into question form. |
|
|
I'll follow up on whether the Governance group is going to be opened up for this discussion tomorrow.
|
|
|
Michael K,
I agree with you with regard to a user's control over their personal profile-page being best described as a 'right', not a privledge. This kind of respect-based empowerment seems to encourage further participation... and is likely to eliminate some of the petty regulating/ reviewing correction-chore work of the editors and allow them to focus their valuable time more productively; which should add to the efficiency of the website toward its intended design: facilitating communication/ networking amongst the variety of global organizations and individuals that compose the respect-based civil movement that is WiserEarth. It is hard to imagine a strong argument against allocating profile-page power to the user...? I cannot think of any 'rights' beyond commonsense things like user profile page control...? I probably should have posted the 'high school course idea' under a different topic heading... and I probably should have wrote "NCI" instead of Editors. Not to get off-topic but... It seems like that the idea of developing the high-school course and intelligently marketing it through: 1) The vast network of U.S. organizations on this website (specifically cooperatively working with groups like one sky / step it up / bioneers) which already have relatively sophisticated contact-systems nationally,and 2) Using a top-to-bottom approach of recruiting some bling-bling politicians and flashy toothpaste smile celebrities which the mainstream media already loves... Would ultimately benefit all WiserEarth site participants -- but most significantly benefit NCI (and the world). I cannot imagine a better way facilitate a move "toward a just and sustainable world created by community" than to utilize the established extensive educational network of the U.S. school system as a way to empower/ educate youth while they are still developing. Even if during the year 2009-2010, only one in every 100 U.S. schools offered the course, and you only got one kid from each school annually -- # of highschools (public/private) being estimated at 100,000 -- that would be an addition of 1000 high school seniors annually (better check my math)... all of whom are still developing, and many of whom are likely to head off to college/ university and be set up to expand the WiserEarth network/ exert influence on their peers. Ties back into Sustainable David's earlier comment about 'inviting people to participate': NCI could just invite regional teachers to participate through the above-mentioned regional network contacts; (onesky/ stepitup/ bioneers), even perhaps facilitate course-training seminars for teachers at the regional bioneers conferences by current/ ex NCI employees etc. As I understand it most decisions for adopting new courses/ honors-electives at the highschool-level are made at the state/ county/ school district level, thus the already established contacts for many of the grassroots organizations/ 'change agents' that participate on this website would prove invaluable to NCI in their effort to implement the course throughout the country within a short time-frame. And plus, think of all the books you would sell $$.... I think opening goverance would be great... |
1 to 20 of 27 Posts
Contributors to this Page
After having a discussion with Sheri in the Editors group on what privileges and rights they should receive, we realized that there hasnt really been a strong WE community discussion on the rights that ALL WiserEarth users should have. Sheri requested that all users have the ability to view all deleted comments, but currently this is not a right of all users. But shouldn't it be?
Without knowing the rights of all users, how do we determine the rights of the Editors? Without knowing why Editors had certain rights above others, the discussion on giving new users "Editor" status has come to a standstill.
I imagine this will be a long, very complex but exciting discussion. While we have our WiserEarth Principles, a discussion based around "rights" would be very different as it'd touch on not what we should do, but what we are entitled to, so it'd be important to make that discussion open to the users.
How does everyone feel about creating a group to host this discussion on the rights of WiserEarthlings? Roger Eaton from the GA Dialog is willing to help us use the GA Dialog model to moderate/facilitate this process.
Please share your thoughts! If this is going to be a group on our "rights" it has to be one that includes a lot of participation. I'll create the group within a few days after waiting for comments, group suggestions, etc. and if there are no objections.