Ok - I have introduced the topic in the WiserEarth Governance group - please continue this discussion at http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/ecadc2f58dce8a1623975c079d788ed0/group/WiserEarthGovernance .

Yep, sorry for not reading your suggestion more carefully JT. Your observations in your latest comment are correct. Me and David for example are not NCI staff. Broadening participation is indeed a goal (of NCI, and of any user who is concerned about helping WiserEarth take off, not only in the USA). There are official staff/intern position at NCI to coordinate this outreach activity, and there are several group formed to help with this effort.

>> Is it correct to say that NCI seems to be the governing body here?
Well, WE is a project of NCI, and they pretty much coordinate the development process at the moment, but the following lines suggest that in the coming days, more and more of that process will be handed over to the community (of all WE users, which naturally includes NCI folks).

"The success of WiserEarth does not depend on garnering a complete database of all the environmental and social justice organizations worldwide, but on our ability to create a network that takes on a life of its own - one that is wholly owned and grown by the global community." (Paul Hawken)

"WiserEarth will always be a work in progress. We hope WiserEarth community members will donate their time and intellectual property to help make WiserEarth a true global resource. The history from this point onward is collaboratively written by all of us - the community." (from the About Us page)

Here's a list of WE-related groups, so you can have a better picture of things JT:
http://www.wiserearth.org/article/d9aae2c3e7b67a00f8b25b6815fe102b
In it there are two groups specifically related to your idea on outreach toward students (the WiserEarth Key Students group, and the WiserEarth Key Educators group).

Any way, we wouldn't want this to get the conversation off-topic. So, let's wait for Michael's follow up on opening up the Governance group.

Hey JT, there's a working group of the Editors group called "WEversity a.k.a. WiserUniversity" @ http://www.wiserearth.org/group/weversity tagged "WiserEarth's collaborative, lifelong, learning portal." It'd be great if we can jumpstart the "course-making" process there (this group by the way, is not an official group of NCI, and is only minimally set up at the moment). Having different courses with mentors as sub-groups of this group would be nice.

If you're interested, please respond further there in the "Growing this group" thread there JT. Many thanks.

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...

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.

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.

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....

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

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?

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?