Topic: (SETUP) Roles and Responsibilities of Editors and Administrators
Posts (1 - 20 of 32)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
|
Basic questions:
- What do we mean by "roles" ? - What kind of "roles" are there? - Must editors choose from this list of roles, or invent ones on their own? - What will happen to the list of "roles" as WiserEarth evolves further? For example: Camilla: Community Research, Usability, Content Improvement & European Outreach MichaelK: Content Manager, Asia outreach SustainableDavid: Steward of Sustainability I think we need to provide a list and explanation for each role, so editors can choose from (and maybe create their own, if we agree to allow this) Regarding WiserEarth Editors group privileges: We have in the group's privileges setting for each member the following to choose from: Guest - A guest can view all of the group's content, but can't edit any of it. Member - Members can view and edit all of the group's content. Editor - An editor can review the group's content, and decide which pieces are relevant to the group's interests. Administrator - Administrators can change group member's roles and privileges, invite new members, and approve or deny member applications and referals. Questions: - How should we assign which to whom? (i.e. what privileges to which member?) - Who should have "Administrator" privileges? With what responsibilities? - Who should have "Editor" privileges? With what responsibilities? - In the "Groups FAQ" page "Administrator" and "Editor" can "manage content", while "member" and "guest" can not, but since in WiserEarth term we are all "Editor", does this mean that even "member" can delete discussions using the Set "Removed" option in the bottom right-hand side of each discussion page? If so, should we limit this ability only to Group's "Administrator" and "Editor"? I've also listed a new field in the "Editors Role (by Editor)" called "Areas of expertise". Questions: - How should we define this? Should it be strictly those that will relate to their involvement in WiserEarth as editors? or should it include all their expertise? - What are the kinds of expertise that relates to editors involvement in WiserEarth? and what aren't? Just an idea: Should we design a time-based role assignment to new editors? For example, new editors will only be given "guest" privileges for their first week upon joining the group. After which they will be given "member" privileges and can gradually take up roles and responsibilites of their choosing. If they wish to, they can apply to "Administrator" to be given "Editor" privileges. These are, I think, important questions to answer clearly before we proceed in inviting all current editors and recruit new editors on board. If possible, I think it will be most appropriate if WiserEarth administrators (Paul, Peggy, Oz, Hillary, Arash and Adam) are the ones addressing these questions first, since, well, they "administer" WiserEarth, and the Editors Group will I suppose play a crucial role in the future development of WiserEarth. And what this group do, will very much depend on how we define and act upon our chosen/assigned/created "roles" and "responsibilities". The perspectives and insights of WiserEarth administrators will I think, be very important in this. |
|
Some initial thoughts...thanks for these timely questions
- What do we mean by "roles" ? *Roles indicate an editors tasks that he or she can be relied on to be responsible for. - What kind of "roles" are there? *There are some roles that are necessary on a day to day basis. For example: channel comments to appropriate people, review new organizations on WE (to see whether it meets standards). There are some roles which anyone can take part in. For example: areas of focus, participating in any discussions, anything in the shoutbox, focus of the week, review duplicates, make organization profiles look pretty. These roles will be listed. - Must editors choose from this list of roles, or invent ones on their own? *There are some editors which have obligatory tasks (those of us who work for NCI: me, Camilla, Michael S, Adam, Peggy, etc) If you don't intern or work for NCI, then I think you should be able to decide for now what to do. We can encourage editors to work on specific "focuses of the week", wikipages (that might require research or compiling feedback) or to work on other specific tasks that we come up with in the future. - What will happen to the list of "roles" as WiserEarth evolves further? *As WE evolves, I imagine many of us will be able to specialize more on specific tasks. More of us will team up on the same role. Fewer of us will be spread out over the site being involved in every discussion and task. Your other questions: - How should we assign which to whom? (i.e. what privileges to which member?) Who should have "Editor" privileges? With what responsibilities? ....since in WiserEarth term we are all "Editor", does this mean that even "member" can delete discussions using the Set "Removed"? *You made a very important point here. I think that we need to change a member's ability to remove discussions from the Editor's group. I think the ability should only be given to admins of the site and the admin. of each individual group. I think the best solution is to allow each group's administrators to decide for itself who can "remove comments", among other privileges. Let's set all new editors as "members". Until I get a response about limiting the ability to remove comments to admins, I'll hold off from inviting new editors. I feel I can trust all the editors we have so far, but you never know... - Who should have "Administrator" privileges? With what responsibilities? Let's keep the Administrator privilleges to a minimum, to those who are already admins, and to potentially anyone in NCI, simply because we can keep each other accountable to what we do on the site, and because some of us can be expected to work on the site on a daily basis. I also think it's sufficient to say, that those who created this group can be trusted to be admins for the time being until this becomes a more pressing issue. |
|
|
While we have been discussing aofs recently it's not relevant right now to our discussion on setting up the editor's group. This group will be great for consolidating certain wikipages like feedback pages for the areas of focus, homepage, etc. (as David mentions in the Consolidating Feedback discussion), but really it's something anyone (editor or not) can participate in. Anyways, it's a discussion I want to see more of, but I'm afraid we may not have much time before the new years to have a "functional" editor's group up and running. I personally just have one more work-day before I'm "off" for the rest of the year.
I suggest we wait until the new year to invite new editors to join this group and be settled in on specific tasks. Everyone is enjoying the holidays anyways! Here is a list of editor-only roles. http://wiserearth.org/article/921035f4965f3784146f8ce8e070d91f/group/WiserEarthEditors -What I'd like to see out of this WE Editors group first and foremost, is a way to invite a greater number of users participating in the tasks on this page. In time, it'll make the job of other WE editors easier, and it'll allow us to focus on improving other aspects of the site, and participate in more creative endeavors such as developing groups and enriching content and discussions. |
|
|
Thanks for the enlightening answers Mike, especially this one:
"As WE evolves, I imagine many of us will be able to specialize more on specific tasks. More of us will team up on the same role. Fewer of us will be spread out over the site being involved in every discussion and task." Lookin' forward for the complete list of existing (and new) roles. As for the following: "I also think it's sufficient to say, that those who created this group can be trusted to be admins for the time being until this becomes a more pressing issue." Though I still retain my "Administrator" privilege, following your lead, I have also deleted the "Group Administrator" role Camilla assigned me as my group role. Whenever deemed necessary, for example, issue such as "democratizing this group" occur, I don't mind at all changing my privilege back to "Member", as long as the group is functioning as it is intended to be. OK then, I'll try to work a bit more on the bulletin board and wikipages (especially the Quick Guide we discuss a while ago) so that by new year, we'll be more or less ready to invite other editors to join the group. |
|
|
Teleported from "(SETUP) Group Privacy Settings":
------------------------------------------------------------ <<<MichaelK>>> - The roles and responsibility of editors and administrators (we at least must achieve some level of agreement on this, especially from Peggy and other admins, and then wait for further feedback from all editors). *The following comment is in response not just to bowo but to all Editors* First we need to be in agreement on what it means to be an Editor. This is something that has taken some time for me to understand as well...as previously we were all talking about Editors as WE users who had special privileges in addition to their assigned or creative tasks for the site But I think that in the long-term, we won't be able to assign editor privileges to everyone who wants to work on the "editor" tasks we've been discussing. Anyone who has just visited the site should be able to dive in on "Editor" tasks. And I don't believe everyone who dives in on tasks should be automatically rewarded Editor status. If we can agree that we should be focusing on tasks specific to Editors....what should we do about all those items in the "SHOUTBOX"? I believe that the amount of items on that page (in addition to how its applicable to any user) will confuse Editors...who don't actually need to know all of that information. How about starting a "WiserEarth Volunteers" group? The name needs work... Perhaps we also need to be able to change the privileges that all Editors receive. For example, should everyone be able to access protected pages including the Home page? I dont think so.... I'm sorry if this has confused you Bowo. But your insight has definitely help drive us to understand our roles as an Editor and the potential for WiserEarth users to participate. I'll bring this up with Peggy and the others. |
|
|
A small correction first.
The following portion of text is mine in response to Mike's question "When do we decide that the group is fully operational?". The rest is his response to it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - The roles and responsibility of editors and administrators (we at least must achieve some level of agreement on this, especially from Peggy and other admins, and then wait for further feedback from all editors). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As in response to Mike's comments: Yep, you've got me confused here Mike :P But you did bring up a fundamental issue we need to address, namely "What does it mean to be an Editor", which might lead us back to my first question when we form the group: "Do we need this group?". However, I do believe that we need this group, or to paraphrase it, we can do a lot of constructive work and bring improvement to WiserEarth through collaboration done by editors via this group. Or to put it more precisely, we need a group such as this, where all (or willing) WiserEarthlings can collaborate in a more coordinated manner to improve WiserEarth and to enrich it's dynamics toward realizing the big vision stated in it's slogan "Toward a Just and Sustainable World Created by Community". I'll ponder a bit more on "What does it mean to be an Editor" while waiting for responses from seasoned editors and admins. Another thing: I've created a "WiserEarth-Related Groups" wikipage @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/d9aae2c3e7b67a00f8b25b6815fe102b which lists groups that might have overlapping activities with this group. One that is especially related to this discussion is the "WiserEarth Governance" group, whose tagline and description are: "Rights, Obligations, and Relationships of All WiserEarthlings" This group emerged out of the WiserEarth Partners meeting held on December 13. Our intention is to open this group up to all that join and participate in WiserEarth. However, to date, it's just being formed, no activity yet. |
|
|
some thoughts on ...Definition of Editor
--Ability to edit protected pages (most likely the protected page will be an area of focus) --Ability to remove or lock organizations, remove discussions (personally, I think that if there is an organization that needs to be removed, any user should be able to quickly flag it so that an active editor can address it, not everybody needs to have removal privileges.) --Not necessarily a consistently active user. An editor might be someone who has expertise on 1 or 2 aof pages and work on the site for a day or two. If a celebrity expert wanted to be an editor on WiserEarth, as of now we probably would invite them. But this begs the question of our biased criteria for selecting editors, and is contrary to the wiki-philosophy or allowing everyone's input, not restricting it to a privileged few. |
|
|
I think we should mimic Wikipedia's roles, as they've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about how to distribute roles and responsibilities. The equivalent of WE Administrators seems to be the "Steward" on Wikipedia: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards
They are empowered to grant "rights" to users of their choosing. As of now, the WiserEarth community obviously doesn't need to be as comprehensive in its user rights, as developers and WE administrators can handle the tasks for now. But I believe there are some ideas we should adopt soon. For example, an "Administrator" is a "user with the technical ability, within a particular Wikimedia wiki, to delete and undelete pages, and view deleted revisions of pages; block and unblock users, individual IP addresses, and ranges of IP addresses; protect and unprotect pages; and edit the interface". Currently, we are being rather loose with the rights that we grant to WE users who become Editors. I have to agree that not all WE "editors" need to delete/protect pages/discussions...it's a pretty significant ability, and we should minimize users who have it. We might be able to trust editors to edit responsibly, but what if an editor's account is hacked? It also seems common for privileges/rights to be revoked after a user is inactive for a while...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship At first I thought maybe I'm thinking too far ahead. But now I think it's smart to think about revoking editor status to the many inactive editors we have. Building a wiki-community requires trust among users/editors/stewards/etc. WE Editors (or whatever we will call ourselves) will want to and need to monitor each other in order to avoid abuse or a mishandling of information or pages on the site. Too many editors = confusion. |
|
|
Excellent insights Mike. I agree on limitting the ability of changing the status of entities (delete, lock, dupe, etc.) to trusted editors.
Opening up AoFs portal pages for all users to edit will also be a good solution to: - too many editors --> create unnecessary hierarchy and power concentration - the hesitation in inviting celebrity editors, since we can just invite de facto experts on each AoFs and let them edit as needed, while allowing regular users to edit too. So, in a way, we can ask for their expertise when inaccuracy of facts or analysis, or bias occured in their respective AoFs and at the same time, allow regular users to fix/amend biases/inaccuracies they themselves caused. I've mentioned the need to revoke editor status for those inactive for some time, so I agree with what you said on this too. ------------------ Below I will copy-paste my opinion regarding the roles and responsibilities of editors and administrators in my email, which I wrote without taking considerations of possible learnings from Wikipedia. So, in a way, the approach is a structured and controlled one, which I thought (and still think) is necessary to some extent in this early stage of WE's growth. ------------------ As for the new status between editor and administrator... I'm not quite sure. In a way, it's a good idea on rewarding active editors, but in the long run, it might just complicate things beyond necessity. For me, the simple ranking of "Edits, Additions, and Comments" in the "People" (active user) link is good enough for the job. What matters most is that "what needs to be done is being done", and editors are the ones that naturally fit in to do the job within the "user, editor, administrator" structure. I would prefer that we define "Roles" for editors clearly (with attached responsibilities for each role), such that active editors can be given greater responsibility as administrators see fit. So, what roles are there? For example (as an illustration): - Camilla in charge of "Community Development" - Mike is in charge of "Content Management" - Honore is in charge of "Ticketing Technical Fixes" - Michael is in charge of "Feature Development" - New editors can be given the generic role of "Content Development" or "Resource Enrichment" etc. - Editors with specific know-hows can be given the role of ""Human Rights Protection" Portal Maintainer", etc. - Other editors who have an extensive knowledge of the site can be given the role of "Help Page Maintainer", which would make sure that all pages relating to the usage of WiserEarth, will be written and structured in a clear, instructive and comprehensive manner to bring the greatest benefit to all users. Administrators on the other hand, would be charged with the role of coordinating editors to see that editors are executing their respective responsibilities (beside their major role of directing the overall site development via building up partnerships, expanding features, etc.) This way: - regular users can "volunteer" to edit/enrich/improve the site, - editors can "commit" to edit/enrich/improve the site according to their respective responsibilities and - administrators can "make sure" that overall, the site is growing at a desirable pace day by day, and stepping in and taking over the responsibilities of editors whenever needed to see that things are happening. - there will be little or no differentiation between NCI-based editors and non-NCI ones (and in the future perhaps, between NCI-based administrators and non-NCI ones) within the greater WiserEarth community. What differentiates them will be their respective "Roles and Responsibilities". So, what this means is that, users, editors and administrators with their respective roles and responsibilities are structured in a way that allows for the site's overall growth over time by all users (which also includes editors and administrators). In the end, as users becomes more active, he can/will be given the editor status with generic responsibilities, and as he becomes more active as an editor he will be given extra responsibilities, and as he becomes super active, maybe he can be given the administrator status... or not, because, too many administrators would I guess be counter productive in the long run. |
|
|
Small addition:
Maybe we need to give a basic responsibility of adding a minimum number of resources/organizations/events/jobs each month for each editor. This would be a form of "commitment" which would make sure that WE's database is growing at a desired pace and a concrete way of defining the phrase "taking leadership" which has been associated with editors but has not been defined adequately. |
|
|
How about we continue this discussion in a public forum?
|
|
|
In the "(SETUP) Group Privacy Setting" discussion, I've mentioned my thought on why the public forum is not a very good place to host the discussion.
So, I agree on your suggestion on opening up the group for all users to participate Mike. |
|
I am new to the discussion, and have made an attempt to read what has transpired and I very well may have missed somethings, but it seemed to me that perhaps asking each editor 1. what their real [or current] passion is, 2. what their most significant areas of experience are, and 3. what their areas of formal or ojt training are, would both allow assigning task to or creating teams of editors who are more likely to take an active interest in the process. It also would allow the group to identify areas of expertise or experience that are needed, and work to find a way to attract people to help fill those gaps.
|
|
|
Teleported from "(SETUP) General Questions" forum
--------------------------------------------------------------- <<<Camilla>>> Here's some initial ideas that I had in the early stages of the set up of this group (especially around the group vision) and perhaps helps to answer the question 'what is a WiserEarth' editor? - shares their experiences and knowledge with the community - has fun helping the WiserEarth community. - facilitates discussions, helps to collect feedback and improve content across WiserEarth - shares ideas on improving functionality and usability - gets involved in the bringing to life the vision of Paul Hawken as discussed in his book "Blessed Unrest" in helping to lay the foundations for mapping out and connecting this incredible movement of people and organizations throughout the world who are addressing the key issues of our day. <<<MichaelK>>> Camilla, I think that's a good general description I've been hearing. However, I don't mean to be harsh, but I don't like it because that description allows almost anyone to be an Editor. I think being an Editor means you get a special privilege (or more) over a WiserEarth user who has just joined the site and made a few edits or comments. By being entrusted with that privilege, the Editor uses that privilege specifically to perform an essential function for the site. I can't think of a specific privilege a user needs to share ideas or facilitate discussions. So I don't see why in those cases a user should be given "Editor" status. |
|
|
JP, I like it. I propose we keep this forum for comments specifically about the roles and responsibilities we think editors should have, while we create another forum for optional introductions...which could solidify into some concrete suggestions for this forum here.
|
|
|
Below are a small research result to seed our discussion here a bit further.
Interesting readings on how Wikipedia governance work: "Power Structure" @ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure "User Classes" @ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_classes "Board of Trustees" @ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees While discussion on power structure and board of trustees are beyond the scope of this thread, we can see the following parallel between WiserEarth and Wikipedia: Wiser Earth | Wikipedia ------------------------------------------------------------------- User | Blocked User or Banned User | Anonymous User | Newly Registered User ------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor | Registered User | Rollbacker | Oversight/Hiding Revisions | Administrator/Sysop Administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Steward | Developer ------------------------------------------------------------------- WISEREARTH ------------------ Editor: Editors are registered WiserEarth users who can also: * Edit protected (locked) pages such as the "About Us" page and Area of Focus pages * Manage data and feedback by changing the status of a WiserEarth entity (organization, wikipages, etc.) into "Active"/"Locked"/"Duplicate"/"Out of Scope"/"Spam"/"In Discussion"/"Removed" as described in http://www.wiserearth.org/article/f774081e28910e3041c932aa8db4c494 Administrator: Administrators manage the user experience. They are registered on WiserEarth and can perform a few restricted functions within WiserEarth, in addition to those functions of an editor, an administrator can: * Change users to editors * Change editors to administrators * Delete WikiPages * Protect and unprotect WikiPages * Block and unblock IP addresses To become an administrator, you will need to show the community that you have built up a deep understanding of every aspect of the site, its user-base, and the needs of the WiserEarth community WIKIPEDIA -------------- User: Registered users (excepting administrators or developers) cannot edit or move protected pages. Newly registered users cannot edit semi-protected pages or move any page. Registered users on Wikimedia Commons include trusted users. As Commons has many Flickr images and requires reviewers to ensure that claimed copyrighted licenses are valid, a registered user familiar with Commons licensing may apply to become a trusted user, which is a user sub-class on Commons. Current Commons administrators need not apply to become trusted users as they already have a higher user class than registered users. Rollbacker: The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing unworthy edits, usually vandalism. Oversight/Hiding Revisions: Users with the Oversight class can remove revisions from an article's history. The revisions can only be restored by a developer. Administrator/Sysop: An administrator (also known as a sysop) is a user with the technical ability, within a particular Wikimedia wiki, to delete and undelete pages, and view deleted revisions of pages; block and unblock users, individual IP addresses, and ranges of IP addresses; protect and unprotect pages; and edit the interface Bureaucrat: Within Wikimedia projects, a bureaucrat is a user who has the technical ability to: * Promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat * Grant and revoke a user's bot flag * Rename a user A small community generally doesn't need a bureaucrat, because stewards can easily handle the low traffic of requests from that wiki with little delay. CheckUser: CheckUser is an interface for users with the checkuser permission. An editor with CheckUser status on a wiki can in particular check if a user isn't a sockpuppet of another user on that wiki (not on all wikis). By using it, users are able to: * Determine from which IPs a user has edited the Wikimedia wiki * Determine the edits on the Wikimedia wiki of a specific IP (even when logged in) This information is only stored for a short period, so edits made prior to that will not be shown via CheckUser. A log is kept of who has made which queries with the tool. This log is available to those with the checkuser permission: Stewards: Stewards are technically empowered to grant or remove any of the various levels of user rights, including bot, administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, and steward. This position was created to dissociate rights management from software development. Developers: MediaWiki/Wikimedia developers are people who write MediaWiki software and/or do systems administration work on the Wikimedia servers. Some developers have shell access, which means that they can change the WikiMedia site's live copy of MediaWiki, change article histories, read server logs, etc. Those with server access can also carry out various non-development tasks. There is a rough hierarchy among developers. Initially, people contribute patches to Bugzilla, discuss issues on the wikitech-l mailing list or participate in discussion there or on IRC. People who are considered trustworthy and wish to contribute code on a regular basis are given access to the code in Subversion. Developers who are particularly well trusted or have a special need may be granted shell access to the server cluster. And several people who are judged to have the appropriate level of skill and trustworthiness are given root access on the servers. |
|
|
Given the problems I have seen and heard about on Wikipedia, and the concern I'm sure that the developers of WiserEarth have about its integrity, it seems to me that some sort of "apprenticeship" program might be created where those of us who have been invited to be Editors could take on tasks in collaboration with, or under the supervision of existing NCI staff or other senior people. I'm sure we all want to well, but we also may have greatly varying skills that could benefit by some mentoring before we are "turned loose!"
|
|
|
Hi JP, I agree that we need some sort of "apprenticeship" for new editors or users who wish to be an editor.
We can do that for example, by providing "a space where any user can learn" about WiserEarth, it's big vision, it's nooks and crannies, and direct them to contribute to the growth of WiserEarth, so they can earn the recognition and trust of the community. This group is I think, a good place for that. We'll have to figure out what that space will look like, and the mechanism to show recognition and trust. Decisions to make a user into an editor will of course be made by administrators (who at the moment are the folks at NCI). |
|
|
The following discussion happened between myself and John Coate (http://www.wiserearth.org/user/johncoate) over at the WiserEarth Governance group (http://www.wiserearth.org/group/WiserEarthGovernance) in the "Governance Overview" discussion @ http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/577cde7ee0cec34f42aa433ec3d1d3b9
Teleported here with permission from John. <hr /> <<< johncoate >>> "Use the group to discuss and come to resolution on how power, authority, and influence are defined and shared within WE. ((a discussion that will happen at some point, I'm not sure when. Not that pressing probably))" <<< bowo >>> Hi John, Jon, I'm Bowo, currently helping out to set up the WiserEarth Editors Group. Just wanted to share an issue we had there possibly relating to governance. It's about finding meaningful differentiation of responsibilities between regular users and editors. Currently, (to my knowledge) the only note-worthy differentiation is the ability to edit and delete "protected pages" like the "About Us" page and the portal pages for AoFs. Moreover, any user can seemingly apply to be an editor by simply sending one of the administrators a message on it (without clear requirements to be an editor), help out with edits and content management, but then be inactive for several months. This creates a dilemma where any user can easily be an editor, but then be left with not much to do as an editor, because there's no clear responsibilities attached to the privileges of an editor. So, technically, all users can be editors, and it won't make much of a difference to WiserEarth. Beyond the editorship issue, there's also another issue relating to a sentence in the "WiserEarth Community Roles" page, which states: "We are currently developing additional expectations for administrators and invite the community to participate in this discussion." Check this out @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/14dec18f90fea9d36f9ef6631a38983c Any thoughts on these issues? <<< johncoate >>> Is it really that easy to get editor status - just write and ask and you shall receive? I would expect something akin to a cover letter where one demonstrates some sort of commitment to the project. I like the basic structure of user/editor/admin. You are right though, it says what an editor can do but doesn't say what qualifies you for it. Surely though there must have been some sense of who would qualify and what the expectations would be when it was conceived. Maybe some activity minimum? That isn't the best since it could lead to a bunch of busy work or extra jibber-jabber. Maybe it doesn't actually matter and what does count is the quality of the edits one does, esp in the AoF zone where I assume one wants to ensure accuracy. <<< bowo >>> Hi John. I'm not sure about the "just write and ask and you shall receive", but I have seen an editor or two with very low level activity in the site, and some more who have been inactive for months. <<< johncoate >>> At this point I'm not sure it matters much is someone is inactive. I'd be more concerned if someone was consistently inaccurate or something like that. <<< bowo >>> Hi John, a small addition for your comment: "I'm not sure it matters much is someone is inactive". While I agree that if the "someone" is a regular user, inactivity don't matter much, I don't think it's appropriate if that someone is an editor, because, to my knowledge, the editor status have so far been associated with the phrase "taking leadership" within the community. So, while an inactive follower is understandable, an inactive leader is a whole different matter. That's where we again encounter the issue of editor's identity crisis which may be causing the inactivity. And as you will discover after reading through stuff in the editors group, that crisis ended up causing an identity crisis for the editors group as well, which we also need to resolve for the benefit of the group and WiserEarth as a whole. <<< johncoate >>> Could you point me to those particular discussions so I can catch up? Part of where I was coming from on that is to minimize admin work. Maybe there would be some sort of automated way of placing someone who is an inactive editor into some sort of limbo stage or send them an alert telling them they need to participate to keep the status. Also, it is necessary to determine how long a period constitutes enough inactivity to warrant some sort of action. I don't think six months is all that long of a time really. But let me study the history of the talk some more. <<< bowo >>> I think that's an excellent idea to reduce admin work. The phrase "taking leadership" was actually "leadership role" in the "What's Next" section of the "About Us" page @ http://www.wiserearth.org/article/About. The phrase "leadership roles" is hyperlinked to the "WiserEarth Community Roles" page @ http://www.wiserearth.org/index.php/article/14dec18f90fea9d36f9ef6631a38983c/ which contains definitions for user/editor/administrator. <hr /> (Note: After this, I provided John with relevant links to discussions within this group) |
You do not have access to post to this record
1 to 20 of 32 Posts
I think that the group needs to start off small in terms of the amount of work it asks its (non-NIC) editors to do, at least, initially. For example, maybe just focusing initially on being able to give timely and accurate responses to discussions/comments made on the site. What do others think?
<<< MichaelK >>>
WHO IS AN EDITOR? WHO IS NOT?
The current definition of what an Editor "is" and how one can become one, is still a bit vague. As of now, you must "apply" to be an editor, but this process is not a very formal one..and as you can see, there currently aren't too many Editors out of the thousands of users already on the site. I suggest we begin here, to work on a wikipage in addition to a discussion, on who is qualified to be an editor in the first place? The fact that users must "request" to be an editor by sending a message doesn't make the process welcoming.
This is the current description for the WE Editor role. Perhaps another one our initial "focuses of the week" can be to work on this description.:
http://www.wiserearth.org/article/14dec18f90fea9d36f9ef6631a38983c#%3Cb%3EEditor%3C/b%3E
<<< bowo >>>
Expectations for editors and administrators: this is the place to discuss roles and responsibilities editors and administrators should shoulder. Results and conclusions will be sent to the "Expectations for editors and administrators" wikipage.
I wrote also for 'administrators' there in responding to the sentence "We are currently developing additional expectations for administrators and invite the community to participate in this discussion" in the Community Roles wikipage.
<<< bowo >>>
Another thing that will help us in that direction is in Mike's words "The list of "go-to" people will evolve over time, so it should be our role to keep track of who knows what."
Overall, at the early stages of the group's activity, we'll need to recapitulate our current editors know-hows and skills and setup a more comprehensive "task division" also based on the voluntary willingness of each editor to take up certain tasks.
<<< bowo >>>
More on the "go to" editors.
We'll need to increase the number of WiserEarth Helpers and make their whereabout visible to new users. My suggestion was to point out a Helper for each new user upon completing the signing up process (is this done already? I kind a forgot).
<<< MichaelK >>>
A new user receives an automatically generated email from Mike Spalding. I haven't heard him say that this gives him more work than he can handle, but I'll get an update from him. A few editors used to address new users individually (for example: A-J, K-P, Q-Z), but this process has been stopped. In the future perhaps there can be automatic e-mails sent to more than one editor, we'll know when the time comes, right now, the new-user growth rate is pretty stable.
I could begin by explaining what a couple of my obligatory duties are. Besides me and Michael Spalding, there isn't anyone else expected to do this on work days.
1. Review comments, and reply with an internal message including an acknowledgement that it will be addressed. If I can't give a decent response, I alert the person who can best answer it.
2. Review todays new organizations and remove them if they don't fit WE Content Standards (the most common orgs removed are for-profit orgs, which are sometimes disputable, and so are brought to the attention of others through discussion forums: http://www.wiserearth.org/article/Methodology
3. Review emails to user support and respond appropriately (we have a same response template).
Optional: Help edit organization entries
Adam, Peggy, Camila, in addition to other staff and interns also frequently review comments and respond, but me and Michael Spalding are responsible for responding to the comments (and alerting others of a comment that is relevant to them) within a day - the sooner the better
<<< bowo >>>
That is simple enough even for new editors to do. But as the site grows, I suspect we'll need more editors to do various tasks, for example: to maintain each AoF portal more professionally. By the way, how is this done now? And what was the future roles of editors originally envisioned? Especially when thinking of, say, 10 million user base?
<<< bowo >>>
IMHO, ideally editors should be people who not only know the ins and outs of WiserEarth, but also those who have specific skills and know-hows that can benefit WiserEarth as a whole.
'Skills' here can range from technical ones like HTML mark-up skills to social ones such as networking WiserEarth entities and "spreading the word" to the world.
'Know-hows' can mean that an editor should at least have a deep knowledge on a specific AoF, so they can be good stewards of each AoF. And among the things that they could contribute would be to write the kind of "best practices" you mentioned. But of course, not just editors, all users should be encouraged to share their "best practices" with the world via WiserEarth.
<<< bowo >>>
Among all editors, who should be group administrators and editors? with what expectations/responsibilities?