WiserEarth Editors
Collaboration in serving the greater WiserEarth community
As active community members, we would like to make this group into a gathering point where we can work together to transform WiserEarth.org into an effective platform of support for the global community of concerned citizens and organizations who are working to create a more just and sustainable world. ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Nov 20, 2007
Updated: Nov 27, 2009
Membership: Invitation Only
Semi-Private
Topic: Criteria and Process to Select Editors
Posts (1 - 5 of 5)
|
|
It sounds like the majority of the surveyed (granted, it was a small sample size) thought that a minimum user period plus taking a training course were good ways to go about it. The group seemed split on nominations, and how long a period of inactivity should be allowed.
The question is, what do we want out of our editors? Should they all have a particular knowledge base of Wiser they are working from? How big of a time commitment is realistic to expect from them? Once those questions have been answered, then I think the process for selection will be more clear.
It sounds like we want a good variety of skills in our editors, hence the multiple roles. If some of those roles aren't filled, are we going to actively recruit for those? This might mean that it would be better for administrators or current editors to nominate likely candidates (versus the member applying independently and being judged). I feel like it's reasonable to expect a certain base level of knowledge about Wiser, hence my support for some kind of required training/tutorials for the editors. Also, I think it would be great if every editor could put in some minimum time per month, but I also know that people, including myself, have paid commitments as well. So I think the inactivity of an editor is not necessarily an indication of disinterest.
It would be great to hear what other editors thought of this! |
|
|
Good points Kerry.
Along the line of your thinking, I also think editors: - should have a good understanding of WiserEarth's origin, mission and platform - should be willing to spend at least an hour a week or four hours a month committing to at least one editor role. At least, this is what most respondents in our first survey are willing to spend. - should be a community member for a certain period. Should it be one month, three months, more?
To this I would add: - should have a good understanding of WiserEarth's features and tools. This will be necessary to perform tasks. It can be part of the training process, which if well-designed, can leave those completing the training with the minimum number of edits/additions/comments needed. We mentioned 500/100/25 in the survey, is this a good number?
I think new editors can be recruited or those that applied for the status. Both will need to meet the criterias/requirements above.
And yes, inactivity may not be an indication of disinterest. But then again, to differentiate users and editors, we would want to make sure that editors are those that regularly commits to improve WE. If they'd like to contribute on a non-regular basis, they can do so just by being a regular user (minus the editing privileges of an editor of course). This is why we needed the middle way of 'revoking editor status for x months of inactivity'. Does this make sense?
Feasibility-wise, I think the most reasonable process to select new editors would be
Meets minimum requirements, nominated by a current Editor, and endorsed by at least three other existing Editors
For those applying to be editor, this would change into
Meets minimum requirements, aplied to be an Editor, endorsed by at least four existing Editors
This seems flexible and egalitarian enough.
I wonder what others think about all of this... |
|
To make the endorsement process meaningful I think that the prospective editor (or you Bowo) needs to gather their 'qualification' - period on WE, # of edits, pass the 'training test', personal statement on why they want to be an editor, and what roles they want to undertake. However, I still think we should have an editor steering committee democratically elected to deal with major member conflicts (deactivating accounts etc) and to provide guidance/be part of a WiserEarth advisory board.
|
|
|
Gathering 'qualification' is a good idea. We probably will need to set up a wikipage listing new recruits / applications along with qualifications for each candidate and a space for existing editors to endorse a candidate by leaving their username in the wikipage (i.e. editing the wikipage). This should keep things transparent. How does this sound?
And yes, the steering committee seems necessary too, because having the entire editors community to deliberate and decide each time on adhoc matters may not be feasible or effective.
Some questions on the editors steering committee: - Are there anything else that the committee will do? - How many committee members? - What are the requirements for nomination? - Also, I wonder how do we 'democratically elect' them? - Will committee members be reshuffled every now and then? - Are there details on the WE Advisory Board that can be shared here? |
Hello everyone,
Staying true to the spirit of a community-driven site that WiserEarth is, let's co-define the criteria and process to use in selecting Editors. This will be a crucial step toward a self-governing, self-sustaining Editors community.
Answers to Q13, Q14 and Q15 of our second survey for group members provide us with a great start. What are your thoughts on the results so far?