WS Sandbox

Hey H,

1. I am one of those types that will systematically run through this checklist until it is done....is this still a test area or can I run through these freely? You can tell I am keen on this kind of data checking.

It's still a test area, but editing those organization pages right away is always a good thing. I can definitely tell you're into data checking! Also, I'm thinking of launching this at the beginning of next year listening to some of the comments in the editors forum on this.

We might want to simplify the process a bit (after hearing feedback that it's quite tedious), for example by lumping the various entities (resources, events, etc.) under a new column "add related entities".

2. When you [Bowo] refer to the forums in the chatterbox...are you directing me to this discussion area or to the editors forum....? All of the questions I have right now refer to the sandbox, so I am posting the discussion in the sandbox. Please correct me if I am not paying attention!

More to this area, so we can have layout and workflow specific discussions. But posting there is fine too.

3. I had the opportunity to test and play with networking, and want to confirm that networking organizations based on their AOF and other criteria is a "go" but networking people to an org is not. My sense of the networking on my "test" scenario was focus, region, and scope/goals. Am I to assume that editors with greater familiarity in various AOF can network the orgs "as needed" and that there is no other criteria?

Networking organizations based on AoF is not quite necessary, as this has automatically been done by the system via the AoF page (which list how many organizations is tagged with a certain AoF) and via the search function too.

I think networking organizations should stick to the fact that those organizations actually are linked in some sort of funding scheme, partnership, membership, or 'chapter'-ship. We will enable people to easily find organizations in their region (in the upcoming iteration of site improvement, probably very early next year).

If networking people is a no-go, we can just contact the person and notify him/her to consider adding an organization to his/her network.

How does this sound? Always open for further discussion.

Here's an example of an organization I heavily-networked quite a while back: Earth Charter Initiative. It has so many regional, chapter and endorsing organizations.

4. If we are going to use this format, or some format similar to this type of checkgrid, do we have a process to run these orgs through a "2nd edit" by a different editor some time not too long from the "1st edit" by the initial editor?

I think we definitely can start and keep going with similar type of checkgrid (if not to use the one we have now). However, a recent suggestion by Angus, opens up the possibility to automate this process for certain type of organization pages (most viewed).

There's no "2nd edit" mechanism at the moment. Not sure we'll have the manpower to do that just yet. I think this will be 'automatic' once we have a larger base of Directory Editors, and have a faster editing cycle.

Ideally, every organization page should be reviewed at least once a year. That would mean a roughly 110,000 organizations / 365 days = 300 organizations/day to review. Having 100 Directory Editors would leave each editor reviewing three organization pages each day. Of course, the number of organizations is growing, so this is just a rough calculation. But if things go like this, we can be sure that an organization page is reviewed once a year.

We can of course create that "2nd edit" mechanism after some time in a separate wikipage for example. So, let's say that the group is made public, and co-editing has been going on for three months. At that time, we can create a new wikipage listing orgnizations edited three months ago. We can also think of automating this by installing a technical feature. But this might make things a bit more complicated than necessary.

5. We might also want to consider a "no reply/response" to the checklist that gets tended to after some amount of time. This data could be used to drop the org to an unmonitored but listed status as well as general inactivity could.

This is an interesting idea that definitely should be included in a technical feature (if we do decide to implement one). I'm guessing that you're referring to Bernard's idea on differentiating organizations' levels of engagement in WE.

One question: I think we can start with a 'fool-proof' and simple-enough editing workflow (or the one we have now), then diversify/automate with technical fixes/features later on. What else do you think we need to prepare or improve to create a public group for this initiative (where editors take the lead in co-editing).

How does this sound? I wonder what others think?

Thanks so much for those good questions!

Cheers,

Bowo

Aloha!

1. Yes, it's just to ensure that organizations are tagged with the right AoF.

2. zenbee was not recorded on the Show History section, so s/he probably was just adding it to his/her network. The 1st edit column is meant to showcase that someone is the 'pioneer'. It's a form of recognition for people who took that first step. Subsequent edits will naturally be recorded in Show History, "contributors to this page", and "last edited by" under each listing in the organizations module. So, I don't think we'll need to add another column for '2nd edit'.

3. Yes. Once we're satisfied with the editing workflow (it being clear, intuitive and rewarding), the group layout (easy on the eyes), and the bulletin board contents (brief and informative), the sandbox group will be done and we'll create a new 'public' and 'open' group taking the content and layout from the sandbox group.