[Network-Centric Resources] Is a collaborative platform the best way to get input on your resource?

[Kristin Antin]

Hello resource creators!

I have some questions for you about platforms for collaborative resources.
(sorry for the long email!)

Short version:

If we go through the trouble of configuring a beautiful, collaborative wiki
platform for our resources, how likely is it that people would actually use
those collaboration features (e.g. commenting on specific words, sentences
or paragraphs, suggested changes, making edits to the content, creating new
content, have a discussion)? What has already been learned about
collaboration platforms (or systems) in this space?

Does anyone have experience (successful or unsuccessful) using different
approaches to getting feedback/input on content? I would be so grateful for
any lessons you have learned.

Long version:

I’ve been thinking a lot about the right **platform(s)** to create and
share our community-driven resources.

For resources that are created with and for a community of practitioners,
ideally that resource would be: super easy to collaborate on (e.g.
suggestions, questions, comments, edits, ideas, debate), very transparent
in terms of who worked on what and when, and really accessible in terms of
it being easy to find, search, navigate, download, translate and learn.

...but we are just one staff person, two interns, and no dedicated budget.
So how do we approach this in a more iterative and realistic way, so that
we can build and improve as we gain more support?

When I think about our platform requirements related to accessibility and
transparency, these seem pretty straightforward. I know there are many
platforms that address our needs regarding these. The place where I get
stuck is knowing what our collaboration feature requirements are for a
platform (or platforms).

I’ve narrowed down the options to some stand-alone open source wiki
platforms (e.g. mediawiki, xwiki, dokuwiki), and using Wordpress plugins
which would allow us to host all the content on our existing huridocs.org
website. So I drafted some pros/cons:

* Pros to stand alone wiki: these platforms come with some great
collaboration features. It would be awesome to build a community around the
creation of these resources!

* Cons to stand alone wiki: it’s yet another platform for HURIDOCS to
install, configure, maintain, and it’s yet another platform for our users
to have to create an account and figure out how to do the tasks. Our
audience would need to go to another place (away from our website), which
might be confusing.

* Pros to the Wordpress plugin approach: people would know where to find
it, there are some beautiful knowledge base plugins out there, and it’s
easier to maintain for HURIDOCS.

* Cons to the Wordpress plugin approach: the collaboration would be limited
to more superficial feedback forms.


So I wonder -- if we go through the trouble of configuring a beautiful,
collaborative wiki platform for our resources, how likely is it that people
would actually use those collaboration features (e.g. commenting on
specific words, sentences or paragraphs, suggested changes, making edits to
the content, creating new content, have a discussion)? I know there are
many factors that go into this, including how much effort is made to engage
people in contributing, and the usability of the platform. But I wonder
what has already been learned about collaboration platforms (or systems) in
this space? Is it really more about the process and discussion with people
about the resource, than it is about the platform?

Does anyone have experience (successful or unsuccessful) using different
approaches to getting feedback/input on content? I would be so grateful for
any lessons you have learned.

Thank you!
Kristin

-- 
*Kristin Antin*
Knowledge Collaboration Lead
she/her

<https://www.huridocs.org/>
New York
Skype: kjantin | Twitter: @kjantin <https://twitter.com/kjantin> | PGP
public key <https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4AB61F4BBED26639>
Donate to us! <https://www.huridocs.org/donate>
website <http://huridocs.org/> | facebook <http://facebook.com/huridocs> |
twitter <http://twitter.com/huridocs>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20211112/200c8175/attachment.htm>