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

[Amanda]

I kind of hate to admit it because I loathe feeding the Google ecosystem, but what has consistently worked for us is Google Docs. I haven't found anything else that works consistently with our users: I use Google Docs for this all the time. I would love a better alternative but I haven't found one that doesn't flummox people.

A few examples:
There are a few resource roundups that I have assembled and frequently share and then ask for additions to. I incorporate the feedback and then re-release them. I think the open drafts get as much traffic as the pages on our site:
* Legal Resources; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QC02RG3m8zhtX0xVzTmwbMOqhu64Uov9UwiPU2NKiJs/edit#
* Budgets and Case Studies: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TVv5D2cKL7eTYEgFgEK8NyyovWcFshxcgxnzezhJkXk/edit#
* Remote Recording: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1la0xZBapSVrL-33fqDZ4aNSh2U2alDy5wO6A1LndVMw/edit# -- this one has a few lingering threads that I haven't had a chance to address.

Our regional groups page is a round up of local groups in our field: https://airmedia.org/regional-groups -- the way we handle taking edits/updates/suggestions to that page is to invite folks to comment on a Google Doc. We incorporate those comments ~quarterly when we update the page.
When we update resources like our Guide to Fair Practice (https://airmedia.org/tools/code-of-fair-practice), a piece of the process is always to post the draft for our membership to weigh in on, and we get a lot of comments. I always leave it open to comments from anywhere, so you don't have to log in if you don't want to.
I try to lead each document with some kind of preamble that explains the status, owner and purpose of feedback, so that if someone stumbles on the document they can tell what they're looking at.
I'd love to know if you've found systems that work for you!
-Amanda

✧ ✧ ✧
Amanda Hickman (she/her)
Berkeley, CA
(510) 545-6631

On Nov 12 2021, at 9:28 am, Kristin Antin <kristin at huridocs.org> wrote:
> 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 (http://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
>
>
> New York
> Skype: kjantin | Twitter: @kjantin (https://twitter.com/kjantin) | PGP (https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4AB61F4BBED26639) 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at fabriders.net
> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> For more details see: https://www.fabriders.net/network-centric/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20211115/9ffcaefb/attachment.htm>