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

Tue Nov 16 16:41:50 CET 2021

To answer some of your questions: 

I definitely "own" the documents. So I'm making the final editorial calls based on the goals of each resource. 

We don't get spam, but it would be easy enough to lock comments if we did. And I do post the documents to email lists, but they're not publicly archived so the URLs haven't really gotten out to where vandals would find them. 

Depending on the document I handle edits in different ways.

On the regional groups page, it's really just that we get around to updates once every few months. We try to check the document and incorporate any edits at least that often. If we get suggestions (we do sometimes) that don't fit the goals of the guide, I just delete them. In some cases I explain why. ("Thank you for this, looks great. I'm trying to keep this particular guide to x/y/z.") But if they're really off base I just ignore them. Before we adopted this approach, people would randomly email us with corrections that we'd have to incorporate immediately or hang into until we were ready to make updates. Neither approach was a good use of staff time. 

In our guide to fair practice, there's a window when it's open to feedback and we let our members know that.  I make a point of clearly responding to all the feedback in a letter to our members, along with the release of the updated guide. With that document it's important for our members to know that we didn't just ignore their feedback. 

And, for fun, another one: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uDHB7e9ObF03mw502_RJJ3w6U734mmx4-3yuWV9i0dU/edit?usp=drivesdk

On November 16, 2021 6:28:16 AM PST, Kristin Antin <kristin at huridocs.org> wrote:
>Amanda - thank you so much for sharing your process!! This is incredibly
>helpful, and good to know that others are also reluctantly in the Google
>boat for now (we are also looking for alternatives). I really like that on
>the published resource itself, you include a link to the google doc where
>people can make suggestions. I really admire the openness and inclusivity.
>Do you get any problems with spam? I would be curious to know more about
>your quarterly process for updating the resources -- how do you decide
>which changes to accept and which ones don't fit?
>
>I think we will try out this type of approach -- using Google docs for
>collaboration and feedback, and sharing the content on our wordpress site
>for easy findability and searchability. And I'll plan to include links to
>the google docs!
>
>And Brendon - thank you for sharing your thoughts on the importance of
>community and engagement, over platforms. It's so true, and I appreciate
>this reminder.
>
>We will be proactively seeking feedback through online group discussions
>(conference calls). If anyone has any advice on the best way to facilitate
>a feedback discussion like this, I would be very happy to receive it! For
>example, I'm trying to figure out the right amount of content to ask people
>to review. Brendon I would love to learn more from you about how to best
>facilitate community learning groups!
>
>Please keep the ideas coming! I will send another update when we're ready
>to seek feedback on our resources so you can see how things are shaping up
>for us.
>
>All the best,
>Kristin
>
>On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:58 PM Amanda <amanda at velociraptor.info> wrote:
>
>> 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 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at fabriders.net
>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> For more details see: https://www.fabriders.net/network-centric/
>>
>
>
>-- 
>*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>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20211116/02041e83/attachment-0001.htm>