Sorry, I don't disagree with the article i just feel it's overly generic and really doesn't say much as it's clearly a primer for the workshop.
I disagree Nick. I think he is talking about managing the content on large
site. He is saying that the people who have the content (whether they are in
marketing, research, sales, HR, etc..) should not have to worry about the
technology issues.
By editors he is not referring to newspaper editor or professional
copywriters he's talking about Joanne in marketing who needs to get the spec
sheet up for the new product.
He's definitely not saying if you want a website with good content pay the
right people, he's saying give the people in the organisation good enough
tools so they can do the content themselves.
I'm not sure I agree with that as he says:
"Set up a process something like this: An editor manages all content on the site. Give that editor a staff of writers to send out into your business units. These writers act like reporters in the field, working on stories that they submit to a copy desk"
"If you’re not in the business of producing publications, you won’t be able to do better by plugging in a technology and crossing your fingers. Rather, solve the problem with people."
Fundamentally he (as I read it) is saying you cannot just grab a CMS, plug it in and expect Joe from Sales, Joanne from Marketing, etc to individually contribute to what will automatically become a cohesive company website no matter how good the technology is. In the end it needs people specifically there to handle the publishing process.
However what I question is the sweeping nature of the article (again as it's as it's clearly a primer for the workshop) e.g. What KIND of website...e.g. for a brochure type site consistent and focussed copy writing is important and difficult with disparate input. On the other hand if it was a large product catalog perhaps certain people from individual departments are better able to supply data. Also what KIND of organisation...e.g. A biotechnology company site may combine articles written by scientists with marketing content. etc...
In the in end ... CMS's are not THE answer nor necessarily are centralised editorial teams ...because... it depends!
I recently read an article that pointed out a more interesting downside to CMS's, that this article could have picked up on, which was the issue of quantity over quality. The point being just because you can produce 1000's of pages via a CMS doesn't mean you should.
Nick
********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
