Thanks for the clarification, Alexey. Very useful. I like that approach. Would live to hear from others too!
Lori Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:30 PM, "Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich" <alexey.la...@mnsu.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 15:32 , Kathy Lussier wrote: > >> Hey Lori! >> >>> Interesting issue. It is a wiki and yet it has been the work of Ben >>> Shum thus far and the approach we've been taking on the Web Team is >>> to have content owners (well, people responsible for content areas) >>> so I was feeling more inclined to treat that page as Ben's. >> >> Can you talk a little more about how you and the web team envision content >> ownership working? I know it's been a while since I've been able to attend a >> web team meeting, >> and my memory is a little fuzzy on this topic, but I remember talking about >> content ownership early on. At the time, my interpretation was that it was a >> way for web team members to improve small pieces of the web site that were >> important to them, but I didn't think it meant they had sole responsibility >> for a particular wiki page - at least I hope it didn't since I'm sure there >> have been times when I've inadvertently edited someone else's page. I would >> like to echo Ben's sentiment for open collaboration on the wiki where >> anybody with an account can feel free to add or edit content when they see a >> change that needs to be made. I'm hoping a future Evergreen web site will >> follow a similar model, primarily because we are all volunteers with limited >> time to contribute to the web site. So I thought this e-mail thread might be >> a good jumping off point to discuss how content ownership might work on the >> web site and perhaps to reaffirm the collaborative nature of the Evergreen >> wiki. > > The idea of content ownership was discussed specifically for official website > content, not necessarily for unofficial wiki content. The content owner will > be ultimately responsible for maintaining content for which he or she is the > owner, including facilitating content review and feedback processes, etc. > The idea is to clearly assign this duty to avoid having orphaned and outdated > content. > >> >> There are only a few people who can make high-level changes to the non-wiki >> portions of the web site, and I know the web team and others need to ask for >> assistance to make those changes because they might not have the permission >> or technical knowledge to make those changes themselves. However, I'm >> concerned that asking those same people to make updates that can be done by >> anyone with a wiki account might be an imposition on their time. > > Yes, by introducing the concept of content ownership we are trying to > formalize and clarify responsibility for maintaining official content. Wiki > is unofficial content, so I would just like to make that distinction again > and focus more on official website content for now. That said, when it comes > to wiki pages, a "content owner" could be defined by such activity as > initiating a new page, making frequent edits, etc. So, it doesn't hurt to > check. But it does not mean that this "owner" is the only person who can > edit, since the wiki provides facilities to document/explain edits. > > Kathy, please feel free to join us for the next meeting on August 16, 2012 at > 13:30 Central/14:30 Eastern if you have any other questions or input. > >> >>> Also, I suck at wiki editing. >> >> Heh, it's not my strong point either, but I've found I can go far just by >> copy and pasting the wiki markup that was used by the people who came before >> me. >> >> Cheers! >> >> Kathy >> >> -- >> Kathy Lussier >> Project Coordinator >> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >> (508) 343-0128 >> kluss...@masslnc.org >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > > > Alexey Lazar > PALS > Information System Developer and Integrator > 507-389-2907 > http://www.mnpals.org/ >
