Already a member?
Sign in
Location: Discussion
Discussion: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Watch
 ssteward |
Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 14 2008, 7:09 AM EDT Hi, When we decided to create our project as a Wiki we were faced with the problem of the resources maintaining integity. Do you have any ideas *how we could manage the project area of the Wiki (not yet developed) *how permissions should be used *what the project area should look like etc Steve Do you find this valuable? |
 DonnaTrebell |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 16 2008, 6:53 AM EDT There will definately be an issue of integrity. Will you be able to vet contributions before they go live? I think it will be essential to find a way of doing this. Failure to do so may lead to pedagogical mismatches, poor use of English and Nuffield being seen to somehow support this. This could of course create a lot of work which is something which also needs to be considered. I think the project area should be highly visual with as few links required to get to relevant information as possible. Do you find this valuable? |
 HelenClare |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 16 2008, 1:12 PM EDT Maybe it would be possible to have different areas - places where people can put things up for discussion that are still tentative and maybe a bit rough, and places which are more finished and official. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DonnaTrebell |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 16 2008, 5:22 PM EDT If this is possible it would be a good solution. Do you find this valuable? |
|
ssteward |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 17 2008, 5:24 AM EDT Ah ok, so perhaps a 'working area' and then a 'published area'. The working area would be wiki for every one to edit and the published area would be frozen but come with the Nuffield stamp? Do you find this valuable? |
 garethp |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 17 2008, 2:51 PM EDT Integrity? Not really sure exactly what you mean. If files or docs are broken in some way they lose 'integrity'? That is obviously a bad thing. But I feel youalso mean something else...? Part of the problem is that a webpage will almost always be read by most people as a 'finished product'. The worlds most famous wiki (Wikipedia) is certainly seen as such by most browsers. Maybe have all discussion in discussion forum (like this one) and 'finished product' in something else (not a wiki). Then restrict the wiki to actual writers? REgarding contributions to discussion forum ... I dont think these should be vetted before they go live. Let 'em go up and then if I see something I think is offensive I should be able to click on a button and have it instantly removed. If I see something I think is stupid or wrong I leave it up there and write a reply. If everything has to be vetted its very difficult to get a discussion going... Do you find this valuable? |
|
ssteward |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 18 2008, 4:53 AM EDT Well integrity is defined by answers.com as Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. The state of being unimpaired; soundness. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness and I suppose that's what I mean. We want the material to be able to evolve to suit the time but we also need to make sure that the material remains moral, unimpaired and of complete, quality. I think in order to maintain this integrity and allow the flexibility to evolve we will; only let people we know to be able to deliver quality have free edit over the project allow all to pass comment in the forum at the bottom of every page the forum should be monitored and only offensive material should be removed/ edited. Agreed? Do you find this valuable? |
|
garethp |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 18 2008, 5:22 AM EDT Yep, agree with all this. But I do wonder about how quickly things can be moderated - especially if conversations are going on late at night outside office hours. We developed a system with NAGTY kids a few years ago which seemed to work really well. Every post had a 'Report abuse' button. If any reader clicked on this the post was removed and posting privileges for poster and reporter were immediately removed. It was then up to the moderator to adjudicate later - usually after people had cooled off! This produced a kind of 'distributed moderation' that the kids responded to very well. It also removes some pressure from the moderator - especially when they go on annual leave etc. Of course, the key thing is to clarify that these 'removable posts' are about immoral (or unsafe in the kids context) posts not just things you think are stupid! gareth Do you find this valuable? |
 raym |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 18 2008, 7:51 AM EDT Whatever the solution to the issues above. We need a space (or series of connected spaces) where we can work freely to draft material and debate issues, without being constrained to writng perfect prose, fully-formed ideas or completed 'products'. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 angelahall |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 20 2008, 5:24 AM EDT I am personally keen that we facilitate a process of genuine collaboration, where teachers become the curriculum developers. I think the discussion should be unmoderated and open in the sense that replies are not vetted before posting. Steve and Cris will 'moderate' in that they will remove any abusive posts, which I think are unlikely. I may be over-optimistic - but I have the view that we are using Web 2.0 because we feel it changes the nature of knowledge and expertise. My concerns are more about version control of materials rather than about quality control and the 'Nuffield' name. We could, for example restrict Wiki membership to schools who request to join and trial materials. We then know our members, and can allow free discussion and editing. I suspect we'll get a mix of spelling and grammar pedants, people with wild creative ideas, people who can tame other people's wild ideas and people who are good at constructive comment and reflection. I would like to discuss whether we wish to preserve each version, so there is a trail of versions along the timeline - or whether we edit materials on a Wiki page rather than in documents. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
garethp |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 20 2008, 8:26 AM EDT Hmmmm ... beginning to think that a wiki may not be the best tech for this problem. A wiki (to me) is an excellent way to produce and update a single document pulling in input from a wide range of people. So, it works best where online support is available for software or some other set of techniques. A single, authorative version exists supported by a community of experts. What we seem to be wanting is a more experimental, try a variety of approaches and discuss them environment. This seems to call for a standard issue discussion forum and a system to track files ata central location? Not really a wiki in teh sense that most people use it? I also worry that some changes to wiki pages are trivial corrections of grammar or slight modifications to suit 'my style'. Hardly a major step forward but a real source of messiness if you're trying to assess if something is suitable for publication a few days/weeks down the line. Wikis are great - but maybe not what we need here? gareth Do you find this valuable? |
|
ssteward |
RE: Integrity of a Wiki project and how we manage it.
Apr 21 2008, 4:52 AM EDT Ok, If in the first instance we have a development area where only people working on the project are able to edit material. Then after a review process we take that material that has been developed and put it in a seperate area identified as 'the project'. Would this mean that there is a place for every one to contribute (under moderation) and a place where versions can be tracked and integrity is maintained? Do you find this valuable? |
