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 The idea is to clearly assign this duty to avoid having orphaned and outdated content.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/
