Talk:Welcome to StudyPlace
From Studyplace
Contents |
[edit] Emphasis on Participation
I'm concerned that the StudyPlace welcome is not clear enough about emphasizing that anyone can edit it. We do see language on participation, etc. at the very top of the page but this is not the same as Wikipedia, for instance, where we learn very quickly that the undertaking is a project that anyone can edit. Perhaps this is turning some users away from contributing? -- "free and open to all" is not the same as the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
neil 15:40, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- I don't think anyone should feel unable to contribute given the opening statements, but they may not realize this is accomplished by editing pages if they aren't already familiar with wikis. I know the "you can" box is for the production metaphors, but maybe an "edit" bullet there (which redirects to the account page) might address your concern. I have no idea whether there are enough people being turned away to warrant sacrificing the clarity of the "you can" box with its 1-1 ratio of links to production modes. Alternatively, maybe the "create an account" link under "Want to get started?" could be titled differently, but still link the the account creation page. Perhaps Edit most anything! works? Eric Strome 23:26, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Perhaps. The new addition that Robbie put up is an improvement in my view, although it potentially complicates the matter. I'm concerned that we need to see EDIT in large, bold print - and not, for purposes of garnering participation, as a component of a more subtle concept map - because StudyPlace has seen its number of users rise dramatically in the past two weeks, but without the same influx of contributions.
- neil 08:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- Perhaps. The new addition that Robbie put up is an improvement in my view, although it potentially complicates the matter. I'm concerned that we need to see EDIT in large, bold print - and not, for purposes of garnering participation, as a component of a more subtle concept map - because StudyPlace has seen its number of users rise dramatically in the past two weeks, but without the same influx of contributions.
- I think we need to be quite concrete in attracting participation. By this I mean that we need to publicize specific requests for contributions, say to a symposium on Tough Choices (if we get this a bit more ready, we can query the TC community). Let's try to think up a request that Ph.D. students at Columbia GSAS would find interesting in relation somehow to their teaching center. I am wondering whether we can set something up around Columbia College's core curriculum to attract undergraduates. Also, there are a lot of professional association meetings coming up. Presentations at some of the smaller meetings where things are more face to face may actually engender participation more effectively, I suspect.
- On an optimistic note -- the glass is three percent full -- I think we should expect only a small percent of people who start accounts to actually become significant contributors. There are probably some figures on this from Wikipedia and possibly other sites. Robbie McClintock 09:53, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I agree that optimism is warranted. And using Touch Choices as an opening symposium makes good sense to me. I think discussion of the text needs to be situated, and I'm interested in working toward that end.
- neil 10:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I agree that optimism is warranted. And using Touch Choices as an opening symposium makes good sense to me. I think discussion of the text needs to be situated, and I'm interested in working toward that end.
- I think that all the points mentioned are relevant, there is a mix of using a wiki environment, hence getting starting and using the “edit” button. What may be more challenging is getting non CU or TC welcome. In principle, it may not need to be stated since the introductory message is open to all but clarity as to openness to people outside CU or TC may be reinforced to encourage scholars and participants widely. The symposium on Tough Choices sounds really engaging. Eliane
[edit] Let's get more red links on this page
Generating participation is important and to promote it perhaps we should do an about-face to get rid of context pages and greatly reduce the number of stubs. I think two things will be attractive to would-be participants —
- Some links that we visually mark as active, meaning that at least one person is actively adding material there.
- Lots of red links indicating open territory inviting occupation.
I haven't given up on the idea that a context page may prove useful for sustaining complex, high-level work. But users can introduce context pages as they come to feel the necessity for them. Also pre-formatting article pages with a stub form probably raises the threshold for new participants, confronting them with something that may seem a bit forbidding. Should we get rid of many of the empty stubs? Robbie McClintock 10:26, 30 January 2007 (EST)
[edit] Critique or Review?
These are different concepts, and the top box now contains a reference to critique rather than review, though the "you can" box on the left sidebar contains review. For one, this is confusing. A level of consistency is needed. Two (and now personally), I think review provides a more balanced approach, as "critique" implies that one should always look for what is wrong with something, rather than critically assess (i.e. review) whether something should be agreed with. When confronted with phenomena, it seems to me, one ought to review them from the position that they could be bad, but they also could be good, and worthy of encouraging. Reviewing something seriously leaves room for rightly identifying what is worthy of promotion. The concept of critique, I'm afraid, does not, or at least allows far less. nee2102 10:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- I have neutralized it and added a couple prepositions that go with 'converse' and 'reflect'. For the record, however, 'critique' is not necessarily negative. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is anything but a negative denigration of it. In his view, to critique something is to inquire carefully about the conditions of its possibility. I think such an effort is very valuable and we should nurture it, but I agree that our opening salvo is not the best place to ride that hobbyhorse. Robbie McClintock 12:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
[edit] 'Emergent' Projects
Perhaps we should try to describe projects that are a bit more active on this part of the page? nee2102 13:07, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- Yes! I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning. Robbie McClintock 15:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
