OurWork < Community < Priorities < (1) CommunityDefinitions / _ (Asad)

See also Organic Community Building

edit Description

• It would be nice to be able to point a new person to a group of people that are active on the AboutUs wiki.

Why? Less confusing for the noobs to be welcomed by one. It will soon become obvious to those that stay who the active people are.

edit How does this build community?

This may foster community by knowing who is around and who you can ask questions of or collaborate with.

edit Done When

We are done with this iteration's task when we have agreed on an answer for these questions (setting aside the actual definitions or the names of the categories for the moment):

In order to be able to say whether we are up for this task or not, let's see how everyone is feeling about it. If an overwhelming majority says Yes, we'll definitely go ahead, if otherwise, let's dump it here.

edit AboutUs adoption map

edit Useful Links

• Category talk:CommunityMember#Definitions
• Meatball:CommunityMember, Meatball:CategoryRole, Meatball:OnlineCommunity

edit Discussion

Kristina Weis originally brought up that she thought the way we (MarkDilley) had been thinking about groups of folks was backwards. She thought it made sense that if someone showed up here and started to get involved, anyone could put Category:CommunityMember on their PersonalPage - then if they got active, Category:ActiveMember. SimonKoldyk thinks there should just be one flat category for everyone. I still think it is useful, from a community standpoint, to distinguish active members - for new folks that come here. I am concerned about alienating people with categories, so am interested in working really hard at making them mean activity only, not strength of voice. ~~ MarkDilley

I agree with the method suggested by Kristina. I don't really see how we might be alienating people through these categories. Could somebody say more about this? Asad | *~talk~* 04:37, 27 November 2007 (PST)

• Sharing of Knowledge is basically Increment of knowledge —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shahzad (talk • contribs) .
  • Shahzad, could you say more about how this is related to CommunityDefinitions? Thanks! TedErnst (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2007 (PST)
    • Yes, communities shares its valuable knowledge/experiences etc, in this way people from different cultures and regions put their knowledge in communities so as they shares their knowledge, thats knowledge may increase of someones observation & knowledge as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shahzad (talk • contribs) .

I am not a big fan of identifiers overall, but am less concerned what to call folks, as I am skeptical that it would be an effective tool in forging valuable connections between them. This task doesn't seem well defned, maybe just don't get it. I really like and see value in working with peer reviwers (I think we are calling something else?) I find it easier to support definitions that folks actually want to be identified with. What ultimately is the point of these definitons?

Who assigns these defnitons? Staff? Do folks self elect? Are they static?

Is a new person finding the old guard more valid than connecting two new memebers with smiliar, totally compellng interests.

A new member of AboutUs is not necessarily new to wiki, and we would not necessarly know that said user is indeed fluent in wiki; how are these folks defined? Maybe I am just obsessing over implementation?  :) Kasey 12:08, 28 November 2007 (PST)

Lots of great stuff here, Kasey. -- TedErnst (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (PST)

I am not a big fan of them either, but I think that some basic ones are necessary to help us focus. I am a fan of two currently, the wider net CommunityMember and a narrowing ActiveCommunityMember. As anything in wiki - I think that they are added by anyone, modified by anyone and when there is a conflict, there is a conversation about it. ~~ MarkDilley

I think the real question is how you intend to use the info garnered by knowing what category a user is in. That would help you decide how to categorize users. For example people will ask what kind of computer to get. I would ask, 'What tasks would you like to accomplish? Decide what software you want to run first. Then see what is required to run it.'. Define goals first, then the requirements of fulfilling that goal will dictate catagories that are necessary. As a new member here, I greatly appreciated Kristina's welcome as it gave me a connnection to someone who obviously knew their way around here and could answer questions. I did not need to see a catagorization of her as her welcome told me I could contact her if I needed to. WillyP | talk 18:47, 11 December 2007 (PST)

Great to see you here, WillyP! Have you seen Organic Community Building? We need to refactor this page so it is either merged with that one or vice versa, I think. TedErnst (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2007 (PST)

edit My Opinions as asked for by Ted

I do not see anything useful by catagorizing anyone at all. It seems like a caste system where everyone is not equal to the next one. The moment a person signs on here, they should be a member...period!...whether they are active or not, they are a member of Aboutus. If they have a great deal of time they will contribute more, and if they work long hours, then they will contribute less. Regardless of how many or little contributions they make they are all members, equal one to the other.

I feel there are just too much member separations, and unnecessary pictures of groups of those few members who are here longer. The idea is to get members, and not to have them leave here because of excessive rules and regulations. Open the doors, remove the pictures of those who are admins, or active as if they are better than the next ones. That is the impression that I got when I first came on to About us. You had asked me to discuss my opinions, and I just gave them. I did not mean to offend anyone, but this site is very closed, and as it stands now, and unless it becomes less regulated, and titleless, I cannot see how it can grow.

There are certain guideliness about writing about the web sites, that are not abided by. I have seen authors rewrite, the same exact things as the web site has. Ours has become duplicate instead of original. I have seen pictures of the people who own the main web site, when it is not necessary, and does not improve aboutus site itself. About us, is supposed to be a site that tempts others to want to visit the original web site, and a picture of a man and a bunch of kids does not tempt anyone. However a aboutus site, of pictures of many flowers, will make the reader want to see what else is on that Flower or Wedding site. There really should be vast changes for this site to grow. This is my opinion.Patty | talk 11:23, 19 December 2007 (PST)

• If a need for categorizing is not obvious, then there is no need. And if there is a discussion over what the categories are and what they should do, then the need is not obvious. But every ship does need a captain, and it is important to know who the captain is, if only for dispute resolution.

Your comments about pages being mirrors are right on also, Patty, but how would you go about making changes? If this site is to be 'less regulated', then guidelines are just suggestions, and cannot be enforced... nor would we want to impose our opinions on others, since that would be a form of regulation. The featured site program provides a way to invite comments on the page, I've commented on a few and intend to continue when I can. WillyP | talk 15:27, 19 December 2007 (PST)

• I agree that every ship needs a captain, however once someone joins, they learn soon enough who they can turn to for assistance. Actually they can turn to just about anyone, any member, because each one has some knowledge to share. If the person they turn to, does not know the answer, then they will find out from another. We all have to crawl before we walk, and we have to find our own ways also. Have faith in the people who have joined, or are just joining. Allow each to help each other, and find their way. This is how a community starts...each house opens their doors to another, meeting each other by asking questions, and/or helping each other. This method works when we all move into a real community, and it will work here also. In case of a real problem, there should be a group of chosen people who can mediate, but allow the problem to be vast first...allow the community to police themselves before going to the higher authorities. People will get to know each other, and grow together, and offer help to each new person who will join. Have faith in people, be there when absolutely needed, but make your pages and information, easy for people to read and learn from. I also suggest that you combine this page with Organic_Community_Building. You have two different pages, discussing the same matter, and it is confusing. Patty | talk 10:30, 22 December 2007 (PST)

• • I think we can agree on that, my point is that if there is an authority, it should be more clear who is. Would you want a total anarchy? WillyP | talk 07:21, 23 December 2007 (PST)

edit Brainstorming:

Need

This Wiki needs to categorize members because:

All Readers

The meta category

Visitor

Someone that surfs/wanders around our website

Reader

Someone that is showing up to AboutUs and reading pages

Editors / Builders

Self Interested Editor

This person is learning wiki by using our site and working solely on domain pages of sites they hold

Area Interested Editor

This person is building on AboutUs with all the bricks (aka current DomainPages) that we have. Examples:

Community Member

An Editor / Builder that shows up here over a period of time that is longer than a short stint (aka - a month, or an hour a month for a couple of months)

Using the scales suggested in Define Community Member Sets we can characterize active members as:

• writing: style of editor/builder AND

  temporal: (frequent OR past) OR

  name: real name AND

  photo: human

Active Community Member

This person does collaborative work here and invests their energy in helping run AboutUs be participating in decisions of their choice.

Using the scales suggested in Define Community Member Sets we can characterize community member as:

• special interest behavior: collaborating OR
• aboutus supporting behavior: ANY

Community Leader

Leads decision making processes for other organizations on AboutUs, (aka Consensus Polling or Community Launch Plan)

AboutUsCollaborator

Domain holders who are using the AboutUs wiki for their about us pages.

Examples: