Difference between revisions of "Organic Community Building"

RecentChanges of category Community Building

Overarching Ideas

• Organic = Don't force community. Give people a place to gather and the means to communicate, and they will create community. In essence, we provide the soil and nutrients, and they grow the rest.
• Mutual Interest
• Unifying Place and Places
• Give More Tools
• Wiki as a tool for communication and interaction: We know it is, but have to help others realize it as well.
• Building mini-communities within the overall AboutUs community

Grouping based on level of interaction

To help people find each other at the activity level they are at. One of the purposes is to provide more people available in an outreach role. Currently, they mainly ask staff members for help, but if there are people willing and eager to help, we should facilitate it.

Use the categories in conjunction with WikiTour and other help pages to give users people to talk to or guide them. Have general communications on a page there, and listings to get help more directly by leaving a message on a talk page.

1. Category:New to Community - new people to AboutUs.
2. Category:CommunityMember - making some edits.
3. Category:ActiveCommunityMember - making lots of edits, or edits over time or interacting with others, their edits don't need to be patrolled to keep the weeds down.
4. Category:WikiGnomes
5. Category:AboutUs Welcomer -
6. Category:RecentChanges Patroller - help keep eyes on the site and alert community to InterestingHappenings
   1. They have access to edit tools to assist users, rather than staff always being the only ones approached.
   2. Patrol often reveals users who need assistance, and patrollers can approach.
7. Category:WikiGuides - Contact one of us or put your question to all of us.
   1. Could be not staff and a guide, could be staff and not a guide.
   2. Teach WikiIsSlow

1. Category:System Administrators - people that have a bunch of tools. (not used if do a better job of fine tuning other responisbilities)
2. Category:Bureaucrats - people that have the keys to the site. (only a few people have this)

"Mini-Communities"

(There's a better definition for this, I'm sure)

• We need to find ways to encourage communication and interaction to create community.
• People will more easily group themselves around an area of common interest. We have the potential for many different areas of interest within the overall community. Some people will only have one area, others may have many. But the easiest way to bond people together is through common interest.
• SpecificRecentChanges provides a good starting tool for community development -- people can see other places within the area of interest easily and take note of changes and activity. However, this only goes so far. Each individual is still isolated by the lack of interaction and communication. We need to encourage interaction by demonstrating what tools are available to everyone -- talk pages, creation of new pages, etc.

• We need to look at how people are communicating now, and how it can be encouraged
• We need to better educate how Wiki works and how individuals can create their own content rather than merely expanding on our lead.
• We need to foster and encourage this climate by actively involving and praising attempts to create.

Tools for Organic Growth

• SpecificRelatedChanges, Related or Granular Recent Changes to develop circles of interest around topics and areas of interest. The old "Web Ring" concept, but with spaces to easily create conversation areas.
• Portals
• use of templates to make talking with a new person easier - see Template:MarkDilley as an idea
• WikiGuides

Community "Policing"

• I'm using the word policing in quotations because we've resisted intrusive moderation. Being intrusive to debate and users does not help create community and can create hostility. But we've encountered situations where we have needed to play a more active role, as AssumeGoodFaith will not always work. DrewMyers | talk
• We may or may not want to include this here, but I wanted to bring it up because it's the thorniest area of community development. Too little, and a "wild west" anarchy may develop, too much and there's a controlling power structure which may stifle development through a culture that resists change and creativity, and a maze of rules that are indecipherable.DrewMyers | talk

Discussions

• It would be better if these used [[Role: ]] rather than "category". There's a negative feel to placing people in categories like that, regardless of intent. DrewMyers | talk
• Watching the CommunityDefinitions page: Roles/Categories are useless to users if we don't have effective ways of explaining and communicating them.
• There is much dupliation here with CommunityPermissions and CommunityDefinitions. Is there another way to do this that makes more sense? TedErnst (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (PST)

Ted, I think we're just brainstorming at the moment. "Not ready for prime-time", maybe. Mark and I had this conversation the other day and we wanted to flesh it out a little. They do overlap somewhat, and we will have to work towards that. But this was just a thought process towards giving more of a basis for community to develop and grow.DrewMyers | talk

Neither of those other two pages are polished at all either. And I'm afraid people don't know this discussion is going on, if they're only watching those other two. Have we gone far enough down this road to think about merger yet? I'd like to, even while we're still in brainstorming mode. TedErnst (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2007 (PST)

I think that we could merge easily to an extent, but they're still a bit separate. Defining is when people are actually in the community. We were looking at a way to provide a support structure to help people actually feel at home enough to be community, and how to encourage growth. I was looking at WikiGuides as a support structure for people who need help. WikiGuides will most certainly have to be discussed in their relation to CommunityPermissions and CommunityDefinitions, but we should better define the proposal before we dilute those two discussions with its inclusion. There's a lot to be discussed there before we add another entirely new element to the process.DrewMyers | talk

• Roles: is not a defined function in Mediawiki - I like it a lot, how can we mean it? I think of Categories as tags - speaking of which, where would WikiGnome fit? ~~ MarkDilley | talk

I'm still pondering that after last night's presentation (the WikiGnome part), but my point was that these are roles people voluntarily accept, not Categories they're placed in. I know it's not a function, unfortunately. But we're asking people to step forward and be noticed. DrewMyers | talk

We could actually NOT use the category function for these, and use regular pages called Role: and make lists. Although there are issues with that. TedErnst (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2007 (PST)

DrewMyers - I understand and really like. How does this sound, after people get placed into the ActiveCommunityMember - all next steps are organic, meaning people choose these roles? Does this work, or does the ActiveCommunityMember have to be a self identified role? I don't think so, but am intersted in your thoguhts. ~~ MarkDilley

ActiveCommunityMember is actually self-defined. They choose to be active, and we're merely showing them that we've noticed, and are encouraging them. See below Ted's comment. DrewMyers | talk

• What if we just had a page ActiveCommunityMember that said what this is that then linked to this special page? http://www.aboutus.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=ActiveCommunity We wouldn't have to tag people's personal pages at all. TedErnst (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (PST)

Actually, both these concepts seem to solve some issues I've been seeing. There appears to be some resistance/confusion over "labeling" people. I can see the point -- people don't like being assigned to certain groups without input. If we just tag people who seem to be active as ActiveCommunityMembers and direct them to that page, they will be able to see other roles that they can fill. (We could also use that as a gateway to other areas of interest.) This way, all we're doing is sending them a signal that we know they're active in the community and are pointing them to a place where they can find other ways to be active and pursue them. DrewMyers | talk

My Overall Opinion

May I voice my opinion on this entire matter without fear of offending anyone. I believe that you are all trying to hard to make Aboutus simple. In attempting that simplicity, you are making things more difficult.

1. When someone joins, allow them to find their own interests, do not place them in any particular category, or anyplace. Just as sand settles, so will people find their own interests.

2. Make the goal of Aboutus easier to understand, make the places where help is needed easily read. Then new contributors will be able to realize where they want to work, or what area they are most interested in.

3. Do not assign positions. What If a person wants to add a little of everything...lets say, maybe add a picture to one page, and edit for spelling on another page, or change a paragraph on yet another page. a wiki is open to anyone to edit as they want. A Wiki is free, so allow Aboutus to be free of all restrictions.

4. I do not agree with placing categories or tags or whatever you call is on new members or on members in general. As I stated before, once a person joins, he is welcomed into the community. Period!! this thing about Active Members, or contributing members tags them, and restricts them. Why do you feel that you need this?......

5. Again, I had stated prior, and am repeating only in case others have not read my previous post, all pages written here, should only be short and to the point, revealing the main points of the web site itself, so that anyone reading our version of the site, will want to go to the original site. Adding pictures of people who might run the site, will not bring people to click on the site. However, a site about Bridal flowers for example, should show the flowers, and a few sentences on how they can be used ....This will make the site itself, read.

6. Last but not least is the absence of the actual Vision of Aboutus. It is not clear even with those who have started this site. No one really knows why.....why should anyone want to volunteer their time on Aboutus. Until you have this question resolved, I cannot see growth.

7. I have edited a few articles, the purpose was to make them Featured. But to be honest with you, while I really like the people here, and their attitudes and their friendliness, and would like to help in the growth, I am not sure that I want to volunteer my time, and efforts to help a web site owner make money. This seems to be the purpose of AboutUs. The purpose as I see it now, is to help web site owners to make our web site interesting so that others will want to shop in the real web site. Even the original web site owners are creating AboutUs pages for their own use.

This to me is not conducive to having me want to volunteer hour upon hour on About us. Give me another Vision, and give it to others, so you can get the members, before you decide on how to work with the members.

I apologize if my thoughts are too lengthy, but I have been asked by Ted for my opinion, and not to be a yes man. My thoughts therefore are sincerely given to help the site and to give more insight into how to go about it. Patty | talk 07:55, 21 December 2007 (PST)

Patty, thank you very much. No need to apologize or worry about giving offense. This is an open place for all of us to express. Thank you much. TedErnst (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2007 (PST)

I have to second pretty much everything Patty has said. There's no point without a Vision that users can get behind. I would also add that I am realizing that the spaggetti mess of categories and such actualy hurts the usability of this site as such. There is just so much going on that it is too easy to get lost in the spagetti and not find the meatballs. And now there are even more buttons on a page...

• • • WillyP | talk 21:12, 23 December 2007 (PST)

2 questions

1. Drew, could you suss out both of the concepts that you are referring to, so I can be clear?

I was referring to your and Ted's ideas about ActiveCommunityMember. When people make the jump and become active in participating, that tag is just our way of recognizing it. But they will see the change on their user page, and most likely will go to check out what it means. When they do, we should not only explain what the tag means but give them other ideas on how they can get involved/interact even more. The ActiveCommunityMember page can become a portal of sorts to greater community involvement. DrewMyers | talk

1. Does the idea of placing a template on CommunityMembers - that is a transcluded weekly update, with links to help and how to get more involved work? Then people would realize if they are making good edits, and want them to be auto patrolled, they can self identify as ActiveCommunityMember, and add the corresponding template to their page, replacing the community member template? MarkDilley

People can always self-identify by actions. It's our job to communicate the ways they can participate, and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Our main challenge is removing the perceived barriers they may face. I'm sure there's a significant number who are afraid to break through because they're worried about whether or not they're allowed to. We want them to do so. How do we make our desire to have them participate known? DrewMyers | talk

Response

Using this somehow, like here User_talk:Lucy_Greer_Burton MarkDilley

Sorry Guys

Billions of Websites out there, and you only have 18 active community members? The 18 regulars are so busy that they do not even have time for lunch..:) If this community is to thrive and grow we need to open up the ranks and have helpers, and these helpers need to be introduced to the new members, so they can help them out, and so on, and so on...Igorberger 18:28, 22 December 2007 (PST)

We can call the helpers AboutUs guides the guides will be assigned to new users with a link Go see your guide if you need help to get started the page will have links to guide talk pages! How does one become a guide? Reaching a certain level of edits. If guides do not know what to do they will ask the senior editors. So sort of like AboutUs Big Brother And I do not mean 1984..:) But Adopt a user program!Igorberger 18:38, 22 December 2007 (PST)

Igor, right now we have a bit of a spaghetti mess - see Category:CommunityMember and Category:ActiveMember for a list of active folks as well. A new idea from last week is WikiGuides as well. I like what you are purposing - my thought are to have a WikiInterface for new folks, perhaps CommunityNews and link WikiGuides off of that. I like some of your ideas above and look forward to SelfOrganizing us a nice system! ~~ MarkDilley

Sounds like it is time to consolidate it all and put it all together. Based on a consenses we should nominate a volunteer who is best suited to do the work, please do not elect me because I am terable with small deltails, and very slow with my English grammar, structure and spelling, so will not be productive, and will need a lot of help with structure and proof reading. Igorberger 02:03, 23 December 2007 (PST)

I don't think it's necessary to choose one person. We can each work on it, as interest, time and ability allow. As long as I talk about what I'm doing, then others can pick up where I leave off, and so on. TedErnst (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2007 (PST)

Ted, thanks for nominating yourself as a planer and organizer of this venture..:)Igorberger 16:12, 23 December 2007 (PST)