I think a good approach to this would be for someone to start with an
initial outline. And have volunteers partake in parts they feel
comfortable writing well about. Then someone would of course need to
play the editor role.
I run SEO for Ballotpedia.org, Judgepedia.org, and Sunshinereview.org. We have extensive experience with wiki's and I would be happy to set one up and provide some guidance. We have a few peeps who are avid wiki editors and can help get us started up.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:45 AM, felixd <felix...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a good approach to this would be for someone to start with an > initial outline. And have volunteers partake in parts they feel > comfortable writing well about. Then someone would of course need to > play the editor role.
Hi folks, apologies if I'm jumping into this mid-stream. Obviously
wiki plans here were sidelined by resources / participants' time
constraints. What we had planned to do was have a small committee of
volunteers and moderators come up with an initial plan, including
reviewing Wiki software to potentially post this on a website (same
rules as here - a collective nonprofit hippie-dippie effort :) ).
Looks like the Wiki functionality here may not be the greatest.
Obviously contributions would be welcome from all, especially members
of SEM 2.0 group, but the initial planning is best done by a tight
group, and someone would definitely have to administer the software
etc. I believe we did have a volunteer for this at one point and it
might have been David Fischer (I), (there are two David Fischers on
here).
Anyway, we already did have some volunteers, so perhaps I or Adam
should attempt to reconvene this committee to get the ball rolling. I
am not sure where it stalled but it may have been in the very early
stages. A key concern is that SEO's treat wikis differently from the
rest of the world - without some pretty strict rules and editorial or
community policing sentiment from the get-go it just turns into a big
yawnfest because 50% of it is self-promotional, weak material that no
one takes the trouble to weed out.
Perhaps the best idea is for anyone old or new who wants to reconvene
the Wiki committee to go ahead and contact Adam Audette or myself and
we'll try to set some milestones & deadlines for launch from there.
Andrew
On Jun 15, 9:44 pm, "Eric Odom" <ericjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I run SEO for Ballotpedia.org, Judgepedia.org, and Sunshinereview.org. We
> have extensive experience with wiki's and I would be happy to set one up and
> provide some guidance. We have a few peeps who are avid wiki editors and can
> help get us started up.
> Let me know your thoughts.
> -Eric Odom
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:45 AM, felixd <felix...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think a good approach to this would be for someone to start with an
> > initial outline. And have volunteers partake in parts they feel
> > comfortable writing well about. Then someone would of course need to
> > play the editor role.
I still stand by my offer to head this up. Or, at least be intimately involved. I've got a server, so hosting it and installing Media Wiki can all be done with relative ease.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Andrew Goodman <agood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks, apologies if I'm jumping into this mid-stream. Obviously > wiki plans here were sidelined by resources / participants' time > constraints. What we had planned to do was have a small committee of > volunteers and moderators come up with an initial plan, including > reviewing Wiki software to potentially post this on a website (same > rules as here - a collective nonprofit hippie-dippie effort :) ). > Looks like the Wiki functionality here may not be the greatest.
> Obviously contributions would be welcome from all, especially members > of SEM 2.0 group, but the initial planning is best done by a tight > group, and someone would definitely have to administer the software > etc. I believe we did have a volunteer for this at one point and it > might have been David Fischer (I), (there are two David Fischers on > here).
> Anyway, we already did have some volunteers, so perhaps I or Adam > should attempt to reconvene this committee to get the ball rolling. I > am not sure where it stalled but it may have been in the very early > stages. A key concern is that SEO's treat wikis differently from the > rest of the world - without some pretty strict rules and editorial or > community policing sentiment from the get-go it just turns into a big > yawnfest because 50% of it is self-promotional, weak material that no > one takes the trouble to weed out.
> Perhaps the best idea is for anyone old or new who wants to reconvene > the Wiki committee to go ahead and contact Adam Audette or myself and > we'll try to set some milestones & deadlines for launch from there.
> Andrew
> On Jun 15, 9:44 pm, "Eric Odom" <ericjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Guys,
> > I run SEO for Ballotpedia.org, Judgepedia.org, and Sunshinereview.org. We > > have extensive experience with wiki's and I would be happy to set one up > and > > provide some guidance. We have a few peeps who are avid wiki editors and > can > > help get us started up.
> > Let me know your thoughts.
> > -Eric Odom
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:45 AM, felixd <felix...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think a good approach to this would be for someone to start with an > > > initial outline. And have volunteers partake in parts they feel > > > comfortable writing well about. Then someone would of course need to > > > play the editor role.
Eric, thanks for the offer. For others interested in being involved, please post here and we can assemble a short list of names for the core group. Then we can take it to next steps from there.
I think if this was done well it could be very valuable. As Andrew points out, we need to watch the typical SEO self-promo junk closely though.
Adam Audette
Andrew Goodman said the following on 7/1/08 8:48 PM:
> Hi folks, apologies if I'm jumping into this mid-stream. Obviously > wiki plans here were sidelined by resources / participants' time > constraints. What we had planned to do was have a small committee of > volunteers and moderators come up with an initial plan, including > reviewing Wiki software to potentially post this on a website (same > rules as here - a collective nonprofit hippie-dippie effort :) ). > Looks like the Wiki functionality here may not be the greatest.
> Obviously contributions would be welcome from all, especially members > of SEM 2.0 group, but the initial planning is best done by a tight > group, and someone would definitely have to administer the software > etc. I believe we did have a volunteer for this at one point and it > might have been David Fischer (I), (there are two David Fischers on > here).
> Anyway, we already did have some volunteers, so perhaps I or Adam > should attempt to reconvene this committee to get the ball rolling. I > am not sure where it stalled but it may have been in the very early > stages. A key concern is that SEO's treat wikis differently from the > rest of the world - without some pretty strict rules and editorial or > community policing sentiment from the get-go it just turns into a big > yawnfest because 50% of it is self-promotional, weak material that no > one takes the trouble to weed out.
> Perhaps the best idea is for anyone old or new who wants to reconvene > the Wiki committee to go ahead and contact Adam Audette or myself and > we'll try to set some milestones & deadlines for launch from there.
> Andrew
> On Jun 15, 9:44 pm, "Eric Odom" <ericjo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Guys,
>> I run SEO for Ballotpedia.org, Judgepedia.org, and Sunshinereview.org. We >> have extensive experience with wiki's and I would be happy to set one up and >> provide some guidance. We have a few peeps who are avid wiki editors and can >> help get us started up.
>> Let me know your thoughts.
>> -Eric Odom
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:45 AM, felixd <felix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think a good approach to this would be for someone to start with an >>> initial outline. And have volunteers partake in parts they feel >>> comfortable writing well about. Then someone would of course need to >>> play the editor role.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Adam Audette <p...@audettemedia.com> wrote:
> Great to pick this back up, Andrew.
> Eric, thanks for the offer. For others interested in being involved, > please post here and we can assemble a short list of names for the core > group. Then we can take it to next steps from there.
> I think if this was done well it could be very valuable. As Andrew > points out, we need to watch the typical SEO self-promo junk closely > though.
It looks like some of the early enthusiasts, me included, have gotten
busy, so I would support whatever you guys decide to do by way of
planning. I trust you'll mutually come to an agreement on initial
plans, and keep members in the loop, but I suggest that Adam Audette
guide (if not precisely head up) the process.
Cheers,
Andrew
On Jul 3, 6:48 am, Jeremy <jcw.market...@gmail.com> wrote:
