Newsletter archives are here
As a community, create an assignment the completion of which denotes being a member of the community. For the purposes of this task, there can only be one community. For each participant, your being a member of the community completes the task.
This week's task is deliberately open-ended. It requires the formation of a community, but only one community, with tangible evidence of consensus. How to do this? How to even get started? That's the challenge...
Some people may ask, "What's the point?" Well, as we discussed in this week's conversation (also in this newsletter) it's a challenge to create consensus would deferring to an authority - a trusted source, if you will. In a course like this, that's usually the instructor. But not this time. This is - on a small scale - the same problem we have on a larger scale. How do we create consensus with no common ground?
This task is challenging on several fronts. Can a community be created at all? What is there are competing communities? How many participants can the community actually encompass? How do people join at all? The conditions for succeeding in this assignment are very simple - be a member of that community. But the manner in which this is to be accomplished is not clear at all.
Conversation with Pete Forsyth Dec 05, 2018 video Week 7 of E-Learning 3.0 with Pete Forsyth, Editor in Chief of the Signpost, a community newspaper covering Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement., and serves on the Advisory Board of the GLAM-Wiki U.S. Consortium. We talk about how Wikipedia approaches questions like managing fake news, reaching consensus, and managing content. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Urc4EW9hiE
This week’s topic in the connected learning course #el30 is Community. Stephen introduces this in the course newsletter. I began with an ‘aha’ moment, then did a search to find the origins of the word, then looked to see what I might have blogged about community before, and here we are. I did write a post about community some time ago, and it’s interesting to see what words I used when unprompted by the context of the current course.
Wikipedia has problematic users and its share of controversies, but as web platforms have taken center stage in recent months, Wikipedia hasn't been drawn into the fray. Why aren't we hearing more about the site's governance model, or its approach to harassment, bullying? Why isn't there a clamor for Wikipedia to ease up on data collection? At the core, Wikipedia's design and governance are rooted in carefully articulated values and policies, which underlie all decisions. Two specific aspects of Wikipedia innoculate it from some of the sharpest critiques endured by other platforms.
This article explores the "experiences of nine participants of an editathon at the University of Edinburgh on the topic of the Edinburgh Seven, who were the first women to attend medical school in 19th century United Kingdom." The authors argue "it was through the act of moving from consumer to contributor and becoming part of the community of editors, that participants could not only more fully understand issues of bias and structural inequities on Wikipedia, but also actively challenge and address these issues." It makes me think of the slogan: "no knowing without doing."