I am officially flashed!
In the spirit of social collaboration, I asked my network to review, extend, criticize and challenge my draft for an article. Before I will consolidate the great input to one fluent document I would like to say a big THANKYOU to all the thoughts and work, which the contributors shared.
https://haraldschirmer.titanpad.com/3
By the way I am really questioning myself, if my consolidation is the best way to value the great input, or if going back to a single author article is not a fall-back?
I want to share my learnings of former, similar experiments and my experience of this public one – after showing you the hero’s of my network: (and believe me – group editing of a long text is not just fun“)
Guido Bosbach
Frank Edelkraut
Winfried Felser
Bernd Gewehr
Lukas Fütterer
Frank Kleinert
Joachim Niemeier
Franz-Peter Staudt
Florian Junge
Enno Pieperjohanns
Ragnar Heil
Katharina Krentz
Samuel Treiber
Kerstin Schinck
Roland Panter
Ursula Vranken
Matthias Lorentz
- There are various types of contributions within the collaborative document to expect:
- spelling and grammar (English is not my native language 😉
- smaller additions, fragments
- bigger parts, new sentences even complete blocks
- questions which enrich the text (and could remain)
- questions to the author or the others (asking for opinion, permission…)
- comments (to be published or to give additional hints)
- discussions (I agree with…)
- appreciation or expressing agreement or denial
- short thought journeys (could be this, or maybe that…)
- links to valuable sources
- advice to do things different
- There are additional sources to keep an eye on:
- I received eMails with additional information, thoughts and feedback
- We had parallel discussions on Facebook and various Messengers
- We shared experience on video-calls and via phone
- ensure enough time for the network – my first invitation was for 1 week, the reminder was sent 2 days before end (weekend is not a good idea – family time!)
- as in all collaborative projects, expect the most activity right after publishing and at or even after the deadline 😉
- Diversity means not only a variety of thoughts and input:
- There are different expectations on a „good“ storyline (visionary, strategy, pragmatic, philosophic, general, specific)
- Same is for the writing style (scientific, personal, generic, advising, reviewing, promoting, explaining…)
- What’s the goal of the collaborative article?
- Creating a multi-perspective knowledge consolidation
- Displaying the collaborative work style
- Offering a complex but rich reading experience (which might be hard to read)
- Strengthening networks, promoting experts, demonstrating „it works“ or just showing off
- Don’t just delegate work – the list part in my article had the option to be enriched with links and explanations
- Expect promotion of own content, websites, articles, products, services (it did not really happen here and it is not always bad)
- Etherpad is not helpful for bigger groups (see some screenshots at the end) – next time I try Google Docs
- coloring is very limited – more than 5 contributors are hard to distinguish
- I have no idea to find out who wrote what (if I could change the colors of the authors would help a lot, or a mouse over, who is behind the color, once you scroll down)
- The authors are only visible in the time slider mode, which takes forever to load
- the sidebar did not work at all – chatting was never used, since there was no indication of anyone being „online“
stay tuned for the article…
Schreibe einen Kommentar