Website contributions (Was: Re: The site is down)

[Alan Dayley]

On Wed, September 6, 2006 3:23 pm, Mike Schwartz wrote:
>
> I may not be [completely] keeping up, here (sorry),
> but I thought that ("allow members to contribute to the site")
> was what a wiki was for;
> (also, an archive of the mail lists, such as this one...)
> just 0.02,  ...from:

Wikis are great for user contribution.  You are correct.  I don't remember
all whys for it back whenever but we determined that something between
static HTML and a wiki would serve better.

Joomla! (http://www.joomla.org) is a Content Management System (CMS) that
allows control over content and structure while allowing contributions
from many people.  The way PLUG uses it was untented to provide the
following conceptual operation:

- Every user who registers is set to "Author" access level.
- All Authors are allowed to submit new articles, links, reviews, etc.
- Then, a team of "Publishers," a least two for each section, would review
submissions for content and appropriateness.
- Right away or perhaps after a few revisions with the Author, they would
Publish the submission to the site for all to see.
- Articles would be submitted.
- Admin work would be handled by a team of people.
- Everyone has the opportunity to contribute.
- Spam and inappropriate content is vetted.
- All is right with the world.

The reality that has turned out is:

- Every user who registers is set to "Author" access level.
- All Authors are allowed to submit new articles, links, reviews, etc.
- A team of "Publishers" was started but faded away for whatever reason.
- Articles and other content are rarely submitted, consisting mostly of
job postings.
- Admin work is done by me, which I neglect from time to time.
- Everyone has the opportunity to contribute but very few do.
- Spam and inappropriate content is vetted.  (Easy with few submissions.)
- The site goes stale and has little content beyond meeting announcements.

Based on this experience, and assuming that past performance indicates
future results, I'd say a wiki would get a flurry of contributions for a
few months and then fall into staleness and meeting announcements.  Maybe
I am wrong about that but there currently is no clamor for submitting
content.  I don't think changing the submission process will have that
much of an effect.

At a higher level, the state of the website is a metaphor for the state of
our meetings and the group as a whole.  It is becoming difficult to
acquire presentations at the meetings and attendance has dropped off
somewhat.  There are a few core people always willing to present but each
of us could find something to talk about for 10-15 minutes, if not longer.
 And always hearing from the same people over and over can be, well,
boring in some ways.  The rest of us should not rely on those same few to
provide or find content all the time.

Please, don't misunderstand my statements above.  PLUG is an excellent LUG
when compared to most and one of the better ones I have read about.  I
appreciate the group members' contributions, wherever they make them.  I
also think anyone should feel welcome to simply lurk if that is all they
want or have time to do.  It just always feels like more people and more
"stuff" and more excitement is possible, we just never get there.

Think about it:  Metro Phoenix has about 4 million residents, most of them
using computers every day.  And we are happy when 20 people show up to a
LUG meeting.  Or when plug-discuss has 120+ messages in one week.  I KNOW
there are many Linux users who are not a part of PLUG or don't even know
it exists.  I also KNOW there are many "normal" users who could be happy
Linux users and part of the group.  OK, not everyone has the time or
inclination to participate even if they are Linux users.  But 20 people
out of millions is acceptable?  There should easily be 20 Linux meetings a
month in the valley, each with 60+ people.

I'm rambling too much here and in the mean time, Hans has already answered
much more succinctly.

Alan