Monday, April 13, 2009


1. There should be multiple options for how people communicate on the website. Meaning: following the example of newsmixer, have two or three options for how students can communicate with one another about stories that are posted to the site. Guide the conversations in some way that makes it clear that these comment systems are designed for constructive discussion of the topic, not tesctalk-ish flame wars. Do this by using a term or phrase other than comments to describe the section that more directly describes the kind of converstaions we want people to have. Include a description of the section that makes clear that we will remove posts that are not appropriate.  How does "feedback" sound instead of comments?  Feedback could be filtered into different pathways in a way to guide feedback, sorted by tips, content, layoud/aesthetic.  Also, if others wished to contribute additional content such as documents, information, photographs, video, etc., we could have a link to send them in the right direction to contribute.  Also, a rating system might be an interestind additional, where readers could suggest stories to be placed in the print edition.

2. Will comments be posted right away, then reviewed by moderators? Will they be put in a queue for review by moderators? Will we use an automated filter for certain words? What will happen when that filter catches a questionable word? What would the questionable words be? Will there be a flagging system?
K: I prefer to review comments first because the CPJ needs to be held accountable for information on the site, and it doesn't make sense for the CPJ to hold itself accountable for content that has not been reviewed, or held up to the standards of our submission policy.

3. We should repurpose Publication Criteria in a way that those standards can be conveyed to people in a simple, clear way when they post comments. We should use Publication Criteria to determine when comments are inappropriate.  Publication Criteria should be written in an easily accessible language that would encourage others to actually read it, instead of just clicking okay, as convenient as that is.

4. There needs to be multiple people dedicated to moderating our comments systems. How often should they be required to review comments?
K: Moderation should occur everyday, preferably just after what has been determined to be the busiest traffic times of the day.  Commentators should be informed of the time of day comments are reviewed and when they can expect to see their comments posted/contacted about revisions.

5. Will moderators tell students when they remove their comments? Will they ask for comments to be revised? Will moderators edit out parts of comments that are inappropriate?
K:Working with commentators should be a primary responsibility of the online ME. 

6. I think that people have to register with the site to do anything on it. Who is allowed to register? We should verify the names of students using systems that the college has set up. Can we verify staff and faculty in the same way? Should we allow alumni, off campus folks to register, maybe with extra required steps? Should we require photos of those that are registered? How will we review those photos? What kind of process will users have to go through to comment and interact with a CPJ website? What will be required of users to register for the website?

6a. Should we have terms and conditions for commenting on the website? What should they be?  How can we convey these terms and conditions to the users?  How will we know that people are aware of these terms and conditions? Is there anyway we can know this?

No comments:

Post a Comment