Some very interesting ideas here but I'll be honest - I'm struggling to visualise the changes. I know you weren't after a full analysis so, generically, I think it definitely has potential. I see a few pros and cons.
Pros:
* Problem-based groups could develop into a living archive of good advice (with IIN questions, you get the best advice from people who are around that day, as opposed to the best from the lifetime of the site or group).
* Devolution of management to IIN users would give some sense of ownership and, you would hope, a pride in making the group accurate, useful, friendly, etc.
* Knowing that what you write may be around for some time may encourage more thought in writers. Current answers to questions are very much gone and forgotten within a few days.
* Trolling can be virtually eliminated from groups.
Cons:
* With management styles left to individuals (and so varying widely), I can see conflicts arising between site members. When the arbiter is the site owner, whose personality is only slightly known, I think we accept your primacy readily. Where an administrator is a fellow site user, and one you may disagree with, I do see tension.
* I moderate communication on a large scale as part of my role at work and trying to maintain fairness and balance in the face of very different people with different ideas of how things should work has been a real learning curve. Very useful for my own personal development, but a challenge. I can see bigger groups being a real challenge here and maybe requiring more time and care than people first thought they'd need to commit.
All in all, though, the posts I've seen so far seem to be in favour. I'm curious as to how it would work, as well, and would quite like to see it. Is it going to be part of an iterative process? I ask because I think this is quite a complex thing to take on and I'm not sure any of us know how this may develop.
Groups feature for IIN?
← View full post
Some very interesting ideas here but I'll be honest - I'm struggling to visualise the changes. I know you weren't after a full analysis so, generically, I think it definitely has potential. I see a few pros and cons.
Pros:
* Problem-based groups could develop into a living archive of good advice (with IIN questions, you get the best advice from people who are around that day, as opposed to the best from the lifetime of the site or group).
* Devolution of management to IIN users would give some sense of ownership and, you would hope, a pride in making the group accurate, useful, friendly, etc.
* Knowing that what you write may be around for some time may encourage more thought in writers. Current answers to questions are very much gone and forgotten within a few days.
* Trolling can be virtually eliminated from groups.
Cons:
* With management styles left to individuals (and so varying widely), I can see conflicts arising between site members. When the arbiter is the site owner, whose personality is only slightly known, I think we accept your primacy readily. Where an administrator is a fellow site user, and one you may disagree with, I do see tension.
* I moderate communication on a large scale as part of my role at work and trying to maintain fairness and balance in the face of very different people with different ideas of how things should work has been a real learning curve. Very useful for my own personal development, but a challenge. I can see bigger groups being a real challenge here and maybe requiring more time and care than people first thought they'd need to commit.
All in all, though, the posts I've seen so far seem to be in favour. I'm curious as to how it would work, as well, and would quite like to see it. Is it going to be part of an iterative process? I ask because I think this is quite a complex thing to take on and I'm not sure any of us know how this may develop.