Talk:Content workflow: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Seth's Braindump = |
|||
The Content Workflow as I see it |
|||
== Content searching== |
|||
If people are looking for content, or happen to come across something they need to create a page on the wiki for it, and tag it [[:Category:Content]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
** Basic info about the content needs to be registered on the Content's page |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
** Ideally and eventually this will be done by the [[Content Review]] system |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
=== Content Review === |
|||
Ideally and eventually this will be done by the [[Content Review]] system. The Content Review system would involve filling in any additional meta-data that the initial uploader didn't complete, as well as alternate opinion |
|||
At this point, based on what the Content does or doesn't has it could go to any number of task-groups |
At this point, based on what the Content does or doesn't has it could go to any number of task-groups |
||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
:: ''It works for Ubuntu and wikipedia'' [[User:Sethwoodworth|Seth]] 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT) |
:: ''It works for Ubuntu and wikipedia'' [[User:Sethwoodworth|Seth]] 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT) |
||
== License Vetting == |
|||
A lot of work isn't going to have a clear copyright or an acceptable copyright for OLPC. A team could work on opening such copyright and double checking actual copyright status. This group/position of the chain should also work on proper attribution of contributors. |
|||
** A team could work on opening such copyright and double checking actual copyright status |
|||
** This group/position of the chain should also work on proper attribution of contributors |
|||
== Translation == |
|||
* Much quality content, such as photos, need some basic translation of meta-data and name |
|||
* Some worthwhile content should be translated in entirety |
|||
* The existing Pootle system would be great for this, especially with .xol bundles. |
|||
=== Far Ranging Translation === |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
There is little sharing of content between languages in parallel projects. IE: en.wikibooks and es.wikibooks could work on one book and then translate it. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
** Content needs to be reviews and meta-tagged for a variety of terms; age, format, language(s) |
** Content needs to be reviews and meta-tagged for a variety of terms; age, format, language(s) |
||
** See [[Content Review]] for more information on this project |
** See [[Content Review]] for more information on this project |
||
== Content Bundling == |
|||
** Putting content together into the correct format with all of the structure and .pot files is a task that needs it's own team |
** Putting content together into the correct format with all of the structure and .pot files is a task that needs it's own team |
||
== Re-purposing == |
|||
If a Content Project |
|||
** Since we're going to be vetting and meta-tagging an awful lot of educational content it makes sense to keep track and make it public facing |
** Since we're going to be vetting and meta-tagging an awful lot of educational content it makes sense to keep track and make it public facing |
||
** If any new work that we did were uploaded to wiki-commons it would be beneficial to both communities, as well as becoming part of a larger database of open work |
** If any new work that we did were uploaded to wiki-commons it would be beneficial to both communities, as well as becoming part of a larger database of open work |
||
::: ''Potentially related group, or a separate one: implementation and feedback from implementations, closing the communications loop between content providers/contributors and those using the content in their classrooms. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)'' |
::: ''Potentially related group, or a separate one: implementation and feedback from implementations, closing the communications loop between content providers/contributors and those using the content in their classrooms. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)'' |
||
:::: ''Good idea. This is something that ought to be taking place on the Official OLPC level, IMO, but we can try''[[User:Sethwoodworth|Seth]] 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT) |
:::: ''Good idea. This is something that ought to be taking place on the Official OLPC level, IMO, but we can try''[[User:Sethwoodworth|Seth]] 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT) |
||
== Worth tracking == |
== Worth tracking == |
||
Revision as of 21:49, 9 June 2008
Content searching
If people are looking for content, or happen to come across something they need to create a page on the wiki for it, and tag it Category:Content
Initial Content review
Basic info about the content needs to be registered on the Content's page. Info should be at least Name, URL, language, format, media type (text, music, etc), and many other quality/quantity evaluations
Content Review
Ideally and eventually this will be done by the Content Review system. The Content Review system would involve filling in any additional meta-data that the initial uploader didn't complete, as well as alternate opinion
At this point, based on what the Content does or doesn't has it could go to any number of task-groups
- I like the task groups idea. Mchua 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- It works for Ubuntu and wikipedia Seth 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
License Vetting
A lot of work isn't going to have a clear copyright or an acceptable copyright for OLPC. A team could work on opening such copyright and double checking actual copyright status. This group/position of the chain should also work on proper attribution of contributors.
Translation
- Much quality content, such as photos, need some basic translation of meta-data and name
- Some worthwhile content should be translated in entirety
- The existing Pootle system would be great for this, especially with .xol bundles.
Far Ranging Translation
There is little sharing of content between languages in parallel projects. IE: en.wikibooks and es.wikibooks could work on one book and then translate it.
Content Reviewing
- Content needs to be reviews and meta-tagged for a variety of terms; age, format, language(s)
- See Content Review for more information on this project
Content Bundling
- Putting content together into the correct format with all of the structure and .pot files is a task that needs it's own team
Re-purposing
If a Content Project
- Since we're going to be vetting and meta-tagging an awful lot of educational content it makes sense to keep track and make it public facing
- If any new work that we did were uploaded to wiki-commons it would be beneficial to both communities, as well as becoming part of a larger database of open work
- Potentially related group, or a separate one: implementation and feedback from implementations, closing the communications loop between content providers/contributors and those using the content in their classrooms. Mchua 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Good idea. This is something that ought to be taking place on the Official OLPC level, IMO, but we can trySeth 19:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- Potentially related group, or a separate one: implementation and feedback from implementations, closing the communications loop between content providers/contributors and those using the content in their classrooms. Mchua 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Worth tracking
UNESCO Open Education Resources wiki, in particular this page shows some promise:
http://oerwiki.iiep-unesco.org/index.php?title=UNESCO_OER_Toolkit
It might be a good idea to focus on documenting more OLPC-specific aspects of content (i18n, bundling, etc.) and see how much of this UNESCO OER stuff can be adapted to cover the earlier stages of content development.