Talk:Content workflow

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 log a page under Content/

I'm concerned about subspaces making things harder to search for on the wiki. Is there a reason why they can't be tagged with Category:Content instead, or similar?. Mchua 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

• Initial Content review
  • Basic info about the content needs to be registered on the Content's page
    • Info could be a Name, URL, language, format, media type (text, music, etc), and many other quality/quantity evaluations
  • Ideally and eventually this will be done by the Content Review system

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)

• License
  • 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.

• 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

• 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
  • 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)