Collaborative Document sharing
1 view
Skip to first unread message
2web3
Nov 21, 2009, 1:36:16 AM11/21/09
to WikiEducator
I have a somewhat generic question related to editors in general. I
feel this discomfort with current state of document creation. Let me
explain.
In the beginning there were just simple text editors. Then they got
more sophisticated, visual, WYSIWYG, culminating with products such as
MS Word and alike. This is all great, but the document is stored in
individual files (silos) and is hard to share and collaborate with a
team. Of course, you can send via e-mail, but then the proliferation
of versions and comments makes this kind of collaboration difficult.
Then came centralized systems such as SharePoint that allow to store
the documents in one place, lock the document so that only one person
can edit it. However this again is far from perfect: I cannot easily
track the history, who did what, what has really changed. And I still
cannot properly comment on the document. But is better than e-mail.
Then wikis came along. They made a whole bunch of stuff easy
(versioning with diff, easy access to information, search, permissions
etc). But they lack several important features a modern editor has:
* They are not truly WYSIWYG. Any wiki is light-years behind Word
from editing capabilities. This is a major impediment why wikis are
not widely used in our organization.
* They are not easy to work with in offline mode (when traveling on
a plane)
* They generally rapidly degrade in performance as more users use a
wiki installation
* It is not easy to just send a wiki "document" to somebody,
especially to an external partner, when the wiki is on intranet. It
has to be opened to external users, security policies need to be put
in place etc. E-Mail is just light years easier in this respect.
* Wikis, being web application, poorly support rich formatting that
we've come to expect from a Word doc. I cannot easily take a wiki
"document", print to PDF and send it to external partner - usually the
document will not look professional. And to make it look professional
in wiki will take way more time and resources than just to write it
from scratch in Word.
So here's my dilemma... Can anybody help me point out to a solution?
Or if you experience the same issue - share your feelings as well, let
me know that I'm not suffering alone.
feel this discomfort with current state of document creation. Let me
explain.
In the beginning there were just simple text editors. Then they got
more sophisticated, visual, WYSIWYG, culminating with products such as
MS Word and alike. This is all great, but the document is stored in
individual files (silos) and is hard to share and collaborate with a
team. Of course, you can send via e-mail, but then the proliferation
of versions and comments makes this kind of collaboration difficult.
Then came centralized systems such as SharePoint that allow to store
the documents in one place, lock the document so that only one person
can edit it. However this again is far from perfect: I cannot easily
track the history, who did what, what has really changed. And I still
cannot properly comment on the document. But is better than e-mail.
Then wikis came along. They made a whole bunch of stuff easy
(versioning with diff, easy access to information, search, permissions
etc). But they lack several important features a modern editor has:
* They are not truly WYSIWYG. Any wiki is light-years behind Word
from editing capabilities. This is a major impediment why wikis are
not widely used in our organization.
* They are not easy to work with in offline mode (when traveling on
a plane)
* They generally rapidly degrade in performance as more users use a
wiki installation
* It is not easy to just send a wiki "document" to somebody,
especially to an external partner, when the wiki is on intranet. It
has to be opened to external users, security policies need to be put
in place etc. E-Mail is just light years easier in this respect.
* Wikis, being web application, poorly support rich formatting that
we've come to expect from a Word doc. I cannot easily take a wiki
"document", print to PDF and send it to external partner - usually the
document will not look professional. And to make it look professional
in wiki will take way more time and resources than just to write it
from scratch in Word.
So here's my dilemma... Can anybody help me point out to a solution?
Or if you experience the same issue - share your feelings as well, let
me know that I'm not suffering alone.
john stampe
Nov 21, 2009, 2:47:42 AM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
I am not sure exactly what your question is, but I will attempt a reply anyway.
First, I think you are confused a little with some concepts.
A text editor is for typing text. It does not directly give you formatting. The resulting product is simply a text file. MS Word or OpenOffice on the other hand is a word processor, it can add formatting, tables, etc. The problem with sharing them is actually in the format used, usually each program has their own format. OpenOffice has helped by using the standardized XML format.
Wiki's and other structured text systems such as LaTeX are another different thing. Word processor files contain all the formatting hard coded into them, like a binary file. However, for structured text (wikis) the files are actually text files with the formatting indictated, like computer code. The underlying wiki software then turns that code into what you see in your browser (it slightly more complicated, but I won't go into detail).
Yes, wikis are not WYSIWYG, but they are simply text formats, not locked in formats. But there is being developed WYSIWYG editor for wikis right here on WE, it is being tested on our test site.
If you understand wiki syntax, then you can actually work on stuff offline. It is what I normally do as I do not have a permanent internet connection. I write my stuff offline in a text editor using wiki syntax and then paste it on to the web when I am connected. Again this is because the wiki page is simply a text file. (See here for my guide http://www.wikieducator.org/Help:Editing_using_a_text_editor)
I am not sure what you mean by rich formatting. Most of the formatting problem I think you are refering to is a limitation on html not in the wiki. And as most professional designers will tell you what looks good on a screen is not what looks good when printed and vice versa. (As the scribus website http://www.scribus.net says "Graphics used on a website are almost always unusable for commercial printing".)
Hope this helps.
John
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS
http://johnsearth.blogspot.com
From: 2web3 <sergi...@gmail.com>
To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 1:36:16 PM
Subject: [WikiEducator] Collaborative Document sharing
First, I think you are confused a little with some concepts.
A text editor is for typing text. It does not directly give you formatting. The resulting product is simply a text file. MS Word or OpenOffice on the other hand is a word processor, it can add formatting, tables, etc. The problem with sharing them is actually in the format used, usually each program has their own format. OpenOffice has helped by using the standardized XML format.
Wiki's and other structured text systems such as LaTeX are another different thing. Word processor files contain all the formatting hard coded into them, like a binary file. However, for structured text (wikis) the files are actually text files with the formatting indictated, like computer code. The underlying wiki software then turns that code into what you see in your browser (it slightly more complicated, but I won't go into detail).
Yes, wikis are not WYSIWYG, but they are simply text formats, not locked in formats. But there is being developed WYSIWYG editor for wikis right here on WE, it is being tested on our test site.
If you understand wiki syntax, then you can actually work on stuff offline. It is what I normally do as I do not have a permanent internet connection. I write my stuff offline in a text editor using wiki syntax and then paste it on to the web when I am connected. Again this is because the wiki page is simply a text file. (See here for my guide http://www.wikieducator.org/Help:Editing_using_a_text_editor)
I am not sure what you mean by rich formatting. Most of the formatting problem I think you are refering to is a limitation on html not in the wiki. And as most professional designers will tell you what looks good on a screen is not what looks good when printed and vice versa. (As the scribus website http://www.scribus.net says "Graphics used on a website are almost always unusable for commercial printing".)
Hope this helps.
John
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS
http://johnsearth.blogspot.com
From: 2web3 <sergi...@gmail.com>
To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 1:36:16 PM
Subject: [WikiEducator] Collaborative Document sharing
Randy Fisher
Nov 21, 2009, 3:00:23 AM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com, Jim Tittsler, Sam Rose
Hi All,
Thanks John.
Also, you may wish to be aware that we have functionality in the wiki, that allows pdf exporting, which preserves formatting. www.wikieducator.org/WikiPublishing
There is talk about exporting to other formats -- and I'll cc this to technical resources in our community for their response.
Cheers,
- Randy--
Open Education is a sustainable and renewable resource.
________________
Randy Fisher, MA, OMD
Senior Consultant & Facilitator, Intersol Group, Canada
Senior Consultant, Organization & Business Development
International Centre for Open Education / OER Foundation, New Zealand
Elected Member, WikiEducator Community Council, www.wikieducator.org
+1 613.230.6424 x144 (EST)
Skype: wikirandy
Twitter: wikirandy
* Stakeholder Engagement, Change / Transition Management & Performance
* Organization Design & Development
* Sustainable Project Implementation & Community-Building
* E-Learning, Online Collaboration & Communities of Practice
* Coaching & Facilitation
* My Bio: http://www.communitybuildingexpert.com
Thanks John.
Also, you may wish to be aware that we have functionality in the wiki, that allows pdf exporting, which preserves formatting. www.wikieducator.org/WikiPublishing
There is talk about exporting to other formats -- and I'll cc this to technical resources in our community for their response.
Cheers,
- Randy
Open Education is a sustainable and renewable resource.
________________
Randy Fisher, MA, OMD
Senior Consultant & Facilitator, Intersol Group, Canada
Senior Consultant, Organization & Business Development
International Centre for Open Education / OER Foundation, New Zealand
Elected Member, WikiEducator Community Council, www.wikieducator.org
+1 613.230.6424 x144 (EST)
Skype: wikirandy
Twitter: wikirandy
* Stakeholder Engagement, Change / Transition Management & Performance
* Organization Design & Development
* Sustainable Project Implementation & Community-Building
* E-Learning, Online Collaboration & Communities of Practice
* Coaching & Facilitation
* My Bio: http://www.communitybuildingexpert.com
Wayne Mackintosh
Nov 21, 2009, 3:34:48 AM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Well, in answer to your question -- Can anybody help me point out to a solution?
Yes, WikiEducator and the work we are doing to make editing easier for educators using free and open source software is the solution :-)
Our driving force is a deep seated commitment to the core values of education of sharing knowledge freely and the fundamental rights of educators to participate in this endeavour without the need to purchase software licenses to participate.
While we may not have perfected the solutions you are seeking, we are certainly committed to achieving these ideals and I hope that you will help us.
Cheers
Wayne
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
Yes, WikiEducator and the work we are doing to make editing easier for educators using free and open source software is the solution :-)
Our driving force is a deep seated commitment to the core values of education of sharing knowledge freely and the fundamental rights of educators to participate in this endeavour without the need to purchase software licenses to participate.
While we may not have perfected the solutions you are seeking, we are certainly committed to achieving these ideals and I hope that you will help us.
Cheers
Wayne
2009/11/21 2web3 <sergi...@gmail.com>
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
2web3
Nov 21, 2009, 4:58:35 AM11/21/09
to WikiEducator
Thanks for the explanation. I understand all the concepts that you
just outlined, but this is not what I asked. Let me try to explain the
problem again.
The target audience of this site are educators. Why educators are
using it? Because wiki makes collaboration and sharing of the content
easy, unlike MS Word. But I still consider that they need to be quite
computer literate to be able to use a wiki site. How many educators
are NOT using wikis because they need to learn and use a cryptic
"wiki" language? I think they fall back to the trusted tool, such as
MS Word and live in the world of pain by collaborating via e-mail. Why
they use MS Word and Notepad? Because educational content rarely is
just bland text. And boy they need to print it. And they don't care
why wiki cannot be easily print, web/HTML/CSS or not. In MS Word it's
easy, what you see on screen is exactly what gets printed. This
problem is solved long time ago.
Am I the only one who sees the world this way and everybody else is
just happy the way things are? Educators, what about the colleagues
that don't use WE? Am I right or not?
On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, john stampe <jwsta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not sure exactly what your question is, but I will attempt a reply anyway.
>
> First, I think you are confused a little with some concepts.
>
> A text editor is for typing text. It does not directly give you formatting. The resulting product is simply a text file. MS Word or OpenOffice on the other hand is a word processor, it can add formatting, tables, etc. The problem with sharing them is actually in the format used, usually each program has their own format. OpenOffice has helped by using the standardized XML format.
>
> Wiki's and other structured text systems such as LaTeX are another different thing. Word processor files contain all the formatting hard coded into them, like a binary file. However, for structured text (wikis) the files are actually text files with the formatting indictated, like computer code. The underlying wiki software then turns that code into what you see in your browser (it slightly more complicated, but I won't go into detail).
>
> Yes, wikis are not WYSIWYG, but they are simply text formats, not locked in formats. But there is being developed WYSIWYG editor for wikis right here on WE, it is being tested on our test site.
>
> If you understand wiki syntax, then you can actually work on stuff offline. It is what I normally do as I do not have a permanent internet connection. I write my stuff offline in a text editor using wiki syntax and then paste it on to the web when I am connected. Again this is because the wiki page is simply a text file. (See here for my guidehttp://www.wikieducator.org/Help:Editing_using_a_text_editor)
>
> I am not sure what you mean by rich formatting. Most of the formatting problem I think you are refering to is a limitation on html not in the wiki. And as most professional designers will tell you what looks good on a screen is not what looks good when printed and vice versa. (As the scribus websitehttp://www.scribus.netsays "Graphics used on a website are almost always unusable for commercial printing".)
just outlined, but this is not what I asked. Let me try to explain the
problem again.
The target audience of this site are educators. Why educators are
using it? Because wiki makes collaboration and sharing of the content
easy, unlike MS Word. But I still consider that they need to be quite
computer literate to be able to use a wiki site. How many educators
are NOT using wikis because they need to learn and use a cryptic
"wiki" language? I think they fall back to the trusted tool, such as
MS Word and live in the world of pain by collaborating via e-mail. Why
they use MS Word and Notepad? Because educational content rarely is
just bland text. And boy they need to print it. And they don't care
why wiki cannot be easily print, web/HTML/CSS or not. In MS Word it's
easy, what you see on screen is exactly what gets printed. This
problem is solved long time ago.
Am I the only one who sees the world this way and everybody else is
just happy the way things are? Educators, what about the colleagues
that don't use WE? Am I right or not?
On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, john stampe <jwsta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not sure exactly what your question is, but I will attempt a reply anyway.
>
> First, I think you are confused a little with some concepts.
>
> A text editor is for typing text. It does not directly give you formatting. The resulting product is simply a text file. MS Word or OpenOffice on the other hand is a word processor, it can add formatting, tables, etc. The problem with sharing them is actually in the format used, usually each program has their own format. OpenOffice has helped by using the standardized XML format.
>
> Wiki's and other structured text systems such as LaTeX are another different thing. Word processor files contain all the formatting hard coded into them, like a binary file. However, for structured text (wikis) the files are actually text files with the formatting indictated, like computer code. The underlying wiki software then turns that code into what you see in your browser (it slightly more complicated, but I won't go into detail).
>
> Yes, wikis are not WYSIWYG, but they are simply text formats, not locked in formats. But there is being developed WYSIWYG editor for wikis right here on WE, it is being tested on our test site.
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by rich formatting. Most of the formatting problem I think you are refering to is a limitation on html not in the wiki. And as most professional designers will tell you what looks good on a screen is not what looks good when printed and vice versa. (As the scribus websitehttp://www.scribus.netsays "Graphics used on a website are almost always unusable for commercial printing".)
>
> Hope this helps.
> John
>
> http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: 2web3 <sergiu.r...@gmail.com>
> Hope this helps.
> John
>
> http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com
>
> ________________________________
Wayne Mackintosh
Nov 21, 2009, 5:12:24 AM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
You are right in pointing to the ease of using word processing software. At the same time you will appreciate that publishing to the Internet, facilitating collaborative authoring is a different environment.
You are not the only one who sees the world this way, and is why WikiEducator is implementing WYSIWYG editing -- you can visit our test server here:
http://we1.wikieducator.net/Main_Page
Similarly, we have invested in developing sophisticated technologies to produce print versions of collections of WikiEducator pages -- Have you taken the time to visit and test the links provided by colleagues postings earlier in this thread?
WE run a free training workshop every month to help educators discover this amazing world of collaborative authoring in the wiki environment and have provided free training opportunities to more than 3500 educators in more than 110 different countries. If you're having difficulty in editing on the wiki, I offer you an open invitation to join our next workshop which starts on Monday 23 November. See:
http://wikieducator.org/Learning4Content/Registration
You are most welcome to share this free gift with your friends and colleagues.
My question to you -- What are you going to do to help us achieve the aims of open education and assisting educators in this regard?
Cheers
Wayne
You are not the only one who sees the world this way, and is why WikiEducator is implementing WYSIWYG editing -- you can visit our test server here:
http://we1.wikieducator.net/Main_Page
Similarly, we have invested in developing sophisticated technologies to produce print versions of collections of WikiEducator pages -- Have you taken the time to visit and test the links provided by colleagues postings earlier in this thread?
WE run a free training workshop every month to help educators discover this amazing world of collaborative authoring in the wiki environment and have provided free training opportunities to more than 3500 educators in more than 110 different countries. If you're having difficulty in editing on the wiki, I offer you an open invitation to join our next workshop which starts on Monday 23 November. See:
http://wikieducator.org/Learning4Content/Registration
You are most welcome to share this free gift with your friends and colleagues.
My question to you -- What are you going to do to help us achieve the aims of open education and assisting educators in this regard?
Cheers
Wayne
john stampe
Nov 21, 2009, 11:02:58 PM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Sorry, I did not quite understand what you where asking. And I will agree with Wayne in his response to you.
But I have a question. And this is addressed not just to you, but to everyone. Why is it that educators -- the people whose job it is to teach students about new technology and concepts -- do not want to learn the technology themselves?
I am not taking a position on use, or ease of use, of technology, I am just curious why this attitude exists. Thoughts?
Cheers,
But I have a question. And this is addressed not just to you, but to everyone. Why is it that educators -- the people whose job it is to teach students about new technology and concepts -- do not want to learn the technology themselves?
I am not taking a position on use, or ease of use, of technology, I am just curious why this attitude exists. Thoughts?
Cheers,
From: 2web3 <sergi...@gmail.com>
To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 4:58:35 PM
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: Collaborative Document sharing
Wayne Mackintosh
Nov 21, 2009, 11:26:01 PM11/21/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi John,
That's a good question -- something all educators need to reflect on!
In this world of social software, we could reasonably make a case that learning to use social software is a life skill for the future :-)
It's interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of new account users in WikiEducator cite the opportunity to learn wiki skills as a major factor for joining our community -- and we have the data to prove it!
Cheers
Wayne
That's a good question -- something all educators need to reflect on!
In this world of social software, we could reasonably make a case that learning to use social software is a life skill for the future :-)
It's interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of new account users in WikiEducator cite the opportunity to learn wiki skills as a major factor for joining our community -- and we have the data to prove it!
Cheers
Wayne
2009/11/22 john stampe <jwst...@yahoo.com>
Edward Cherlin
Nov 22, 2009, 2:12:53 AM11/22/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 22:36, 2web3 <sergi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a somewhat generic question related to editors in general. I
> feel this discomfort with current state of document creation. Let me
> explain.
To summarize: The question is partly about how to create formatted
>
> I have a somewhat generic question related to editors in general. I
> feel this discomfort with current state of document creation. Let me
> explain.
documents, and also partly about how to manage various aspects of
collaboration. In addition to the types of document creation and
repository software discussed below, there are applications in Google
Docs and in Sugar, the OLPC software, that allow multiple users to
edit a document at the same time. Each has a cursor at a separate
location, and each has control of keyboard, fonts, and styles at their
respective locations. Sugar also supports collaboration in art, music,
presentations, programming, and other functions.
FLOSS Manuals provides collaborative publishing applications on the
Web. I have taken part in several FM book sprints.
http://en.flossmanuals.net/write
> In the beginning there were just simple text editors. Then they got
> more sophisticated, visual, WYSIWYG, culminating with products such as
> MS Word and alike. This is all great, but the document is stored in
> individual files (silos) and is hard to share and collaborate with a
> team.
> Of course, you can send via e-mail, but then the proliferation
> of versions and comments makes this kind of collaboration difficult.
and merge capabilities in Word, Acrobat, and other software? I have
used them many times to send out a document for comments and integrate
the responses.
> Then came centralized systems such as SharePoint that allow to store
> the documents in one place, lock the document so that only one person
> can edit it. However this again is far from perfect: I cannot easily
> track the history, who did what, what has really changed. And I still
> cannot properly comment on the document. But is better than e-mail.
of them provide understandable diffs. A few allow merges from more
than one source, in much the same way that branched program code trees
can be merged.
> Then wikis came along. They made a whole bunch of stuff easy
> (versioning with diff, easy access to information, search, permissions
> etc). But they lack several important features a modern editor has:
> * They are not truly WYSIWYG. Any wiki is light-years behind Word
> from editing capabilities. This is a major impediment why wikis are
> not widely used in our organization.
> * They are not easy to work with in offline mode (when traveling on
> a plane)
> * They generally rapidly degrade in performance as more users use a
> wiki installation
administered Wikis degrade in performance.
> * It is not easy to just send a wiki "document" to somebody,
> especially to an external partner, when the wiki is on intranet. It
> has to be opened to external users, security policies need to be put
> in place etc. E-Mail is just light years easier in this respect.
pages and create an archive that preserves links between pages that
are included. This is how Wikipedia subsets are created for inclusion
on OLPC school servers.
> * Wikis, being web application, poorly support rich formatting that
> we've come to expect from a Word doc. I cannot easily take a wiki
> "document", print to PDF and send it to external partner - usually the
> document will not look professional. And to make it look professional
> in wiki will take way more time and resources than just to write it
> from scratch in Word.
I can see how such a use can be organized. I have a similar issue with
text files provided by engineers and other Subject-Matter Experts.
Usually the first task is to remove all manual formatting and
substitute tables and styles.
> So here's my dilemma... Can anybody help me point out to a solution?
> Or if you experience the same issue - share your feelings as well, let
> me know that I'm not suffering alone.
presenting learning materials in software rather than in linear text
or hypertext?
> >
>
--
Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin
Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination.
http://www.earthtreasury.org/
Alex P. Real
Nov 22, 2009, 6:23:53 AM11/22/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Interesting thread indeed! I agree many educators are put off by having to learn syntax. I guess that besides user-friendliness some reasons might be:
1. Time to train their students may affect time to teach the syllabus. Whether we dis/like such approach, the fact is the teaching job throughout the world is frequently associated to “finishing the syllabus” at an institutional level, & failing to do so may lead to sanctions (particularly where extracurricular factors are concerned).
2. Students can be keen OR NOT on spending their free time on acquiring tech skills which, depending on the educational system, may be hardly incorporated into assessment procedures (=if I don’t need it to pass, forget about it).
3. In countries where edu centres don’t have ICT professionals, teachers have to undertake such role involving significant unpaid overtime.
4. Despite the huge advantage of introducing WYSIWYG (THANKS!!! I normally forget syntax & accessibility is a real issue for me), other platforms such as pbwiki can be perceived as far more “practical” . I realise these may not share OER Foundation/WE/Wikimedia philosophy but we can’t expect every teacher to prioritise long-term global goals over immediate classroom needs.
Cheers,
Alex P. Real
valerie
Nov 22, 2009, 10:43:12 AM11/22/09
to WikiEducator
Thanks John
A friend in the "open education" community suggested that until
WikiEducator had a robust WYSIWYG editor, there is a significant
barrier to "main stream" educators' participation. I was surprised,
but then I'm a self-proclaimed "way too early adopter" here. However,
the point is well taken.
If lack of a WYSIWYG editor is a problem for the folks we want to
encourage to participate in/with WikiEducator, then what "we" think
shouldn't matter. This is classic marketing - what do I have to do to
get you to get on board?
We know what some of the barriers are. We can address them, and a new
batch of educators will join in. And as soon as we resolve the current
road blocks, new ones will emerge for the next group of potential
users.... Yes, there is no end in sight, but that's ok - the
population of WikiEducators will keep growing as long as we keep
making it more accessible to the hold-outs with valid concerns.
..Valerie
A friend in the "open education" community suggested that until
WikiEducator had a robust WYSIWYG editor, there is a significant
barrier to "main stream" educators' participation. I was surprised,
but then I'm a self-proclaimed "way too early adopter" here. However,
the point is well taken.
If lack of a WYSIWYG editor is a problem for the folks we want to
encourage to participate in/with WikiEducator, then what "we" think
shouldn't matter. This is classic marketing - what do I have to do to
get you to get on board?
We know what some of the barriers are. We can address them, and a new
batch of educators will join in. And as soon as we resolve the current
road blocks, new ones will emerge for the next group of potential
users.... Yes, there is no end in sight, but that's ok - the
population of WikiEducators will keep growing as long as we keep
making it more accessible to the hold-outs with valid concerns.
..Valerie
Jaapb
Nov 23, 2009, 5:09:16 AM11/23/09
to WikiEducator
Educators are people who like working with people and who are good at
working with people, and they think they don't like working with
machines.
This is a gross preconception, and not true for every teacher, but ...
All over the world teaching is regarded as using words or pictures to
tell people something new. That is a misconception, teaching should be
regarded also as guiding people into this world people and of
machines, technical devices and science. There is the problem. So just
get on try to teach teachers to use techincal things.
working with people, and they think they don't like working with
machines.
This is a gross preconception, and not true for every teacher, but ...
All over the world teaching is regarded as using words or pictures to
tell people something new. That is a misconception, teaching should be
regarded also as guiding people into this world people and of
machines, technical devices and science. There is the problem. So just
get on try to teach teachers to use techincal things.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages