How should the Collaborative Profile of the Week be chosen?

+21 votes
609 views
Hi WikiTreers,
 
We've worked up a plan for changing the Profile of the Week into the Collaborative Profile of the Week.
 
The idea is to change the emphasis from selecting a great profile as the winner to creating a great profile through broad-based collaboration.
 
 
There are still questions to work out, especially how the profile should be selected.
 
This question is for Paula, Eric, Terry, and others who have led the Profile of the Week and hopefully will continue to do so, but it's also directed at all project leaders, and anyone who might like to be involved in the Collaborative Profile of the Week.
 
The Profile of the Week is really important.
 
I'd go so far as to say that anyone who cares about WikiTree should care about the ProTW. These are the profiles that get the most attention from new members and non-members. Because of they way they're linked and promoted they also affect our Google rankings. This means they affect all our profiles.
 
So, how should the profile that will be collaborated on and featured be chosen?
 
A description of the kind of profile we want to choose is here:
 
It seems to me that leaders of other projects should be involved. This has always been a goal of the Profile of the Week, but often other project leaders haven't stayed interested. We need to make an effort to make sure that important profiles from various projects are featured for two reasons: 1.) To create examples of great profiles of that type. 2.) To attract attention to the project.
 
We could encourage project leaders and others to categorize any profile they think would make a good Collaborative Profile of the Week in "Nominated Profiles" or "Profile of the Week Nominees." Then the leaders and members of the ProTW would just have to select one from that category every week.
 
We've discussed involving the Profile Improvement Project, perhaps by making the ProTW a sub-project of it. PIP members could lead the way in making sure that important but imperfect profiles get categorized as nominees.
 
Voting with Google +1's might still be used. Maybe the selection process doesn't even have to change from what it is now, where nominees are made and discussed in the project's Google+ group. We should probably do this at least for the next couple weeks since there are nominees already in the pipeline.
 
What do you think?
 
Chris
in The Tree House by Chris Whitten G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
I do have a question is this to be in addition to the current or a change to the current Profile of the week?
This is a change to the current Profile of the Week project.
Right, it's a change to the current project. But it could also be viewed as an addition to it.

The current Profile of the Week selects one profile to feature. That will still happen. But now there is another stage: collaboratively improving on the profile.
I do understand what you are trying to accomplish and rather than being a negative just going to wish you good luck with it.

9 Answers

+9 votes
I think it's a great idea!  I have a few hundred that I would like to volunteer as the first test profiles.  :-)  This is all about collaboration!  Mags
by Mags Gaulden G2G6 Pilot (638k points)

Thanks, Mags.

I think you hit the nail on the head. WikiTree is all about collaboration. It's WikiTree's raison d'etre.

Using the Profile of the Week to showcase what's possible by working together -- even to push the envelope on it -- makes sense to me.

I agree with Mags on that concept for the Profile of the Week too. I can think of a few Pre-742 EuroAristo project profiles that are not so great that could go into the "collaborative" pot.

So it would be a profile that has the " potential" to be great that is selected and it needs to be done in a week .
Yes in all areas of the EuroAristo project there are many profiles that could do with a make-over

There is also the category Long Profiles in need of a clean-up http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Long_Profiles_in_Need_of_Cleanup

Maybe some of those might be good candidates for Collaborative profile of the week
+9 votes
I really like this idea. This could go a long way towards helping a lot of projects who have long lists of important profiles that need attention, but they just haven't had the chance. It can also open doors to helping teach more of our community about collaboration and our style guide. I am really excited to see how this goes.
by Abby Glann G2G6 Pilot (722k points)
+9 votes
Chris,

Good idea.  It would be nice if the future guidelines emphasied

1. Quality and use of sources

2. Use of features of Wikitree, like categorization and links to other profiles.  For example the individual influenced the work of John XXYYZZ, with link.   

it seems to me that many winning profiles in past seemed to win because of the heavy use of photos, multiple fonts and colors.  (When you look at the profile what is see is all the color, not the quality or the research.)  Those things are nice, but if they can be minor points in the selection process that might allow great profiles that do not have access to pretty pictures to be serious contenders.
by Philip Smith G2G6 Pilot (337k points)
Having recently converted all of the winning profiles from the beginning of the project until now to make sure they were up to current style guidelines (no html), I was pleased to see the variety of the winners. Very few were like the others. Many, many hours have gone into collaboration, genealogical research and writing of all the nominees and winners. This has been an active hard working group of project members who have been proud of what they have learned by setting their goal every week to improve.

In the launch of this new project, I hope due respect will be allowed the one that is outgoing.
+9 votes
If the question is how should the profile be chosen, I think the US President's project is a good example of a project that has it's profiles in need of improvement readily organized.  

Possibly all projects could adopt a profile improvement category. If you wanted to include many projects, possibly the leaders of the project being featured could offer up profiles and serve as subproject leaders for that profile since there is specific expertise we could learn from them about that type of profile as well as learning the other things you mentioned. Or they could serve was consultants. I think we would gain from their active involvement on the fine details.
by Paula J G2G6 Pilot (278k points)
Recommending that all projects maintain profile improvement categories is a really interesting idea. That could have big benefits, totally unrelated to ProTW. One I'm thinking of: It would give Erin and project leaders a specific thing to recommend to any volunteer who wants to get involved right away. They could pick a profile and start working on it.
I have been considering it for US Civil War and Mags has also suggested it for US Southern Colonies.
Nice, Paula, that is a really good suggestion. I also like the idea of each project having a profile improvement category even if just only for the reason Chris mentioned. There'd always be something to do for someone who was ready to jump in.
Maybe spin this off into a new G2G question, to get the attention of PIP members and other project leaders? I really like this idea.
Done.
+6 votes
Hello Chris just a few qusetions I know things still have to be worked out and everything is not sorted yet

Is the Profile Improvement Project on board with this new sub-project yet (if that is what it will be)

The profile that is featured do they still get a badge for the featured profile?

Is this week the last for PotW, or will it take longer to work things out with the new CPotW,this question a few members have ask me, I would like to let members know if they should nominate for next week on PotW  Terry
by Terry Wright G2G6 Pilot (190k points)
Hi Terry,

Regarding the PIP, I know it's been mentioned to Anne and Sally.

As I mentioned in my e-mail, I'm not sure it matters much whether ProTW becomes a sub-project or PIP or just affiliated or what. Do you think it does? Maybe we should keep talking about it and mulling it over. I would think that would be a pretty easy thing to change around.

Regarding badges, no, the idea is that the profile manager would no longer get a badge. There'd still be a template for the featured profile, I think.

Regarding scheduling, I don't know. Maybe we should take this week's winner and go ahead and try out the collaboration.

This doesn't have to be viewed as a big change. The Profile of the Week still needs to be selected. Now we're just doing an intensive collaboration after it's been selected. Collaboration is something that can happen on any profile at any time (ideally!). Collaborating on a ProTW shouldn't be objectionable to anyone, right? They're open profiles.

Chris
Hello Chris no I don't think it matters if the new CPotW becomes a sub-project, I do think it is a project that could stand on its own, but for that you would need more than one leader and at the moment there is only me. So I will let the members know this is the last week for the old PotW, and to start looking for profiles they can start collaborating on ?.I am really glad the profile will still receive a badge, members like that. And no collaborating shouldn't be objectionable,the members always collaborated in the PotW ,and this new project should be the same, that is what Wikitree is all about collaboration Terry
Sidebar clarification question: when did the policy change to projects requiring TWO leaders? Last I knew, projects needed only one. Thanks.
Projects do only need one leader, but this will be a large project if it takes off , that will take a lot of work ,so I think 2 leaders would be better if it was a stand alone project and not a sub-project.
Actually, I think this project could use multiple leaders (they don't neccessarily need to be "leaders"). Because it's working on a three week rotation, and there will always be three profiles being worked on at any given time, one person should be taking the lead with each profile to make sure it's moving along (an overseer, coordinator, or building contractor).

Or instead: a lead person for each of the three weeks - ie. A week one person/s that would oversee selection of the profile. A week two person/s who would make sure that research was getting done, bios were being written etc. Perhaps the profile manager would be a good choice for the second week person. A week three person, who would do the promotion end, someone or two, who already knows what they're doing.

I actually think I like the second option better.
I agree completly and think project coordinators would be great for this!
+9 votes
The idea of working collaboratively to improve profiles is a good one and in the spirit if wiki.  I have long been of the opinion that the profile of the week should be one that demonstrates all the goals we are trying to achieve, sourced, categorized etc and this idea will help to bring all those things together as long as the right people are all engaged.  

The only concern I have is how profiles are picked.  They need to be a spread of different types of ancestors.  Whilst project managers may want to highlight some of their profiles I don't think notables or aristos that have a wealth of information in other places on the net should be the main focus.  Sure they can be part of it, but I would like to see other focus areas that might help members, not just on how the profile looks but with their genealogy.  Maybe some of the family brick walls.  Maybe some of the early settlers in a country that if their family was developed more then it would help connect more people to the tree.  Hopefully the current process of different categories each week will continue.

Some of the long profiles that need improvement after multiple merges could be a focus, but if you get too many people collaborating won't they double up or get in each other's way?  I'm wondering if you need a sub team/s that focuses on different aspects?  

I suspect as in many new projects you won't know until you dive in!
by Veronica Williams G2G6 Pilot (213k points)

I agree with Veronica, that famous and semi famous are fine, but it would be nice to see ordinary ancestors get good treatment also.

Unfortunately, I don't think this project can really handle the brick wall. Brick walls require being in the right place - in the musty tombs of some historical society, digging through land records and old newspapers (that sort of thing). We only have a week to complete this transformation, and we will understandably be limited to the internet or what we have in our private collections. 

I think some of our best profiles are just regular folks.  These are not typically connected to a project though.  Sometimes it is hard to identify them before the "make over"

I think Photo of the Week can help with this because sometimes the first indication of a good story is the photo. Two of my profiles were nominated minutes after I created them because the photos stood out and were noticed.

If I could upvote this 100 times, I would. smiley

+4 votes
Would there be room for a profile to win if it took more than one week to do the collaboration? There are some PGM profiles that are excellent examples but have taken a much longer time to work on.
by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (896k points)
I had the same concern. I think, if I am not mistaken,  a profile "wins" when it is chosen to be worked on. What if takes more than a week to resolve a name issue or obtain a record?
Maybe in the case of profiles that will take longer, we could have "profiles in waiting."

Nominated for the process, but waiting on resolving a name issue or waiting for a copy of the will to arrive.

Nominated but need some preliminary work done, so that it won't take more than a week.

Or you could just hold off nominating them until you have what you need to make the task only a week long process.
And, if we're following a three week process, there technically would be more than a week. I know we are thinking of focusing on certain areas each of the three weeks, but if discussion about a last name takes a little longer than a week to decide, I don't think it should be too much of an issue. And the idea of having some nominees who are great, but need one thing resolved first being on hold is a good idea, too. There is just so much possibility with this.
Yes I agree. Taking sufficient time sounds like an easy option to include. I know from Jillaine's help with some of my profiles that patience and care is required.
+8 votes
I agree with Anne that this type of TLC should not be restricted to the profiles of famous people.  It would be nice to see some "plain folks" get special treatment, too.

The Integrators Project takes question from G2G to start new profiles or enhance an existing one. I could easily see a G2G question generating a profile that could use ProOW treatment.

Also, I don't think there should be a time limit.  Certainly, a good write up is much more important than doing it quick and dirty just to get it done in a week.
by Vic Watt G2G6 Pilot (355k points)
I agree with Vic.  A good write up for a profile takes longer than a week.  Just what is showing on a page, particularly if the existing PM  writes it on microsoft or Word Perfect prior to posting the write up on wikiTree.

 

I also am concerned that WikiTree spends so much time on famous prople who have already been written about multiiple times on other media.  The plain people (parents, sibs, children, have to be the primary percentage of WikiTree.   Why not spend the time on just plain people.?
+3 votes
I suppose that the easiest thing to do is vote based on nominations, like the old PotW.  Regarding guidelines for nominating,  I think it is important that candidate profiles be integrated into the WikiTree (with plenty of ancestors and/or descendants), and I think that famous people (like kings and presidents) should be avoided (but maybe others will disagree).  Perhaps it would be best to focus on distant ancestors (pre-19th or even pre-18th century), which means that these people have many more potential descendants.

Perhaps every week the nominations should be from different categories.  Some potential examples:

--Medieval England
--Immigrants to Australia and New Zealand
--17th-century New England
--18th-century Virginia
--Dutch, South African, and New Netherland
--German ancestors
by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (104k points)

Related questions

+16 votes
3 answers
+13 votes
3 answers
+10 votes
5 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...