Thoughts on different points:

  1. Hosting Plans
  2. Look at this link to web hosting offered through something as bland as GoDaddy.com. This is fairly standard from what I have seen. This would be an acceptable go-by.
  3. Towards the bottom of this page, select the “windows” plan.
  4. “Do you want wiki-type tools that would allow community driven content? Wjo has ownership of the information? Can others fix faulty information?
  5. I have had some thoughts on this subject:
  6. The deliverable is two-fold:
  7. Insight from one person on how they would do something
  8. Insight from a community on how they would do something
  9. The individual model should not be editable, but I am still thinking about the community model.
  10. There are two possibilities for the community model as I see them:
  11. A wiki page where everyone can edit and the viewer sees one page presenting a complete topic. That topic may have 50 authors, but the viewer doesn’t know that, nor do they particularly care.
  12. The upside is that this format is probably the easiet to understand, and people already see this type of format on Wikipedia
  13. The downside is that you may lose something of value from different perspectives not being offered.
  14. A group blog (or something like that), where you see a history of input from different users.
  15. The upside is that you can see all the users, band potentially capture the perspective of different people
  16. The downside is the value of the differing perspectives could be lost in trying to sift through all the segmented pieces of input.
  17. Conclusion: I think we may want to have a blended model that allows for both formats, allowing the users to pick which format is preferable to them.
  18. Part of the page just has to do with authored content
  19. Another part of the page (different tab) has to do with a wiki covering the topic area discussed showing a community based perspective.
  20. The author links the content to the topic area, which is linked to the wiki.
  21. People establishing their identity: Possible solution – peer reviewed content
  22. In the academic community, it is an established model that before an article can be published; it must be reviewed by peers of similar or elevated caliber. The idea is that the community approves learning and evolves as a whole
  23. This could be beneficial to the question we face. IF we allow those that are creating profiles to label themselves as differing levels of proficiency (amateur/semi-pro/professional/star), to retain that proficiency they would have to post content that is judged by others to be of that quality.
  24. This sort of rescinds my previous position, that someone could not be “harmed” in position by the community, but at this point I don’t see another way.
  25. The benefit is that to stay on the community, or rather, to establish identity, the author has to be “voted in” by the community at large
  26. This still doesn’t entirely solve the problem of starting the community.
  27. We could hand out proficiency levels initially, and then take those away over time
  28. The problem with that is that giving away position in the network destroys value.
  29. The whole concept is that the stature you are in real life can be mimicked online. The only difference is accessibility.
  30. Another thought entirely – we ditch labels altogether, and people’s value is established by downloads of their material and peer review of their content, completely aside from branding of stature.
  31. This would solve the start up problem
  32. It would also keep the community honest
  33. This would be far simpler to implement.
  34. I need some input here guys. Each method has its quirks.