Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| May 10 2007, 5:23 PM EDT (current) | Anonymous | 1 word deleted |
| May 10 2007, 11:22 AM EDT | Jagster | 1 word added, 1 word deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
While not selecting a particular tool as the solution for the ACME case study, our group did spend a significant amount of time discussing anonymity versus source attribution.
The various concerns in favor of anonymity is that would elicit honest answers not self-filtered for politcal acceptance or self-promotion.
The concern for source attribution were tied to recognition/rewards and feedback. Since 1 in 40 people are likely to write in a wiki/blog/other environment, our issue was to provide motivation to achieve a higher contribution rate. One idea is that , public recognition of particularly significant and helpful contributions might inspire others to make their own contributions. In addition, if a contribution showed that the writer misunderstood a concept or misapplied a process, this is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback to steer him/her back on the right track. The negative feeling about source attribution is that the potential contributors might feel pressured to provide less blunt, less honest information. There may be a fear of consequences for providing some input.
Our group therefore decided that a combination of the two is best. The source attribution & recognition plan would provide motivation, while contributors who choces to be anonymous could provide information they might not otherwise. Donald Duck was a strong voice during this discussion.
The various concerns in favor of anonymity is that would elicit honest answers not self-filtered for politcal acceptance or self-promotion.
The concern for source attribution were tied to recognition/rewards and feedback. Since 1 in 40 people are likely to write in a wiki/blog/other environment, our issue was to provide motivation to achieve a higher contribution rate. One idea is that , public recognition of particularly significant and helpful contributions might inspire others to make their own contributions. In addition, if a contribution showed that the writer misunderstood a concept or misapplied a process, this is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback to steer him/her back on the right track. The negative feeling about source attribution is that the potential contributors might feel pressured to provide less blunt, less honest information. There may be a fear of consequences for providing some input.
Our group therefore decided that a combination of the two is best. The source attribution & recognition plan would provide motivation, while contributors who choces to be anonymous could provide information they might not otherwise. Donald Duck was a strong voice during this discussion.
