The Problem with Open and an Open Proposal. by risa
Part 5:
The Heart of the Matter.
I am far from a perfect writer, content editor or copy editor. Just like anyone, I need other’s perspectives to help me triangulate my thoughts, especially since Open seems to have recently undergone some sort of change and now we’re getting more visitors and more writing then ever before.
Several times throughout the past year I had hoped to bring on new Open editors. I did end up finding some great new writers for the site, but this has added to my editing work. Until now I hadn’t figured out how to systematize sharing that.
But I think I’ve found a tool that will help.
Actually, Elran found the tools.
I was only on-the-ball enough to listen to him and start using them.
I’ve been using Basecamp, and Backpack, and most of all Writeboards, and I think in there we’ve found the keys to coordinating an effective editorial board for Open.
(Worried about the open source ethos of the company that makes Writeboard, Backpack and Basecamp? Check out their other contribution to the ecosystem: Ruby on Rails. )
So anyway, I’d like to propose a new process.
Part 6:
Proposing A New Process.
In our new set up an official editorial board will be created.
These 8 people, if they accept, will be Open’s first “Team Purgatory”:
Yohei : Open’s Contributing editor in NY.
Neil : Open’s Toronto Contributor.
Christian : Open’s Yellowknife Correspondent.
Robyn : Indyish Contributor.
Emilie : Already a part time Open Journal Editor and Indyish Contributor.
Elran : Techblog, Open Journal and Indyish founder and enabler. Also, Elran thought of calling it purgatory, which I think is funny.
Risa : that’s me. I accept.
Here’s how I think it will go. I’m open to suggestions.
Team Purgatory will be notified whenever a new piece of writing has been submitted to Open. Then Team Purgatory will have X days to make their edits before the piece goes back to the author for rewrites, or up on Open Journal for public consumption and ongoing growth. Some things, just like now, will not need edits. But still, nothing will be published or passed along until it has been seen by two different editors.
The Writeboards are the perfect tool for us, I think, because they’ll allow us to compare the changes made by different editors and build on eachother’s edits as we go. Team Purgatory will have shared access to a Writeboard where every piece of writing for Open will go between each stage of however many drafts it needs.
For that purgatorial period we can make our edits and see what we catch. It’ll help us get to know and respect each other’s strengths, while generally strengthening the writing we publish on Open.
Because, in some sense, Open is in the midst of a big competition. There are billions of websites out there trying to get seen. Billions of sites that people will look at only once and not remember because the one paragraph they read there wasn’t great. We’re doing well at Open, lots more people have found us then have ever found us before, and this makes me feel like we’re getting exponentially increasing chances to connect. I’d like to take that opportunity pretty seriously.
On our shared Writeboard we’ll do our edits, but maybe we’ll write theory collaboratively in there as well. Maybe you’ll see work written by Team Purgatory up on Open someday soon. Who knows, maybe it’ll be great and you’ll want to stay. The possibilities are endless.
Ok, keep well all, and happy holidays if you’re celebrating any.
R
ps- I like the Basecamp softwares so much I became an affiliate. If you buy their paid services through this link, we get credit on our Basecamp account. So maybe someday we could upgrade.
If you are on their site and decide to purchase some goodness from them, you can enter opentouchbasic as the affiliate code and credits will still go to us. Thanks a bunch.
Pages: 1 2
December 17th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Well, first off, I need to apologize for my tardiness. I work full-time and following this as closely as I would like is sometimes difficult. Second, I should apologize for my utter misconstruction. You see, I always thought that Open was a site whereby you could post your thoughts–in whatever form they might emerge, and see where their inertia might take them. I honestly, and perhaps naïvely, thought that one was invited to plant a seed and see if it might sprout. However, it would appear as though this site has indeed grown, it has, as with many living things, taken a life of its own. With its manifold readers and writers, with its automatically generated (from what I remember Risa telling [maybe I'm getting this wrong]) google ads, this seedling has certainly become a beautiful and singular plant. And this is undoubtedly a marvelous thing.
However, I don’t remember it starting out this way. As one can see from my misunderstanding, I thought it to be an entirely different kind of living space. And because of that, I included that digressive comment in my response to Neil’s furtherance (Differences of Scale and Sociality). Indeed, as I had guessed this aside created a little dialogic rhizome. For as can be discerned from my original line of thought, I conceived of Open as a space that catered to our selfishly generous inclination towards expressing one’s thoughts–even in their crudest forms–seeing if they possessed any force for others, seeing if they succeeded in making an impression–leaving a mark. Of course, there was always the possibility of censor; if someone delivered a comment that trangressed certain ethical bounds, then it would likely be intercepted (and dealt with [in whatever fashion deemed necessary] by the site’s creators). I thought that however rough our expressions might have been, the true test laid in their force: was there something in that thought that warranted a response, was there something in that kernel, some kind of inertia, that might bump into someone and that might summon them to redirect it in turn? So you see when my signal of intent (Differences of Scale and Sociality) was written and submitted–it was under an (mis)understanding such as this. For I readily admit that that post is an adumbration (even though it was ‘edited’). Indeed, it constitutes a relay for the fact that, with this 9 to 5 job, I have not really been able to write or to fashion a pleasurable text for some time now. With this signal of intent, I wanted to plant a rough seed for a coming piece of writing. And of course, I wanted to see if these initial ruminations had any force–and if so, to see if that force could be harnessed and intensified. I wanted to get it out there, before returning to it and developing it further to put it out there. So when I was subjected to an editing process, I was kind of baffled. For it became very clear to me that I had been operating under false pretenses. I say ‘subjected’ quite deliberately, because I found myself coming face to face with a power. A reticulated boundary of power in fact. And at this point, it might be useful to underscore (kind of a la Brian Massumi) the distinction between force and power: the former is generative and amplificatory, whereas the latter is circumscriptive. Now in the no man’s land between with my being faced with this different kind of space and with my original understanding of what this space was, I thought that there was a fascinating antinomy: edited/openness. This was a very interesting conceptual conundrum. You see, I was less concerned with the fact that someone else had a different take on my writing and work (for I have been edited, revised and obliterated many times over; some people love my writing, some loath it–and for some there’s a bit of both; and of course, there are those who wouldn’t even bother reading it); and it wasn’t because the editor didn’t point out the good bits of writing/thought (I knew there was some worth in it, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered; I think it disrepectful of other people’s time to simply post–for public exposure–one’s feces in written form). My concern laid in this antinomy. Was my memory failing me? Had I always (mis)read this site? As I recollected, I began to grow ever more certain that there was some truth to my initial understanding of this site’s ontology. Reading, thinking and reading some more. I discovered some traces of my former understanding of this site, which was, in some sense, exclusive from the latter understanding of it. In fact, I realized that this antinomy was still present in this site–embodied even. For on some level, the very front page seemed to support my initial understanding of this site as being a space that afforded dialogic expressions, a space that welcomed and encouraged ‘a thinking through’ of different musings and interpretations. Open welcomes with:
“Basically, together we try to capture and explore some fraction of the countless complex interactions taking place around us. We bump off of each other trying to figure our own experiences and opinions out.”
But to truly allow one’s words to bump off an(other), you must let her/his words stand for what their worth. Nothing precludes a thorough riposte. In fact, I think this site (in any which way you understand it) invites such a response. But being open to one’s words and then editing her/his words are paradoxically stitched acts that lay bare a challenging ethical question; one that is not mine to answer.
But beyond this, it also seemed as though this antinomy had found a certain embodiment in the voice of the site itself. For at different times throughout, this voice was either one or many. It was almost as if the schizophrenic bent particular to this voice had served to evince this antinomy even further:
“Open Journal is based in Montreal, and we have regular contributors offering perspective from New York, Toronto and Mali. We welcome you to use the comments to offer your own extensions to our little seedlings here. I hope you’ll putter about, and enjoy yourself, and always throw your two cents in.”
“I stand by my edits and by the careful and continuously evolving thought that’s gone into Open so far. And in general, people seem to find the fact that an editor will look at their work to be quite reassuring- it allows them to take chances. And we love that.”
Nevertheless, after having read the proposal above, it became clear that the immediate direction of this site was one that moved towards the latter understanding, instead of the former one. Despite this, I still feel that there are very real vestiges of this antinomy circulating within this site. And they will probably continue to abound, because behind the copious amounts of work put into this site, there persistently remains an ethos of openness (however complicated it has been shown to be). So in some sense, I have been struggling with shift this from simply writing to think things through with others, to writing to think things through for others: edited for openness. I certainly recognize, now, that this site has developed certain commitments to others (to readers, advertisers, etc.). And participating in this proposal could be quite rewarding, however, my decision to participate will be contingent on that of others and upon the kind of volume that we are talking about (my full-time job only leaves me with so much time). So how do the others feels about this proposition? Please offer your thoughts…
December 18th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
it’s interesting, the antinomy you point out is totally grammatically faulty, but it’s also at the heart of open and indyish- it’s the contradiction that we’re torn between and that our systems are trying to negotiate: being autonomous and being connected. Being “both ‘captain of your own ship’ and member of a mutually beneficial network.” (indyish.com). Being both I and we.
anyway…
Open’s not schizophrenic, it’s just growing up. The grammar- aside from being evidence of our need for editors- might be part of Open’s awkward teenage phase. After all, it’s not a school project anymore. We have 100 to 200 unique visitors a day, every day, and we’re adjusting to the reality of that. (Imagine 150 people came over to your house everyday… it’s weird, right?)
We have no responsibility at all to the automated ads that make us no money, but we do have this opportunity to interact with all kinds of different people from all over the world. A solid team could start to do things that would make the most of that.
i’ve said a lot of what i want to say on this above and i’m sure we’ll keep talking about this more. I’ve begun to map out more ideas for Open and for our editorial process in the basecamp, and created a section specifically for the collaborative authoring of Open policies. Most editors have already said ‘yes,’ so we should be able to start working on our system, features and policies together over the next few months. that said- we’ll never stop being open to publishing drafts and sketches and attempts. It just a question, i hope, of enhancing those small sprouts chance at growth in all kinds of different ways.
there are major ethical complications here as well as major practical considerations – the current and ongoing bombardment of wikipedia in particular challenges some popular configurations of “open”. and so, as always, i appreciate your opinions and feedback.
r
December 19th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
so which of the ‘potential’ editors have said yes? (i haven’t been privy to those responses as of yet)
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 am
hey Christian
in person, via email, or over the phone, everyone but you has said yes.
if you’re too worried about time, and/or the ethical dillemmas in editing, you can totally just remain an Open correspondent or Open friend, eh? no pressure.
if you’d like to know more about the kinds of things i’m proposing, i suggest logging in to the basecamp site. did you get the invite i sent you about a week ago? i hope it didn’t get buried in your junk mail.. Anyway, things won’t really get kicking in there until after the holidays, but Yohei, Elran and I have begun to do some work.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
i don’t believe that i have received the invite, please send it again…
December 21st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
done and done.
happy holidays all!