Personal tools
 
Views

The Merger

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Merger Implementation List:

Why we should wait on software deployment

  1. Can we transfer all of the IDEA wiki content now? Yes.
  2. We need to be able to start "new debate pages" with new software and with new, appropriate names (Debate: Carbon Emissions..., Argument:), transfer the content of an existing debate article, delete the old article...

What doesn't require waiting

  1. About pages.
  2. Debate content.

Content importation from Debatepedia to IDEA wiki

  1. Debatepedia Front page:
    1. Modify Debatepedia front page, revamping it, and integrating key IDEA debates, content, mission and other things.
      1. Still have to integrate the other functions of Debatepedia.
    2. Cut-and-Paste it onto the IDEA wiki the Debatepedia front page.
    3. Integrate existing IDEA wiki front page with a new "About" page.
    4. Revamp structure and layout to optimize the front-page.
      1. Ideas and changes:
    5. Remove some less important, original Debatepedia debates.
    6. Prioritize a good number of the most important, existing IDEA wiki debates (from the Debatabase), and put them on the front-page.
  2. Rename IDEA wiki debates and re-organize site. Debates are currently named "Debatabase: Topic" and a "Debatabase" tab exists. What we should be doing is renaming all debate articles "Debate: Gun Control, "Debate: Partial Birth Abortion", and so-forth.
    1. Get rid of Debatabase tab, just have standard "article" appear.
    2. Rename debates with "Debate"..."Gun Control Debate"...
  3. "About" page. Begin making a new about page that fully defines the new Debatepedia, the history of the merger, and re-examine and illuminate the Debatepedia mission, including such considerations as the IDEA encyclomedia and "micropedia" of debate concepts. Incorporate IDEA wiki's existing "about"-like content.
  4. "Debatepedia Policies" page. Make a new page on IDEA wiki for the "Debatepedia Policies" (Guiding Principles). [Continue to prioritize the development of the Guiding Principles.]
  5. "MediaKit." Adapt Media kit to new Debatepedia.
  6. "Help" page. Revamp (ongoing).
  7. "FAQ" page. Revamp (ongoing).


Notes & Considerations

The IDebate Wiki in its current form includes colaborative documents on various themes/topics. These include the IDEA standards, various project pages as well as debate-related descriptions and definitions. Reason for creating the "Debatebase tab" and the "Standards tab" [which are actually full-featured MediaWiki namespaces] is separating the pages with this specific content from the bulk of wiki articles.

Assuming we go ahead and remove the Debatabase and Standards namespace - we need to come up with a way to differentiate these pages - if only to avoid articles with the same name. Otherwise, we might need to resort to create "disambiguation" pages.

  • I think the best way to disambiguate is to finish all debate articles with the word "Debate". So..."Gun Control Debate" or "Genetically Modified Organisms Debate", for example, instead of "Debatabase: Gun Control". I think this is a clearer way to go about this all. On definitions, there is generally no reason why a debate-specific definition can't fall under the fairly expansive name Debatepedia. Definitions can just go by the word or term. On this point, I will note though that we will want to be sensitive to what has already been achieved in, say, Wikipedia as far as definitions go. Re-directing to Wikipedia content may be appropriate in instances of more general, less debate-specific, definitions. Obviously, the point here is to add value where non exists in the world already.
    • For the IDEA standards, it might make sense to have a separate "portal" for this, just as Wikipedia has "portals" for different categories. Ultimately, we will be moving toward "portals" for categories of debates, and this will seemlessly integrate with Noel's great concept of a "micropedia" on isolated debate topics. IDEA standards should be made such a "portal". Depending on the value of its exposure, there would be no problem keeping a link to the IDEA standards section or "portal" on the side bar. Or maybe having a link to it in the main page.Brooks Lindsay 12:57, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Import Debatepedia header with new IDEA branding (and possibly Debatemedia-IDEA relationship recognition[?]):

  1. Send Photoshop version of our header and logo over to Hernan (?), and have him place the IDEA logo and "International Debate Education Association" on it. Let him play around with and optimize it.
  2. Have Hernan or Will import the new header onto the IDEA wiki.
  3. Provide Debatemedia mention on header?

This shouldn't be a problem, so long as it's clear that DebateMedia is not a public charity or using IDEA's public charity status as a pass through for funds.

    1. Is it a problem that Debatemedia, Inc. is a profit?

It only would become a problem if the site suggested in any way that DebateMedia is piggybacking on IDEA's 501(c)3 status. What I think we should do is put some language on the bottom of the page that makes the relationship between IDEA and DebateMedia.

    1. What is the official relationship? If this is considered a "merger" and "joint project", then recognition might make sense. Yet, this seems to be panning out as Debatemedia, Inc. "giving" "Debatepedia" to IDEA. In this context, Debatemedia would be seen as supporting Debatepedia, but Debatepedia being seen as a project of IDEA.

This could be a little tricky to avoid any issues with the IRS. We have to make it clear that IDEA is the public charity supporting Debatemedia's development of the Debatepedia. I think that the way we make this clear is that we put the wiki under a Creative Commons attribution license with IDEA being listed as the rights holder. I believe this will protect us all from any problems with the IRS. Unless DebateMedia objects, I say we go with that for now, and I'll confirm with lawyers when we get back to the States.

    1. Are there marketing benefits to Debatepedia being seen as a collaborative "joint project" of IDEA and Debatemedia, Inc?

I can't think of any for IDEA, but I think it could help DebateMedia if it looks for other clients, which is why I would like to see Debatemedia get the credit it deserves here.

      1. There are some psychological benefits to a project being seen as collaborative.

Software deployment onto the IDEA wiki:

  1. Is this possible on the IDEA wiki versus Debatepedia wiki?
    1. Assume yes?
  2. Final modifications with QuadOne (Conference call - Could include Noel):
    1. First, have them deploy their final software on demo.
    2. Do a final test for bugs.
    3. List of changes to be addressed:
      1. Get rid of ad-scheme.
      2. Leave room for Google Ad-sense? - Few reasons not to.
      3. Subquestion background boxes (status check)
      4. Mozile (status check - can be continuing project)
      5. Tabs: Do we want to keep the stylistic tabs that they developed? (can be continuing question)
      6. A "stances" tab. (continuing question).
  3. Deploy software on IDEA wiki. Coordinate this with QuadOne.
  4. Integrate software around existing IDEA debate content. Can this be done automatically, or will someone have to cut and paste existing debate contents?
  5. Begin talking about promotional deal for QuadOne for continued project work through 2007 and for long-term software insurance and trouble shooting.
  6. Begin continued process of testing software with objective of fixing any outstanding problems and advancing new software development projects for future work.

Administrative and server access for Will and Brooks:

Admin access added for Brooks [username "Brooks Lindsay"]. As soon as Will's username is added here, admin access will be granted.

IDEA Colors? - Should we adopt the IDEA colors fully?

  1. Decide course: Should we adopt the same blue on the existing Debatepedia, but replace the Debatepedia green with an orange/cream.
    1. Debatemedia has no problem with this, and has not attachment to its green.
    2. A light orange/cream for the background of text of "yes" columns and on logo would be an appealing option. It may even be a more neutral color than the existing green, and even easier on the eyes.
  2. Choose an orange: Test orange options on "Color Test" page on IDEA wiki.
  3. Can we deploy this orange automatically into software? YES. Do it.
  4. Put new orange into logo.

Ongoing Merger and Branding Ideas:

  • Background of site: a World Map (like the one on the IDEA site) instead of the standard open book MediaWiki background.

Merger Objectives and Time-line:

  1. We should aim to complete the contract, merger, and software deployment by the end of June.
  2. Marketing, editorial community building, and content building can then begin in full through July and beyond.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.