Development Cooperation Handbook/The video resources linked to this handbook/The Documentary Story/WIKI issues
The WIKI is functioning well. In the issues pages partners are able to add the links to the specific contribution they are making. We started with written interviews, then we are gradually uploaded the audiovisual files. We have decided that we will leave the original full interviews on the web, while we will use the most relevant excepts for the documentary. In this way we are able to publish immediately the first result of our research that can be also used by the very persons we interviewed to let others know what is their opinion about the issues under enquiry. And we will open the possibility of documentary viewers to see more than what was shown in the documentary. It is also an approach of transparency to the public, since in many cases media people just uses some sentences that they need to built their own stories and take them out of context without being fair to the person who said it and, within the full context, was actually saying something quite different.
We are instead having some problems with the Belgian partner and some other Italian partners, who are resisting this approach. They are more used to write reports about their social research than collecting the original opinions of the people. They have a resistance to use WIKI as an open communication platform and prefer to send long e-mail to the project manager and have communication only with him. We are however insisting with the WIKI approach, also because it allows me not to differentiate between the instructions given (for collecting the information) and the activities done (the information collected) as we are using the same WIKI pages for both. At the beginning the WIKI page is what needs to be done; then the same WIKI page is what has been done. All the links remain the same and all the work done is immediately utilized by all who want to utilize it. The only problem is that in this way the wiki pages are becoming more and more numerous and long. So there is a growing need of editing of the content and hierarchical management of the content so as to structure certain ‘access routes’ to the WIKI content. In spite of the “collective authorship” of the wiki approach, some need for hierarchy remains. The question is to organize such hierarchy as a means for facilitating and integrating the creative job of all partners and not as a mean to control them and pretend their conformity to predetermined criteria. There is still the need of someone who has the final “authority”; an authority however which is empowering and not subjugating the team. And that is what I expect will make our product “authoritative” but not ‘pedantic”; with communicant power but not rhetorical dominance. I hope. Let’s see. We are trying.
Next ⇒ The round table in Tuscany