I put this into a longer blog post, but it seems like you’re getting at some version of a site that incorporates the following factors:

1. Low barrier to entry.
2. Multiple points of entry for end users (ie, choices. A user can post from multiple sites, and push their content to the institutional web space).
3. Tools for multiple ability levels — some users will only want to use their own blog, while others will be perfectly happy using a tool provided by the organization. Both choices are perfectly okay.
4. Guidelines and tutorials for posting to the system using both external tools, and publishing tools provided by the organization. At its most simple, this would include tagging guidelines, and links where external users could submit their rss feeds. This assumes, of course, a system designed to handle aggregation and embedding of external content.
5. A governance model designed to vet content, and maintain quality control over critical areas of the organizational web presence.

Aggregation (and by extension, solutions based on aggregation/embedding) are difficult for non-geeks to grok — questions I have encountered include, “Where does the information go?” and “Does it mean anybody can publish anything on my site?” — obviously, there are others, but people still have a hard time getting their head around how to work within a less restrictive environment. That, combined with a serious mistrust of people to not commit random acts of idiocy, helps explain some of the restrictions I’ve seen in the limits placed on greater community involvement.

Ha! I just read your reply above where you even quote the same conversation! Ha! Would help if I read the comments first.

To take it one step further – while I’d much prefer it if the folks who want to use ‘loosely coupled’ tools would pick ones that actually do RSS, that itself doesn’t even need to be the barrier. Give us well formed HTML & we’ll scrape the hell out of it if we have to.

The flip side of this, the one us techies miss out I think, is what’s the ‘glue’ that makes something a community, and to what extent do these various models support it or inhibit it. I am not trying to open the network/group issue up (oh sheesh, did I just) but somehow that’s another vector to factor into the considerations. Anyways, good work, again…

I think you’ve got the balance right. I’ve looked at various projects that involve the same sort of groups online that you are talking about (at least, what I *think* you’re talking about – my understanding may be faulty). A big hurdle is that anyone who has an online presence doesn’t want to contribute to a group blog or have another blog for work/group/project. I want to write on my blog because it’s mine. You know – the power of positive narcissism and all that. I just want to write in my blog, tag the posts that are related to work/group/project then let someone take my feed, filter it for relevant posts then aggregate it with other people doing the same thing. I don’t care where anyone else is writing as long as I have the choice (important concept) about where I do my work.

At the same time, anyone who hasn’t tasted the ed tech kool-aid to the same extent that we (you, me, others in our blog and twitter networks) have. They need some guidance and hand-holding. They may prefer to write/post/share their stuff at the community hub so they can feel the connection with the community, and they may want some form of official support. That is their choice. Novices should probably start in the shallow end of the pool, but as people learn about other tools then gain the interest and confidence to use them they might want to move into deeper waters. That can be their choice.

In any case, the process is the same – rip, mix, aggregate/embed. All we need is a way for a website to create a feed of the content as it is updated, and some sort of tool for taking all the educational content then gluing it together. Hmmm …