Start the slideshow

Presentation of the website, its objectives and features, its content.

wikispiral.org : a website to support the territories of coresponsibility

• Compared to :
  • website spiral.cws.coe.int
    • Only few features
    • Not inviting to collaboration
    • Hard to develop from
  • ESPOIR software
    • Slow
    • Data spreaded over too many files
    • Huge file sizes
    • Risks of mistakes

wikispiral.org advantages

• Unique tool
• Data is centralized
• Fewer software problems
• Help the coresponsible territories network to be together
• Communication and publication tool

Requisites for the new website

• Methodology contents more accessible
  • Methodology reference in one place and easy to find
  • Structured and organized references
• A communication tool for every participant of SPIRAL
  • It is always possible to participate by writing articles, commenting, discussing
  • A sharing place and tool for spreading news from your work into the network
  • A space to present every coordination group
  • It is possible to explore the data of all cordination groups
  • There is a structured discussion space with several topics
• A tool to manage your own SPIRAL processus
  • Entering and treatment of the data
  • Visualizing of the results

wikispiral.org schema

• The methodological reference
• Article newsfeed, publicated depending on categories
• Tool for data treatment

wikispiral.org : the methodological reference

SPIRAL methodology basis

• Fundamentals
• The two approaches
• Concepts and definitions

The different phases

• The spiral scheme
• A directory of methodological sheets

More interactivity : comments and exchanges

• You can leave comments on each page
  • This makes possible to directly debate under wikipages
  • Debates to serve to update the methodology
• Discussion groups about method, website, tools
  • To make proposals, start debates
  • To share questions, thoughts in the network

wikispiral.org : a space for sharing and discussion

Publication of news, reporting activities

• Everybody once registered can write articles
• There is a premoderation
• What are article useful for ?
  • To report a meeting you had, its results
  • To put online to be shared an analysis

(you can use advanced functionalities of the website to show studies, statistics, using the data stored in SPIRALs databases)

• To publish a pilot action experience
• How to write articles ?
  • Title
  • Excerpt
  • Body
  • Images
• What are categories useful for ?
  • To make your article viewable within the site
  • To choose the parts of the website you want your article to be

The dynamic content of the website is based on articles, who are sorted in theme webpages based on their categories.

Exploring the data of all groups

• Map of coordination groups
• Access to criteria and pilot actions databases
• Access to the synthesis of each coordination group

Participate to reflexion groups

• Each theme is cordonated by a reflexion group
• You can rejoign them and participate
• Publish your work, exchange, study
• Comment, discuss the contents
• Translate interesting articles in your langage - to be shared
• Share article in social networks

Exchange, meet others and learn from them

• Everybody has a personal presentation page
• You know what other do, participate to
• Collaborative space with tools
• Messaging

wikispiral.org : an online tool for criteria treatment

• Has most of ESPOIR functions
• A better interactivity, is quicker
• You access to your group data from everywhere
• You have a dashboard centralizing all the tools and tasks
• Youre results are shared within SPIRAL users

Entering data

• Write/modification access your cordination group only
• Deleting articles is secured
• Mass entering the criteria per question per group
• Interface for modifying your data
• Pilot action reporting open to all registered

Attribution to dimensions/categories

• Tool to help finding the appropriate dimension
• Search tool for similar criteria in the whole database
• Proposition entering helper (proposes options)

Synthesis viewing

• Groups and the questions
  • You can filter per homogenous group
• Indicators viewing
  • Planned (For early January 2013)
• Snippets
  • Plugins that can be entered anywhere in the website to illustrate your results, make graphs

Statistics

• Viewing of statistics
  • Planned (end January 2013)
• Using R software

Each coordination group can have its statistics, filterable with keywords

Security and legality

• Secured SSL connection to website
• Data are considered as public data
  • Well-being criteria
  • Pilot actions
• Unpublished data / private
  • Every personal/individual data (excepting volontarily published information by users (personal accounts infos)
  • Some of the contextual data (meeting places animators, ...)
• Property of data
  • Data is to be considered as public, reflecting what citizens want to be known, shared
• Opendata licensed
  • But each coordination group has the right to choose what data he wants to see published, and what data he wants to be not available.

Future prospects

A shared researching space

• Access to databases for researcks (universities, ...)
• Freetagging for custom research on databases
• Research working groups

European results on well-being

• Precautions with global statistics drawn from criteria attribution
  • Those are qualitative data gathere the framework of reflexion groups with citizens, following a same methodology
  • Attribution is systematized and controlled, but may sligvary in some circumstances
• What global statistics ?
  • European level statistiques all countries mixed but per homogenous group kind
  • Based on criteria attribution
  • Well-being surveys put together
• Statistics compared depending on the countries
• Comparating results from different cities, various repartition of criteria
• How to put data together ?

Project of fight against poverty in 30 pilot cities with the development of pilot actions

• How to make a platform more action-oriented ?
• What online tool to share creativity, pilot actions ?
• How to work together develop interesting action on an European level ?

Edgeryders example (COE, 2012)

• A web-only platform as a social network of local activisits
• Nice outputs, good participation a lot of contacts between participants
• Making real innovative ideas using mutual help (to find solutions to blocking problems)
• But an approach lacking local rooting, some of the actors felt isolated
• A too much individualistic approach
• How to embed it into SPIRAL to be a potential of action building of local groups ?
• Interaction happened mostly online. It has to combine online and offline elements in the new project

Final questions

• What shape may SPIRAL take to play its role in building a network of coresponsible territories ?
• What would our website be in 5 years ?
• For what purposes, which evolution ?
• How to work together for future evolutions of wikispiral.org ?

Quick rundown on the old program Edgeryders

Edgeryders project was devised as a means of deepening understanding of the specific challenges young Europeans feel they face in their attempts to successfully navigate the transition to an independent active life, as well as some of the innovative and creative ways they face them.

Edgeryders is fundamentally premised on the construction of youth as part of the solution, rather than an intrinsic social problem.

With monetary incentives ruled out, the Edgeryders team attempted to make a case for citizens to participate in the exercise by promoting an ethics of civic engagement. Three promises were made.

• Participants experiencing trouble making their own transition from youth to adulthood could get help in the form of advice from other participants.
• Participants who enjoy mentoring others could get the chance to give advice.
• Everyone’s voice would be heard with respect and contribute to a document of policy recommendation, that would be legitimized by the role and prestige of the Council of Europe.

The Edgeryders project adopts a open science stance. The idea is to release valuable data from the project in the public domain, where scholars can reuse them, and perhaps add to the analysis performed by the project’s own research team. In the context of participatory projects like Edgeryders, openness takes on additional value as it helps to build trust and gives the community a feeling of greater control over how they are portrayed in the reports.

edgeryders.ppa.coe.int has 1200 + registered users with around 250 active. 75.000 visits, with 250.000 pageviews. We are easily top return for Google searches on Edgeryders or similar. Even now, with a semidead project, there are around 100 visits a day. The Edgeryders database contains more than 500 mission reports and nearly 4,000 comments.

Edgeryders might be a prototype for online citizen engagement at the European level, well beyond the youth policy context that generated it.

Challenges for the new project: (besides the ones in the “Edgeryders Reloaded: Process Design” google doc)

• Interaction happened mostly online. It has to combine online and offline elements in the new project
• Interaction online is vastly more trackable and even measurable than its offline counterpart.
• Participation on the web is asynchronous, always-on and cheap to maintain.
• Representation works relatively well in simple, massified societies. 21st century Europe is not one of them, and the legitimacy of all representation is declining fast.
• Meetings don’t scale: involving more people tends to dampen the interaction between any two participants.
• Meetings are expensive and hard to organize, so they tend to be few, far between, and highly ritualized.

Projet de lutte contre la pauvreté dans 30 villes-pilotes avec Edgeryders

Responding together - Citizen’ engagement against exclusion

• identify areas where people are already engaged in: how to make those initiatives more resilient
• inspire the creation of new initiatives
• support existing SPIRAL initiatives with creative input: for the people driving them, raise their profile in local environments

How are Edgeryders solutions different to those of the market? E.g.:

• sharing (existing things) vs individual access (new goods).
• mutual/collective responsibility vs individual entitlement
• avoiding pressure on resources (localisation?) vs not bothered about pressure on resources
• rejecting waste (and making use of abandoned resources) vs producing waste/useless goods (while actually reducing choice to those options which are economically seen as the most productive)

Need to articulate the ways in which these alternatives require new forms of action from the actors involved.