How do technical writers manage user-authored content in a read/write web environment?

On October 5, 2010, I posted the following Feed on my Yammer:

 

How do technical writers manage user-authored content in a read/write web environment? When a user posts content that is either outdated, in error, or in conflict with company values, should this be managed? If so, how?

 

EA (identity hidden): I think it's absolutely the case we need to manage it, in a respectful way. We owe it to those that would read our work to make sure that the content they rely on is accurate and consistent. That said, user-authored content is often a gift - of the author's time, energies, or knowledge, and we need to [sic] those contributions with gratitude. As a contributor, I'd like to be contacted and told that my efforts were appreciated and told either that my information is incorrect and pointed to the correct information, or that there might be a better way to phrase what I'd written.

 

Chief Architect

Should organizations keep a running dialogue with users who blog about their products?

I posted this to Yammer on October 5, 2010:

Should organizations keep a running dialogue with users who blog about their products?

OGH (identity hidden) replied: Absolutely. Isn't that the potential of tools like Twitter and Facebook?

My cousin posted a note to Facebook asking for technical help with her new android phone.

Chat Transcript with St. Bonaventure Univ. Librarian 5am Oct 5 2010

Chat Transcript
Other than in "technical communication" journals, where else might I find information about user-authored content?

5:16:29
Librarian 'St. Bonaventure Univ. Librarian Ann has joined the session.

Hello Tara

I'm Ann, a librarian in New York State

Your library and mine work together to staff this service

Hi Ann

When you say "user-authored," what type of item/software/etc. are these users using?

It could be software or hardware. For example, there are many unofficial user forums that talk about how to use the Palm Pixi smart phone. My theory is that users seek out help from each other before going to the official documentation.

That is interesting. Let me think about how we could approach this in a search! I'm thinking one way to approach this might be to take a look at how users groups function. I'll pull up a list of databases from your library, so we can try this theory out.

ME: Yes, that is someting I hadn't thought of - the discourse communities and how they function might be interesting to research.

Librarian: I see that your library has Academic Search Premier -- that might be a good database to use to start. This search string retrieved some articles that might be relevant: computer AND "user group"

ME: I think I'm looking for more about the psychological reasons why someone would trust another user over the corporate documentation.

Librarian: Okay that gives me some additional ideas for ways to search. We would look for information on whether users found corporation documentation, or online help provided by the vendor, difficult to use as well.

Try (DE "COMPUTER users") or (DE "COMPUTER users -- Attitudes"). Some of the articles here look interesting and this search string can be combined...

Me: Yes thank you - I found "User attitudes towards news content personalization" I tried "Psychology" + "Web 2.0" also.

Summary
This librarian provided me another search avenue - whether or not the users found online help provided by the vendor to be difficult to use. Maybe that's why they prefer user communities over "vendor" help. There must be some research that points to this - perhaps someone has conducted a study and found that users attitudes towards "vendor" help is that the "vendor" help is difficult to use.

Research Topic - Informal Proposal

User-Authored Online Help
Is it manageable by technical communicators?
If so, then how would the good content become promoted over the 'bad' content?
To what extent are technical communicators who write online help for a product prepared to manage user-authored content that may or may not be accurate, timely, fair, or reflective of company values?

Has the term 'online help' evolved to encompass the content that serves those who go online for any kind of help? For example, my dog is having an unresolvable itching problem which the vet says is an allergy. I want to find out if anyone 'online' can offer any 'help'.

If yes, and the read/write web seems to reflect this, then should technical communicators be involved in online help at all, or should we now turn our efforts to disseminating user-authored content, applying a style guide, and re-posting it as "approved" content. What would happen to technical communication as a respected field?

Perhaps the analytical, research, and organizational skills of the technical communicator are custom made for managing content in the read/write online help social universe. 　
Aim and FocusTo what extent are technical communicators who write online help for a product prepared to manage user-authored content that may or may not be accurate, timely, fair, or reflective of company values? 　
Gap in KnowledgeQuantity vs Quality of User-Authored Content

QuestionsIs it manageable by technical communicators? How?
Why or why not?
Is anyone managing user-authored content now?
What tools or methods are they using?
What has been the outcome?

Sub QuestionsNow is the time to look at user-authored online help by the technical communication community. Each day I use Google to find answers and last week I used a discussion board to try to find out what was wrong with my PDA. I did this for a full two-three days before I even considered calling Tech Support. Why?

I don't know what work is being done in this area. I need to find out.

My position is that the technical communication industry is being overrun by user-authored online help and that user attitudes towards corporate-sponsored content is negative.

I need to find out what the experts are saying about this.

I'm not sure what my research methodology should be other than researching articles. There is a possibility of conducting a study at my place of employment where we are trying to determine why our own users are turning to wikis.

I don't have an outline plan of study or stages of my work.

There are ethical considerations, not for the statement but for the industry. As companies fail to act on the quantity of user-authored online help and allow it to become the accepted voice of the product, there could be legal and ethical considerations.

For example, a prominent blogger may post his or her favorite usage of a certain OTC medication. Say, they combine acetominophen with ibuprofen and they down it with a red bull and they profess this is the way to manage a headache, or something like that. The blogger's followers might try it and some may suffer consequences. Who is to blame?

Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, Third Edition

A 2010 review of this 2006 book urges "novice folks to read the Richardson chapter on blogs or wikis or whatever was to be covered" in a tech tools workshop. "Richardson calls for researchers to identify ways in which instructors can take full advantage of read/write Internet capabilities to enhance learning for their students." Cifuentes (2009). Cifuentes does not mention whether or not Richardson's book explains the technical writer/learner relationship in the read/write environment. This book holds promise and so I plan to check it out.

Loertscher, David V., and Will Richardson. 2010. "BLOGS, WIKIS, PODCASTS, AND OTHER POWERFUL WEB TOOLS FOR CLASSROOMS, THIRD EDITION." Teacher Librarian 37, no. 4: 74. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 24, 2010).

Why users prefer the “chaos of the Web” over the Online Help

Why users prefer the “chaos of the Web” over the Online Help

In addition to the sources shown in my blog, my continuing research involves the following:

·         Definitions of Web 2.0 (read/write Web) and Online Help

·         History of Web 2.0 and Online Help

·         Sources supporting user preference for Web over Online Help

·         Sources either refuting the theory or stating some other unaligned claim