Collaboration and Google Documents

[magin]

Since I've now spearheaded three tournaments using collaborative question writing in Google documents, I thought I'd start a discussion about it. I think that Google documents (or really any collaborative editing tool where editors can all look at the questions at once) provide many more benefits for editors than emailing files back and worth, especially for people writing entire tournaments.

For both Chicago Open literature tournaments and Gaddis, writers would generally add tossups, clues for tossups, tossup answers, and ideas for tossups to a Google document. This enabled people to give feedback about tossups in areas they knew, add clues to tossups if they didn't feel they had the knowledge to write the entire tossup, or dip into a pool of ideas much wider than their own. For instance, for Gaddis, I thought it would be a cool idea to write a tossup on Isis Unveiled, but didn't really know anything substantive about it. So I put it in as a possible answer, and Ahmad later wrote a really good tossup (in my estimation) about it. Allowing writers to collaborate on every level (from thinking of answers, to selecting clues, to editing) results in a much better product than no collaboration; after all, even the best writers err sometimes due to a lack of knowledge or problematic clues, but having collaborators heightens the likelihood that these errors will be noticed and fixed.

However, I think this system requires a dedicated central editor or team of central editors. Without someone taking responsibility for the final questions, the questions run the risk of not being looked over thoroughly, which causes problems. The ideal would be many (at least 5 writers, but there isn't really an upper bound) providing ideas, clues, tossups, and initial edits, which are then edited into a final version by overall editors. Since everyone has a limit on their creativity while writing questions (I mean their answer selection, the clues they think of, etc), it only makes sense to let people see one another's ideas while writing questions for a tournament. Of course, this is much less effective for a packet-submission tournament, since here the first step (many writers writing tossups) is replaced by many teams submitting packets.

Also, I think the collaborative model would be a fine way to teach new writers how to write questions. Let's say 5 or 6 new writers decide to write a novice-level or a regular-level college tournament; I think if they collaborated on a Google document while having several experienced editors oversee their work and give them feedback (while not necessarily writing any questions themselves), those new writers would learn how to write questions much faster than if they were left to their own devices. Of course, I may have overlooked something, but I strongly believe that good feedback from experienced writers would allow a team of new writers working collaboratively to learn a tremendous amount about writing.

[Gautam]

I am in total agreement with you, Jonathan. From what I remember from Gaddis, I didn't write a lot of non-science stuff; but, I remember putting down a few ideas like The Virgin of Chancellor Rolin, and Morgan Tsvangirai, which were converted into cool tossups. Some of the clues I would have used for them were different from what I had thought of putting in, which I thought was the coolest part of it all.

Also, I think the collaborative model would be a fine way to teach new writers how to write questions. Let's say 5 or 6 new writers decide to write a novice-level or a regular-level college tournament; I think if they collaborated on a Google document while having several experienced editors oversee their work and give them feedback (while not necessarily writing any questions themselves), those new writers would learn how to write questions much faster than if they were left to their own devices. Of course, I may have overlooked something, but I strongly believe that good feedback from experienced writers would allow a team of new writers working collaboratively to learn a tremendous amount about writing.

I want to say that if I can be involved in churning a couple of good writers in the next couple of years, I will consider all that I owe to the circuit (the great tournaments, the fun times) to be paid back in full. I think it can be done at Minnesota over a short period, by exposing the younger people to writing high school/novice level tournaments first, with the older people helping in an advisorial capacity. I hope that by next year, we can have 8 people writing full packets for house written tournaments, and I think that for our club it is achievable.

As for Google docs, I think the best part of it is that the collaborators can easily engage in discussions about particular aspects of the questions. Also, because one can leave comments on the document itself, it eliminates having to use email or AIM to communicate.

[cvdwightw]

I think this even works well with single packets to be submitted elsewhere. Especially when you have new players, this puts less stress on the packet compiler to turn the questions into something decent/good. For instance, even though Ray (Anderson) was compiling our Ghetto Warz packet, I was able to make a few comments/suggestions that made it easier for him.

And of course, as someone said in a different thread long ago, it is a good editing tool because the chief editor can quite easily see what subjects have been edited and which ones still need work.

Ray (Luo) and I use Google Docs almost exclusively for our West Coast freelance packets (which inevitably have some ridiculous number of authors). We write our comments in square brackets [] or in boldface above the questions so that people know exactly what was good or bad about the questions. This also allows people who want to get better to "claim" certain questions or areas instead of having them assigned, and eliminates potential repeats. Hopefully the experience has led to a better grasp of question writing among some of the younger people at UCLA.

[First Chairman]

I am very glad this discussion has started since I had wondered how many people would start playing with the technology to get better packets edited and formatted than the "old system." I'm sure there are probably some drawbacks, but I haven't yet bumped into that many, aside from formatting issues back to Word or a printable format.

[harpersferry]

Indiana is going to use Google Docs for the next year to pool questions and write for the Hoosier Open. We haven't done much yet though, so I can't report on its effectiveness. So far though, so good.

[First Chairman]

Just to let others know in case you wanted to try these other programs (according to my handout about it). I would like to know your thoughts about some of these other programs and add others you know about. I don't vouch for these free sites, but wanted to get input...

Collaborative Writing tools include
Coventi at http://www.coventi.com/
Gobby at http://gobby.0x439.de/
Googledocs at http://docs.google.com/
WriteBoard at http://www.writeboard.com/
ZohoWriter at http://writer.zoho.com/