Ask the Expert

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8417720.post-62772897210903543812008-06-05T12:13:00.001-04:002008-06-05T12:29:33.155-04:00Ask the ExpertKnowing the following: <a href="http://www.extension.org/">eXtension</a> has an "<a href="http://www.extension.org/expert/ask_an_expert">Ask an Expert</a>" feature that is supported by numerous Extension Agents and Specialists from across the country. They answer questions in about 16 different categories with more to be added. <a href="http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html">Extension Services</a> across the country have publications on MANY different topics. Background: I recently revisited the <a href="http://www.allexperts.com/">AllExperts</a> site and thought about a question that has been on my mind for quite some time. It first came to me when I learned about <a href="http://wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a>. Question: Would an agent or specialist participating in others (i.e. AllExperts and Wikipedia) as an expert and contributor be a good way of marketing Extension? My Current Opinions and Thoughts: Yes, it is good for agents and specialists to participate and contribute in other sites where 'experts' are needed and recognized with one caveat. There must be a way for the contributions to be recognized as coming from an Extension Agent or Specialist. This can be done in Wikipedia by each individual creating and maintaining a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdorner">user page</a> with information about credentials and of course their association with Extension (with links). This may require that we maintain two separate accounts - one for when they are representing Extension and one for when we want to post something that should not be associated with Extension - i.e. personal opinions that aren't backed by research. When we contribute we need to be sure to reference (and link when appropriate) Extension publications, services and expertise. The argument against this is that we are providing these other services free content and expertise, improving their reputation - which may drive traffic away from our sites. I disagree with this argument. IMHO, the more we can be seen as expert participants on other sites, the more traffic will be driven to our own sites. Besides, the Extension mission is to disseminate the researched based information to the public. Doesn't it make sense to take advantage of all the venues we can to achieve that goal? Let me make a physical world analogy - if we had the opportunity to talk to a large group of interested people that someone else gathered together, wouldn't we take advantage of that? Of course we'd wear our Extension name tag and mention Extension services and products in our talk. So, what's the difference? The problem I see is that most of us are assigned a geographic region to serve. With the web, we are serving a many more than our region and most in our region will never see the results of the time we spend in these endeavors. How do we justify spending time on these type projects to our funders - who primarily care about the people in their geographic region? Call for discussion: I don't claim that I'm right in my thinking - that's why I'm posting. I'd like to hear your opinions and reasoning - especially if they disagree with mine! Should agents and specialists be encouraged to contribute to non-Extension sites? If so, how should those activities be encouraged? How can they be rewarded and recognized for the time it takes? How can we 'sell' it to our funding sources?John Dornerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10766078028799164083noreply@blogger.com