Yes, this works too.
You known why we are so flexible? Because Biofab Forum has Edgeryders under the hood. If people discuss on either of the two platform, we can easily (a) point interested individuals to the right categories, no additional signup required and (b) still do the coding and harvesting with Open Ethnographer + Graphryder. This whitelabelling thing is really an asset!
We will need to give some thinking to how to break down the conversation. Do we want to have:
- Three separate fora, one for citizen biochemistry, one for citizen ethnography and (maybe) one for citizen experimental econ.
- One single forum on citizen science .
- One single forum as a top-level category. divided into three sub-categories.
In the first solution, each category could live on edgeryders mainland or on biofab forum, indifferently. In the second and third, the whole thing needs to live on either mainland of biofab forum.
Also: like in opencare, we are going to need a category where we manage the project. But… the project is about citizen science, and the conversation we want to convene is also about citizen science. So, maybe we could have a fourth category for managing the project, which contains both practical information and a sort of collective notebook on what we are learning. Like with opencare, it would be open to the community too, but here I see an even stronger participation of the community to it.
In opencare/research, 60 of the 90 unique participants are not working for any of the consortium partner. They are people from the much larger (337 participants) opencare forum. At the same time, though, the 30 people who were working for the consortium partners wrote the bulk of the content.
We did not code opencare/research by default. When we found something interesting, we tagged it so that it would get in the coding queue.