Crowd Control

Posted by Brandy Reppy at Jan 19, 2010 12:33 PM CST
Categories: Content Management

| | Article Link | Comments

My team here at Convio has started getting more and more invested in content strategy, and to be honest, I’m totally geeking out. As a technical communications major, I’ve always had a particular propensity for all things regimented about writing. I can’t help it.

I already was following RSS and Twitter feeds associated with grammar and writing, but I’m always on the hunt for more. Recently, I’ve become a big fan of the Word Spy site, or, more accurately the Word Spy twitter feed, which highlights new words and phrases (e.g., email apnea and nontroversy). As such am constantly on the prowl for new words and phrases.

Peacock

So, you can imagine my utter delight when I stumbled across this phrase as I was reading an entry on Wikipedia: “This paragraph may contain unsourced peacock terms that merely promote the subject without imparting verifiable information.”

I can’t say I know the root origin for the word “unsourced”, but I was more immediately intrigued by the concept of peacock terms. Essentially these are adjectives or prepositional phrases that don’t really have any facts associated with them, but are added simply to be promotional. Examples of these include phrases like among the greatest, the most influential, and the most important.

Certainly there are some times when these are necessary or warranted (something can be the longest, the largest, or the finest), but this guideline is telling Wikipedia content contributors to focus on two core principles of content creation: know your audience and focus on your message. The point of adding information to Wikipedia is to give information seekers more information. Adding irrelevant words and phrases disregards these two characteristics, thereby weakening the information and defeating the purpose of Wikipedia.

Without arguing the merits of all Wikipedia articles as fact (see wikiality), I have to applaud a guideline that says that even though anyone can be a content contributor, there have to be rules in place in order to maintain the effectiveness of the site.

How many organizations and businesses can say that they have guidelines like this? I could rattle off a long list of websites that use a lot of words but don’t offer lot of content.  These organizations have lost sight of who they are writing for and what they are trying to convey, and their websites are weaker for it.

Maintaining focus when you write content can be difficult, but losing focus on who the audience is for the content and why they are coming to your site can be detrimental to your mission. Take a cue from Wikipedia on this one, and check out your content. If you notice more conjecture than fact, it may be time to implement the peacock term rule and start trimming away some of the showy feathers.

|


Posted by Luise at Jan 21, 2010 04:45 PM CST
URL: http://www.issuelab.org

Brandy - Totally agree! We nonprofits can sometimes get so lots in our mission that our writing (and site content) becomes almost useless to an outside audience, especially when they are not exactly tuned into the cause. Besides this, too much focus on WHAT we're saying can push to the background this question of WHO we're saying it to. Thanks for this post!


Nickname
Date:   
Your Website's URL:


Enter your Web site starting with http://, example http://www.connectioncafe.com

Your Comment:


(some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>, are supported) 

Enter this word: Change

For security purposes. 

Convio

Subscriptions

Subscribe to the RSS feed

Subscribe to receive posts via email:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Convio Clients

Get answers to product questions, join "Birds of a Feather" discussions and more. Join the Online Community







Alltop, all the top stories

Nonprofit Technology

NTEN member

Convio Facebook page

Categories

Blogs We're Following

Archives