Site:Alma 13 project assessment
In April & May several people concentrated on adding commentary to the first part of Alma 13. The idea was to test how well Feast upon the Word works when multiple people add content to the same page. This page was built as a follow-up to that project. The purpose of this page is to assess how the process worked.
What worked well
- It seemed that there were no problems about people disagreeing over the scriptures. People may have had different views but it that didn't seem to cause any problem.
- I don't know if this project is a model that would work every time, or if it was just a launchpad type of effort (the site seems to have momentum without assignments). However, at the least it models a strategy to take on individually: as a person posts commentary, that person could invite others to help him or her think through the scriptures through this public forum.
- I think you would be hard-pressed to find a more resourceful, informative, and provocative source on Alma 13, and if you know of one, please post the link.
What didn't work well
- I wanted to add a note about the text, but textual issues fall under the heading of 'Questions'. Would it be better to simply have separate sections? Perhaps a general (thought provoking) "Questions," and another section, "Textual Notes."
- Several people added questions. Only a few added exegesis. It seems people feel more comfortable writing questions than exegesis.
- Even though the chapter was basically arbitrarily assigned, the focus seemed to generate a lot of thought and activity.