General discussion

White paper: 1. identity and reputation

Picture of Doug Belshaw
White paper: 1. identity and reputation

Today, I began to flesh out the Identity and reputation part of the MoodleNet white paper. This section starts to outline how Project MoodleNet will differ from the major social networks, particularly around use of personal data, identity management, and decentralisation.

As part of this, I've added five recommendations, listed below:

  • Recommendation #1: Project MoodleNet should at the very least allow users to create and manage multiple accounts. Serious thought should be given as to the possibility of allowing some interactions to be anonymous, or pseudo-anonymous. This will enable users to reflect different facets of their identity, allowing them to not only conform to how they currently are (and others see them) but grow, both professionally and personally.
  • Recommendation #2: Although easy to join and use, Project MoodleNet should be a robust, decentralised, federated system that does not have on a single point of failure. 
  • Recommendation #3: Project MoodleNet should put the user in control of all of her data. All data held about a user should be compliant with the terms of the GDPR and be removable from the system. Users should be given fine-grained controls over who can see personal data and information they have added.
  • Recommendation #4: Project MoodleNet should allow for digital credentials to be created, exchanged, and displayed. These should reflect the diverse and wide-ranging interests of users, and contribute to Moodle’s mission of empowering educators.
  • Recommendation #5: The aim should be for Project MoodleNet portfolios to become the default place for educators to tell the story of their professional lives.

Additional recommendations will feature at the bottom of upcoming sections. Please give your feedback either in this thread, or directly on the Google Doc: 

I'm particularly interested in whether this feels like the right approach and, if so, if there's a better way of explaining it?