practice eInclusion Call for contributions - Please explain yourself
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
22 November 2007 | 720 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
eInclusion Call for contributions - Please explain yourself
Who or what is eInclusion Call for contributions? I'm going to say it as it is: by posting all these cases with very little or no information at all you are degrading this site. Please explain yourself.
In order to vote, you need to be logged in!
© European Union, 2009-2012. Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.
Showing 2 comments
"eInclusion Call for contributions"
You can find an explanation on what's the e-inclusion call for contributions (now closed) in the e-inclusion page of ePractice.
We received more than 150 contributions, on different topics, from different countries and differing also in terms of quality. But lots of people have put big efforts into that and there are really high quality contributions. Don't make hasty conclusions on the basis of one or two cases.
All these cases are now being uploaded on ePractice, with "e-inclusion call for contributions" initially indicated as author, but real authors are invited to then register and improve/ update their cases as appropriate. If you have comments on specific cases I'm sure they will appreciate.
Thanks
Miguel Gonzalez-Sancho (European Commission)
thank for explainig and keep up the good work
Thanks for explaining this. I know what the e-inclusion call for contributions is, I was referring to the author of all the cases submitted under this name. Now I understand it is one author submitting 150 contributions. It certainly is a lot of work uploading all these cases and obviously you have to work with the material the individual contributors provide you with. I just felt some (more than two) cases lacked essential information. Hopefully the initial authors will provide us with more information on these cases. Especially because some of them sound really interesting and promising. Thanks again and keep up the good work!