Bilingual campus profiles
Each has a matched identity, source links, review date and documented factual-review outcome.
90 days.
A contribution you can evaluate.
A proposed bilingual public-information pilot for education and culture in Sharjah. Begin with a defined sample, accountable reviewers and evidence that can be inspected.
Proposed by Gabriel Nicolaev – CyGuru · 1 November 2026 · Day 1 begins only after a written scope is agreed. Targets below are not achieved results.
01
The problem we propose to solve.
Public educational information is distributed across institutional websites, directories, programme pages and dated announcements. A parent or student must often reconcile names, branches, stages and conditions before making an enquiry. A bilingual publication adds another responsibility: both versions must describe the same institution and the same evidence.
The pilot would test a practical editorial process on a limited sample. Its purpose is clearer navigation and more traceable information. It would not determine admissions, issue credentials, rank institutions or collect student applications. Those responsibilities remain with the relevant institutions.
PROPOSED DELIVERABLES
A bounded scope. Inspectable outputs.
Location references reviewed
Every candidate has a recorded outcome. Only campus-matched references become pins; 20 reviews do not promise 20 new pins.
Student opportunity records
Each distinguishes eligibility, benefits, application route, deadline status and the last verification date.
Culture-to-classroom routes
Each defines an age group, learning objective and before/during/after visit sequence, subject to venue review.
DAYS 01–15
Agree the evidence and responsibilities.
Select participating institutions only after written agreement. Nominate one factual reviewer per institution and an editorial owner for the platform. Define the campus sample, approved source routes, image permissions, Arabic review process and criteria for publication. Record a baseline before making changes.
DAYS 16–45
Build and reconcile.
Prepare the selected profiles, opportunity records and campus references. Compare institutional submissions with original evidence and separate the legal institution from its individual branches. Maintain an issue log for conflicting programme names, deadlines or locations; unresolved critical facts remain unpublished.
DAYS 46–70
Review both languages and test real tasks.
Institutional reviewers check factual statements; the platform retains editorial responsibility. A named Arabic reviewer checks terminology, proper names and right-to-left usability. Test whether readers can find a campus, reach the official application route and identify a dated condition. Collect consented, minimal feedback.
DAYS 71–90
Measure, correct and decide.
Repeat the agreed tasks, reconcile outstanding corrections and deliver a short evidence report. Compare results with the recorded baseline. Continue, revise or close the pilot through an explicit decision; do not turn an exploratory discussion into an implied permanent partnership.
Responsibilities and publication boundaries.
| Role | Proposed responsibility |
|---|---|
| Participating institution | Nominate a factual reviewer; supply official references and corrections; confirm which campus and programme each statement concerns. |
| Sharjah Education | Research, edit, translate, maintain the issue log and publish only supported facts. Record institutional reviews accurately without implying wider endorsement. |
| Arabic language reviewer | Review names, terminology, meaning and right-to-left presentation; reconcile both versions before acceptance. Appointment is proposed, not confirmed. |
| Pilot coordinator | Maintain the agreed sample, dates and decision record. Coordinate feedback; do not act as an admissions intermediary. |
ACCEPTANCE
How a result earns acceptance.
Every proposed published record must have a matched institutional identity, at least one appropriate original source, a review date and aligned English and Arabic facts. Critical unresolved discrepancies are a reason to withhold the affected statement. A location review is complete when its outcome is documented, even if the evidence does not justify a new pin.
For usability, agree the sample and task definitions before testing. Measure task completion and time to reach the correct official information before and after the changes, and report the participant count and test conditions. Small samples are exploratory; they cannot establish emirate-wide impact. Keep a correction log and report remaining limitations with the results.
RESOURCES
Agree resources before commencement.
The proposed contribution from Sharjah Education is editorial coordination, bilingual publication and maintenance of the evidence record. Institutional staff time, Arabic review, technical work, image permissions and any external costs must be assigned and agreed before Day 1. No grant, budget, staff appointment or institutional commitment is assumed.
Feedback should concern public information and task usability. The pilot does not require student applications, identity documents or sensitive personal records. Obtain consent for any user testing and define retention and reporting arrangements before collecting feedback. Existing photographs require appropriate publication permissions; institutional logos must never be used to imply a partnership without authorisation.