Wiki for local units

Some discussions just don't fit into a well defined box. Use this forum to discuss general topics and issues revolving around the Church and the technology offerings we use and share.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Wiki for local units

Postby aebrown » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:26 pm

DJC wrote:In the future I would also like to roll out a wiki for local units as well.


Woohoo! You just brought a great big smile to my face. See: :D

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:52 pm

DJC wrote:In the future I would also like to roll out a wiki for local units as well.

Can you explain what this would entail? What kind of content are we talking about? Are we talking about an LDSClerks wiki, but expanding it to any calling a local unit may encounter? Will it go as far as to reference current policies and Handbook instructions in it?

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:06 pm

DJC wrote:In the future I would also like to roll out a wiki for local units as well.


There was a thread a few months back on a similar topic: Wiki for Clerks.

User avatar
childsdj
Community Moderators
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:51 am

Postby childsdj » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:07 pm

mkmurray wrote:Can you explain what this would entail? What kind of content are we talking about? Are we talking about an LDSClerks wiki, but expanding it to any calling a local unit may encounter? Will it go as far as to reference current policies and Handbook instructions in it?

Thanks in advance.


Good questions. I don't know about handbook information but policies would be fair game I believe. It will take some correlation department help to get done, but I think we are wanting to try and do it.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:21 pm

DJC wrote:Good questions. I don't know about handbook information but policies would be fair game I believe. It will take some correlation department help to get done, but I think we are wanting to try and do it.

What if you could tie your current calling to your LDS Account?

1) The Wiki would only be open to authenticated members of the Church and
2) I imagine it could then be possible and appropriate to have Handbook items in the Local Unit Wiki based on the rights and roles of your calling.

In my opinion, that would be a killer resource for whatever your calling is in the local unit.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:43 pm

mkmurray wrote:What if you could tie your current calling to your LDS Account?

1) The Wiki would only be open to authenticated members of the Church and
2) I imagine it could then be possible and appropriate to have Handbook items in the Local Unit Wiki based on the rights and roles of your calling.

In my opinion, that would be a killer resource for whatever your calling is in the local unit.


I would think that such a wiki would need to require authentication (and LDS Account would be a good choice) for posting any changes. But I'm not in favor of making it private for viewing. Yes, it would allow some Handbook information to get posted that would otherwise be inappropriate for a site viewable by the public. But I don't think those benefits outweigh the costs:

  • One of the great advantages of such a wiki would be that you could link to it from this forum, from e-mails passed around among ward leaders, etc. Requiring a login to follow such links would be enough of a hassle that it would limit its use.
  • We've seen with the LUWS that the hassle of remembering a username and password inhibits its use. I'm so used to logging into sites that it doesn't bother me, but I've gotten so much feedback on this in my stake that I can't doubt that it is a factor.
  • Maintaining security "based on the rights and roles of your calling" would be a nightmare. Every page with anything confidential would have to be carefully secured with appropriate levels for the content, and since wiki content is dynamic, those security settings would be constantly changing for each page. There's also no reliable database of callings that would let us know who has what callings, and even if it existed, keeping up that database would be another headache.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:56 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:I would think that such a wiki would need to require authentication (and LDS Account would be a good choice) for posting any changes. But I'm not in favor of making it private for viewing. Yes, it would allow some Handbook information to get posted that would otherwise be inappropriate for a site viewable by the public. But I don't think those benefits outweigh the costs:

  • One of the great advantages of such a wiki would be that you could link to it from this forum, from e-mails passed around among ward leaders, etc. Requiring a login to follow such links would be enough of a hassle that it would limit its use.
  • We've seen with the LUWS that the hassle of remembering a username and password inhibits its use. I'm so used to logging into sites that it doesn't bother me, but I've gotten so much feedback on this in my stake that I can't doubt that it is a factor.
  • Maintaining security "based on the rights and roles of your calling" would be a nightmare. Every page with anything confidential would have to be carefully secured with appropriate levels for the content, and since wiki content is dynamic, those security settings would be constantly changing for each page. There's also no reliable database of callings that would let us know who has what callings, and even if it existed, keeping up that database would be another headache.

Touché! :cool: (I even gave you reputation points for that one)

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Postby dobrichelovek » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:02 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:I would think that such a wiki would need to require authentication (and LDS Account would be a good choice) for posting any changes. But I'm not in favor of making it private for viewing. Yes, it would allow some Handbook information to get posted that would otherwise be inappropriate for a site viewable by the public. But I don't think those benefits outweigh the costs:

  • One of the great advantages of such a wiki would be that you could link to it from this forum, from e-mails passed around among ward leaders, etc. Requiring a login to follow such links would be enough of a hassle that it would limit its use.
  • We've seen with the LUWS that the hassle of remembering a username and password inhibits its use. I'm so used to logging into sites that it doesn't bother me, but I've gotten so much feedback on this in my stake that I can't doubt that it is a factor.
  • Maintaining security "based on the rights and roles of your calling" would be a nightmare. Every page with anything confidential would have to be carefully secured with appropriate levels for the content, and since wiki content is dynamic, those security settings would be constantly changing for each page. There's also no reliable database of callings that would let us know who has what callings, and even if it existed, keeping up that database would be another headache.



There are different models for requiring authentication, and a large part of the barrier to use by requiring authentication could be alleviated by requiring authentication a little farther back in the site. Your concerns on managing security are noted, but I am confident that there are enough smart people around to find a good model that would work within the constraints.

One of the benefits of having a local units wiki would be that certain elements of call transition could become much smoother. Imagine if your predecessor to a given calling kept forms and other things related to the calling online and they were available to you as soon as you inherited the calling it would be great. That doesn't mean you have to keep everything that way, but at least you could start from what was built up instead of floundering (or being extremely stressed, or both) for the first few weeks. This would be a good use of allowing a calling to be linked to access. There could be a location for the primary and other organizations that would be available to those who held the callings, along with the bishop and the counselor in charge of that organization.

There are some potential concerns with what could be posted in each of these sites also, specifically regarding comments about individuals, but I don't expect this to be a rampant problem, just a risk.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:09 pm

dobrichelovek wrote:There are different models for requiring authentication, and a large part of the barrier to use by requiring authentication could be alleviated by requiring authentication a little farther back in the site. Your concerns on managing security are noted, but I am confident that there are enough smart people around to find a good model that would work within the constraints.

One of the benefits of having a local units wiki would be that certain elements of call transition could become much smoother. Imagine if your predecessor to a given calling kept forms and other things related to the calling online and they were available to you as soon as you inherited the calling it would be great. That doesn't mean you have to keep everything that way, but at least you could start from what was built up instead of floundering (or being extremely stressed, or both) for the first few weeks. This would be a good use of allowing a calling to be linked to access. There could be a location for the primary and other organizations that would be available to those who held the callings, along with the bishop and the counselor in charge of that organization.

There are some potential concerns with what could be posted in each of these sites also, specifically regarding comments about individuals, but I don't expect this to be a rampant problem, just a risk.

Actually, I don't think what is being talked about is a wiki per local unit, but a wiki for local units.

The discussion about people leave documents and notes about their calling (and consequently about people in the unit) on the wiki is similar to a discussion raised about Bishops being able to annotate membership records found here:

http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1627

Personally, I have trouble seeing the Church approve such a way to leave tabs on people (and I think it would happen a lot more often than you are thinking, because the presence of such a new feature may entice some to use it that way instead of the hand written notes they used before).

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20754
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:34 pm

mkmurray wrote:Actually, I don't think what is being talked about is a wiki per local unit, but a wiki for local units.


I think they're both good ideas. Imagine if the "News and Information" section of LUWS was replaced with a Wiki? :cool:

But I would suspect that it's a local unit support wiki that's in the works. There's already one done outside of the Church and I know CHQ is aware of it. I think they're generally pleased with it and see the benefits of having an official one that can be publicized.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests