8 responses to “What is a wiki?”

  1. Chris Avatar

    I wanted to comment on your wiki post, but there is a gremlin preventing me – no box to write in, so no writing!
    [Comment now moved]

    This is what I’d have said:
    Great clip! A really clear description – can we get it incorporated into an educational package for the church? See http://scotedublogs.wikispaces.com/ for a good example of a wiki in use for over a year.

  2. Tim Avatar

    Yeah. Wikis have huge potential. When I was setting up my church website I sat down and thought:
    a) lots of pages
    b) easy editing
    c) uniform appearance across pages
    d) ability to allow some people to (not) edit certain pages

    End result was dokuwiki.

    The real trouble is still persuading people that they’re capable of contributing…

  3. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Yes, it is odd getting people to post on a wiki is very much harder than getting them to post a comment on a blog. Something about a fear of being the authorial voice.

    I think that it is fear of being contradicted and corrected, which is a shame, as whenever I post to a wiki, I’m hoping that someone can improve on what I’ve written.

  4. Kimberly Avatar

    Fabulous video. Thanks for linking it.

    I wonder if this is one of the ways we should be trying to respond to the Draft Anglican Covenant.

  5. Stewart Avatar

    Wikis are great – look forward to seeing the St Mary’s Wiki developing (and adding to it!)

  6. jimmux Avatar

    Thanks for a very clear explanation! Now that I understand how they work, I’ll be raising a discussion on how we might be able to use them on the National Postgraduate Committee of the United Kingdom. They seem a very useful tool for sub-committees which do a lot of work by e-mail.

  7. Kennedy Avatar
    Kennedy

    I had a look at Tim’s church website and looked at the bit with the contributions from the congregation and saw this statement:

    ‘Please note: the content in this section is contributed by members of the congregation and should not be considered official statements by the Church.’

    I am a great fan of wikis for collaborative work, but I think this indicates one of the issues with ‘public’ wikis. These problems tend not occur when wikis are being used for internal usage or for a closed group. Open editing is very attractive but you need some form of management to ensure that defacement doesn’t occur or statements which might be damaging are published.

    Also, how do I tell the difference between ‘the Church’ and ‘ members of the congregation’? Are they not the same thing?

    Kennedy

  8. […] First posted quite a while ago here. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • "… but could you be wrong?"

    I’ve received the following comment from Steven in Northern Ireland. It was posted at the end of the long debate about the Gene Robinson announcement. I thought it was worth putting in a new post and keeping the comments separate. Dear Kelvin I would like to compliment you on the quality of the debate within…

  • English Episcopate

    It seems that our cousins in the Church of England have voted in favour of bringing in legislation which will result in bishops being consecrated who happen to be female. We debated and voted on this a few years ago. It was quite a good debate, I seem to remember. Charitable and thoughtful and followed…

  • Sermon 6 July 2008

    // UPDATED – this post now visible in Internet Explorer   This is the text that I was using, based on the story of Isaac being found a wife in the second part of Genesis 24: We are going back to the Old Testament soap opera this morning. I want to talk about the story…

  • Taking the Episcopalian

    I once got into a certain amount of trouble over a satirical Scottish Episcopal website. It was a surprise to those who were displeased with me to find that it was nothing to do with me at all. However, along with those who had been in TISEC, I did know who was behind it and…