• The Organ & The Consultation

    broken organ

    This picture appeared on my facebook feed yesterday. It was posted by Peter Wakeford who was playing the organ yesterday morning. It shows what was going on during the service.

    Now, if you had been there yesterday you would have heard some sumptuous music and would have had no idea that anything was going wrong. However, the last thing an organist wants is for the pistons to fly out when you give them a nudge.

    This picture shows something fairly small going wrong with the organ but it is indicative of the state that parts of it are in. Much of the pipework – the bits that make the noise is fine. Indeed, much of the pipework is of significant historical interest. However, the bits that make the pipes play, not so much. There are huge problems with the console and with the transmission – that’s the gubbins that tells which pipe to open after the organist has pulled out a stop and attempted to play a note.

    Thinking about the organ is just one bit of what the Vestry are currently consulting the congregation about. A new consultation paper called Releasing the Mission was launched last week at the Annual General Meeting. It is partly about the organ but is also about how we build capacity into St Mary’s so that we can do what we do well and even do more. We are so busy at the moment that the building is creaking at the seams. If we did a bit of development work, we would be able to help to secure the musical life of the place (which is a core part of our mission work), provide more space for the groups and networks that are buzzing, get better use of the building for the local community and also provide a more welcoming space when the diocese is holding big events at St Mary’s.

    The consultation paper is available online on the website and the Vestry are hoping that lots of people will respond – whether people who are directly members of the congregation or indeed those who have a more tangential relationship with St Mary’s. The hope is that lots of different voices and constituencies can be heard. Responses can be made using the on-line form or in writing via the Cathedral office.

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

  • M 40, GSOH obviously…

    I was leisurely reading through the lonely hearts column in the London Review of Books this morning – it is so often the best bit. As I did so, I reflected on the fact that the best idea for inspires (the magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church) that I’ve come up with which has never…

  • Blogs you would like to read

    How about this for a meme? (That means you pick it up and answer the question on your own blog). Which three blogs which don’t already exist would you like to read? My answers: Oscar Wilde Bishop Brian My father Actually, the Oscar Wilde answer is the most problematic, and not simply because he is…

  • O Canada!

    The Canadian Anglicans came within a hair’s breadth of allowing dioceses to allow same-sex blessing yesterday. The measure was passed decisively by laity and clergy and then defeated by a couple of votes in their House of Bishops. Rather an uncomfortable situation for one or two bishops, I would guess. It rather highlights something which…