BarcampUKGovweb:Community Portal

From BarcampUKGovweb

Contents 1 Useful links 1.1 Co-design 1.2 Glossary/Jargon 1.3 Local democracy / Community involvement issues 1.4 We think 1.5 References 2 License issues 3 Images 4 Security questions concerning this wiki

Useful links

Co-design

• Co-Creation Rules

Glossary/Jargon

• www.civilservant.org.uk NOT a civil service site but useful explanations of the 'assumed knowledge'.

Local democracy / Community involvement issues

• Community engagement for the Facebook age, guardian.co.uk, July 10
• Designing for civil society, BBC plans to sustain citizenship and civil society. Please tell us how.

We think

• We think on youtube

References

• Working in Wiki, Governing.com, May 2008

License issues

Whilst good that a copyleft type license used, suggest it would be better still to multi license - specifically the present license plus GNU Free Documentation License. Appreciate this may seem very fussy, but if you're using the same software as Wikipedia why not enable completely hassle free sharing of content with Wikipedia (plus all Wikia, etc.) which can happen if you just put everything under the two licenses - relatively easy at the start - messier if you attempt something like this later. Phil Green 15:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

there may be a desire to keep it simple at first, but images would be good (upload file currently disabled), for example to help with WhoWhere Phil Green 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Security questions concerning this wiki

I don't want to sound like a party-pooper, and I really am pleased that a wiki is being used to help with post event collaboration, but I wonder if security issues have been thought through?

At the post event drinks mention was made of the Defra wiki experiment. One interpretation of what happened there is that the Defra people saw it as simply putting the technology up, and failed to appreciate the need for, and value of, investing in the community of potential users. So when challenges came there wasn't a viable community in place to resist disintegration. I know the wiki is only one strand of BarCampUKGovWeb, but given the success of the event, its groundbreaking potential, and the vast array of talent on offer ( as someone said "What a cast list!"), I, for one, would be really sad if something similar happened here.

On the positive side wiki can be marvellous at getting people moving from talking about, to actually doing collaboration. On the other hand, although I don't want to overplay the risks, wiki can come under extensive and prolonged vandalism attacks, and organised spammers have access to considerable resources. Many wiki have come and gone because they haven't thought through how threats will be dealt with. There are also questions to do with backups and the sustainability of hosting arrangements. At the risk of repeating myself, it maybe comparatively easy to start off a wiki, but sustaining one is something different.

So some questions

• who currently has admin rights? (so's people know who to go to if there's trouble)
  

me {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• what plans are there to share around admin rights so there's more people ready willing and able to meet challenges?
  

Who needs 'em? {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• How much experience does the group have in dealing with such threats?
  

Which threats? {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

Hi Adam, thanks for your replies

No probs {adam 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

For me it's difficult to see how you'd be prepared enough if, and agreed it's only an if, the wiki came under a sustained vandalism or spam attack. I thought I read somewhere you'd set it up to only be editable after logging in, but this is clearly not the case, (at least 3 edits unsigned in on recent edits). If it becomes only be editable after logging in then maybe vulnerability much reduced. As it is if I'm not reassured, maybe it's only me but, I can't see how you expect civil servants to be reassured.

I (currently) get mail when edits are made: just using the preferences options... packet-filtering/quota should reduce spammers: as does sender-verification on email. If needed, I'll add in a config option to delay time between registrations and ability to post (which can be over-ridden)

edits/logged-in users: thought it was fixed, but I was using the Old Way of doing things, now fixed, it would appear. {adam 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

On a different subject, if no-one is prepared to discuss license or image issues, I'm kind of feeling why should I bother? When there's so much talk of social media, etc amongst the group, a wiki that can't even accept images, sorry to be blunt but just feels a little cold and spartan to me. Phil Green 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the GPL, but don't really like it, for some reason(s) I've since forgotten; I much prefer CC Licensing, anyhow, but that's just me: we could just go license-free, and full-head Copyright, but guess we're on Ideologies there. As for images, erm, should be working now. {adam 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

Thanks for all of this. Point I was trying to make re licenses, is if for example the thing that appears towards the foot of the page is changed to say "Content is available under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License you loose absolutely nothing. It's still CC licensed, but also GFDL Phil Green 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are people confident that they'll be able to track down and use whatever extra help may be needed?
  

Suggest more a social issue, or people not being verbose in their skill-sets. Perhaps something that, when we get going, we should *talk* about, and perhaps Basecamp things out {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• what arrangements are there for backups of the wiki/database? - how many, how often?
  

Daily. Automated. Off-site (as it were) {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• how sustainable are the hosting arrangements?
  

It's a donation from mySociety, on their 'Friends and Family' Server {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• how sustainable is the host organisation itself?
  

mySociety don't plan on disappearing... {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

• is there a risk, however small, that the host organisation could pull the plug, so that the collective memory and peoples' contributions simply disappear?
  

we're good guys. And imagine the press-coverage were we to so do. {adam 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)}

I know there'll always be tendencies to want to go it alone, for groups to have 'their own' wiki etc, and if that's what this group wants then so be it. But one of the advantages of being part of something bigger (for example Wikia, and by the way I have no financial connection with them whatsoever!) is that there is a a much wider, richer community in place to help deal with whatever challenges arise (as well as the more positive aspect that there's also a wider pool of talent to do wonderful new stuff).

The bottom line is that without answers to these questions it wouldn't be surprising if people didn't have the confidence to contribute as much as they might. Phil Green 08:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)