 |
 |
My issue is not with the wiki, it is with having stuff in four places. Perhaps there is a wiki solution either in different software or a different configuration of Mediawiki that can consolidate it all. Cary On Wednesday, February 18, 2015, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Having been in the documentation-management mess before I don't think I can > agree that it counts as bikeshedding, at least at the level we're currently > discussing it. Given the amount of time that I spend in other settings > trying to find a required piece of documentation over three (or four, or > five) different internal or external knowledge repositories, I appreciate > it when documentation management is well-considered ahead of time. So I'm > all for this discussion! > > I would tend to agree that Google Docs is bad for long term doc management > (in large part due to -- surprisingly from Google -- how bad it is at > search and discovery). But for something like the Newcomer Dinner signups > it's infinitely better than the wiki was, since it totally sidestepped the > lockout problem. This is definitely something that falls into the "choose > the right tool for the right job" problem space. But as Riley pointed out, > I don't think it makes sense to maintain important docs there for anything > but immediate group-editing purposes. For "hard" documentation I think the > wiki is at least adequate, and certainly a better solution than GDocs. > > Which raises another question about electronic ephemera and whether we > should/could archive "short-term" documents like this year's newcomer > dinner signups somewhere besides GDocs for better discovery. I'm not an > archivist so I'm not going to do anything but summon that head of the > hydra. > > -dre. > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Riley Childs <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I would like to note that the documentation discussion here is prone to > > bikesheading, if there are going to be docs I say just start them rather > > then argue about X or Y. We have a wiki, lets use it (maybe get a few > more > > people on board to create accounts). We have a significant amount of > > documentation there, rather then reinvent the wheel lets just go with the > > wiki. At this point lets focus on the content rather then "accessibility" > > or "display", because who cares about that if there is no content to > begin > > with and as long as structure is maintained we can do that stuff later. > > > > Google Docs are horrid as a long term documentation solution, stay far > > away (we committed to using GDocs to do IT documentation, and that was a > > mistake). > > > > //Riley > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > > > -- > > Riley Childs > > Senior > > Charlotte United Christian Academy > > Library Services Administrator > > IT Services Administrator > > (704) 537-0331x101 > > (704) 497-2086 > > rileychilds.net > > @rowdychildren > > I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client) > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are > > the property of Charlotte United Christian Academy. This e-mail, and any > > attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named > > herein and may contain confidential information that is privileged and/or > > exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not one of the > > named original recipients or have received this e-mail in error, please > > permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any > printout > > thereof. Thank you for your compliance. This email is also subject to > > copyright. No part of it nor any attachments may be reproduced, adapted, > > forwarded or transmitted without the written consent of the copyright > > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;> > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Katherine Deibel<mailto:[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> > > Sent: 2/17/2015 11:10 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;><mailto: > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Communications — conference and otherwise > > > > Just one thing to consider in regards to Google Docs: accessibility. > > Google Docs are a bit notorious for being accessible (to screen readers) > > one week and not the next. To be fair, ChromeVox usually works with > > them, but very few people use ChromeVox at all. > > > > A practical approach would be to go with Google Docs but include a "If > > you have trouble editing the Google Doc file, please contact X." > > > > > > Kate Deibel, PhD | Web Applications Specialist > > Information Technology Services > > University of Washington Libraries > > http://staff.washington.edu/deibel > > > > -- > > > > "When Thor shows up, it's always deus ex machina." > > > > On 2015-02-17 11:14 AM, Becky Yoose wrote: > > > Cary, > > > > > > I can speak to the signup for the Newcomer Dinner signup - previous > years > > > had the signup on the wiki, but this year we decided to try something > > > different for the signup that didn't require an additional account to > > sign > > > up. This should have given Ryan a bit of a break with people requesting > > > wiki accounts last minute to sign up for the dinner. The link to the > > Google > > > Doc was posted in the wiki, under the Newcomer dinner entry. > > Communications > > > to the list and users have linked to the wiki page (though I do count > one > > > communication to the group that I directly linked to the Google Doc). > > > > > > If folks did not like the Google Docs setup for the dinners this year, > > > please let me know and I can always bring the signups back to the wiki > > for > > > future dinners. Again, it was an experiment for this year :c) > > > > > > I cannot speak for the Eventbrite pages, but my understanding that > > > Eventbrite came with DLF handling registration finances this year. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Becky > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > >> This really speaks to the c4l who’s-in-charge-here / nobody is in > > charge / > > >> take the ball and run with it zeitgeist. > > >> > > >> We have one person — Ryan Wick — who carries most of the load for the > > >> website and the wiki. I don’t think that he, or anyone else, takes > > >> responsibility for organizing the content. From here,it looks like > > >> everything is a mix of tradition and fire prevention. Accordingly, > this > > >> year we had: > > >> > > >> — The conference web pages on code4lib.org > > >> — The usual assortment of pages on wiki.code4lib.org > > >> — The newcomer dinner page on Google Docs > > >> — Stuff on Eventbrite > > >> > > >> Resulting in a mix of the usual symptoms: > > >> > > >> — No single place to find stuff > > >> — Conflicting information > > >> — Not clear editorial policy > > >> > > >> So, what do we do, and who is this “we," anyhow? > > >> > > >> The conference organizers have control, in theory, but I think that > they > > >> are understandably loath to mess with the traditional mix. There is no > > >> place for them to ask a question and get a single, cogent, > authoritative > > >> answer. > > >> > > >> Code4lib itself isn’t really a thing, just an us, and we have been > loath > > >> to form standing committees, although we have done that after a > fashion > > for > > >> scholarships and the Journal. I think that the time has come for a > > Code4lib > > >> communications task force —I love that name — to address the structure > > of > > >> our public-facing resources. Any takers. > > >> > > >> In lieu of blessings from an executive structure, the task force can > do > > >> something with pasta to confirm its authority. > > >> > > >> Any takers? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Cary > > >> > > >>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Heller, Margaret <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I think Sarah is absolutely right that we should have updated the > > >> conference information page with information about streaming, as I > don't > > >> think most people not attending the conference would think to look at > > the > > >> wiki. Even if everyone forgot to do it during the conference that's a > > note > > >> to the future to remember to do it during the conference, and I've > > edited > > >> the page at http://code4lib.org/conference/2015 to give the link to > the > > >> YouTube channel. > > >>> > > >>> And thanks so much video team! > > >>> > > >>> Margaret Heller > > >>> Digital Services Librarian > > >>> Loyola University Chicago > > >>> 773-508-2686 > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <javascript:;>] On Behalf > > Of > > >> Sarah Weissman > > >>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:18 PM > > >>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;> > > >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4LibCon video crew thanks > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Francis Kayiwa <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:;>> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Planning these things is tough work with numerous moving parts. > Could > > >>>> it have been posted once we were underway? Perhaps. That said there > > >>>> was 450 odd people who were there none of whom (the author included) > > >>>> thought to send a message on availability of video to this listserv. > > >>>> (I know for certain it was tweeted and re-tweeted) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> I see what you are saying. I realize that logistics are tricky. I > would > > >> have probably missed a mailing list message if it had come last > minute. > > And > > >> I wasn't checking Twitter in a timely manner for updates on a > > conference I > > >> wasn't attending and therefore wasn't all that aware of the exact > timing > > >> of. (Perhaps this is a great time to bump that librarians list to a > more > > >> visible position in my Twitter feed...) > > >>> > > >>> And I should say that I'm glad that there is video to watch at all > and > > >> grateful to the volunteer videographers that made it happen. > > >> > > > -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com