Drupal as a wiki

I felt like doing some web work this weekend and thought I would try my own take on how to make Drupal work as a wiki. My work colleagues are aware that I’ve been steeped in a fun Drupal project — taking the suggestions of the UW-Madison Teaching Academy and the Vice Provost for Teaching & Learning and designing their new website: Teaching & Learning Excellence at UW-Madison. It’s been a fun project and has whet my appetite to try a few more interactive websites.

Druwiki is nothing fancy. The main challenge is trying to keep some of what Drupal does so well, namely organizing content in taxonomies, while downplaying it’s more blog-like functions. I trust anyone who reads this blog to try it out, so I’ll leave registrations open for a bit if anybody would like to kick the tires. I’d love feedback, ideas, or to hear about strategies you’ve considered.

Stumbling into a “blicki”

I’ve joked about a “blicki” in the past (a merge of a blog and a wiki), and browsing around looking for the answer to one of life’s little technology questions, I stumbled by this post by Jim Groom of UMW. It looks like they’ve been doing some great stuff with WordPress, and have now integrated it with their support wikis in MediaWiki.

The Support pages are awesome, and this marks for me one of the most significant leaps forward over the last year. Namely, the Bliki has arrived people! … So support pages like the FAQ, WordPress Guide, and “10 Ideas for Using UMW Blogs” are all MediaWiki articles posing as blog pages.

Way cool!

Constructing Biden’s Laws

Declan McCullagh gives a detailed overview of Joe Biden’s positions on a variety of tech laws. He brings out much of what I expected–there may be cause for some worry on a variety of fronts like copyright, privacy, and the “war on terror.” Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, there were a number of interesting responses to some of the laws that he proposed and voted for. I’d call these responses constructions of the law–or actions carried out in response to the law that essentially help “create” it in society.

On privacy, Biden’s record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act
Biden’s bill — and the threat of encryption being outlawed — is what
spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic
debate about export controls, national security, and privacy.
Zimmermann, who’s now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden’s legislation
“that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly
before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil
libertarians and industry groups.”

Pretty Good Privacy” (PGP) is a technology that encrypts or locks things and bases the unlocking on trust (the Wikipedia article is a surprisingly engaging read about the technology and history). The point here is that the restrictions created by the legislation played a part in driving PGP’s creator, Phil Zimmerman, to write this extraordinary piece of software.

One day after a bomb in Saudi Arabia killed several U.S. servicemen and virtually flattened a military base, Biden pushed to make posting bomb-making information on the Internet a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in jail, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. …

Biden’s proposal became law in 1997. It didn’t amount to much: four years after its enactment, there had been only one conviction. …Today there are over 10,000 hits on Google for the phrase, in quotes, “Drano bomb.” … Then there’s the U.S. Army’s Improvised Munitions Handbook with instructions on making far more deadly compounds, including methyl nitrate dynamite, mortars, grenades, and C-4 plastic explosive — which free speech activists placed online as an in-your-face response to the Biden-Feinstein bill.

A long quote, but it says a bit about the laws effectiveness and how people have responded to it.

IT consumerization & higher ed: legal and educational problems

An Ars interview with Oren Sreebny, “director of emerging technology for the central IT and networking unit at the University of Washington,” reveals an interesting confluence between law, technology, and education.

Q: [Regarding the] legal headaches that higher ed IT departments have to deal with. He said something like “We spend more time being lawyers than we do IT people because of all these government requirements.” Do you find the same thing to be true where you are?

A: If you were a typical corporation, it’s my impression that you’d have lots of control over your data, and you’d say “this stuff can’t move to the cloud, and we won’t let it.” But in higher ed you don’t have that much control over people, because it’s a more loosely knit confederation of enterprises, so it becomes more of an education problem than a control problem.
[emphasis original]

Certainly an addition to the “education problem” is that the laws aren’t crystal clear. Technologists either need access to lawyers, a legal education, or clear guidelines. This offers another perspective on nervous service providers.