Talk:Family safety with technology - Revision history

TimRiker: new name

2019-07-19T22:54:56Z

new name

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 19 July 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	: Alan - Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the new front-end, which will direct users to a section entitled "Protect your family when using the Internet", which I had understood was going to point to this page. This was specifically one of the catalysts to my suggestion for overhaul. I am not familiar with the exact wording of "Internet & Family Safety Wiki Menu", or where it would show up, but I believe that the general direction that I propose above will still fit very nicely into that category. I would love to hear from Tom and/or Cassie on that front. I will touch base with them.		: Alan - Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the new front-end, which will direct users to a section entitled "Protect your family when using the Internet", which I had understood was going to point to this page. This was specifically one of the catalysts to my suggestion for overhaul. I am not familiar with the exact wording of "Internet & Family Safety Wiki Menu", or where it would show up, but I believe that the general direction that I propose above will still fit very nicely into that category. I would love to hear from Tom and/or Cassie on that front. I will touch base with them.

	: One of the additional thoughts I have been having about this is the different audiences that would consume this section of the wiki. Much of the ~~tech.lds.org~~ wiki is targeted at clerks and those with some technical abilities - whereas, this section is targeted more at those who don't have much technical experience, namely mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc. I want to ensure this is as easy to navigate as possible, and that the information is presented in non-tech speak wherever possible. To that end, I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether. I would love to hear your thoughts. - Ken 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		: One of the additional thoughts I have been having about this is the different audiences that would consume this section of the wiki. Much of the Tech wiki is targeted at clerks and those with some technical abilities - whereas, this section is targeted more at those who don't have much technical experience, namely mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc. I want to ensure this is as easy to navigate as possible, and that the information is presented in non-tech speak wherever possible. To that end, I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether. I would love to hear your thoughts. - Ken 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

	::Ken, as far as I am concerned, the whole family Internet safety section is yours to maintain. If you feel that it is better to rename or re-categorize items, then I support it. The only thing that I want to make sure happens is that we adhere to our wiki standards for the whole site. If there are requirements that are unique to your area, please bring them up to the wiki council, otherwise, let's keep the same standards in place. Make sense? It looks like your desires are to broaden the category more than what I had. Specifically I am not sure what you intend with the TV/Movies area but I think we need to stay away from targeting certain movies or songs within the articles. Whereas we may mention many of the web filtering products by name, we should avoid mentioning specific music, tv shows, movies, games, etc. by name unless there is a very clear reason why we are doing that. We are not trying to create a list of tv shows that are acceptable, for example. [[User:Welchtc\|Tom Welch]] 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		::Ken, as far as I am concerned, the whole family Internet safety section is yours to maintain. If you feel that it is better to rename or re-categorize items, then I support it. The only thing that I want to make sure happens is that we adhere to our wiki standards for the whole site. If there are requirements that are unique to your area, please bring them up to the wiki council, otherwise, let's keep the same standards in place. Make sense? It looks like your desires are to broaden the category more than what I had. Specifically I am not sure what you intend with the TV/Movies area but I think we need to stay away from targeting certain movies or songs within the articles. Whereas we may mention many of the web filtering products by name, we should avoid mentioning specific music, tv shows, movies, games, etc. by name unless there is a very clear reason why we are doing that. We are not trying to create a list of tv shows that are acceptable, for example. [[User:Welchtc\|Tom Welch]] 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryebrye: adding signature

2012-01-15T21:55:12Z

adding signature

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 15 January 2012
Line 46:		Line 46:
	:: I am in agreement with Ken's summary from the preceding discussion. -[[User:Mcdanielca\|Mcdanielca]] 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)		:: I am in agreement with Ken's summary from the preceding discussion. -[[User:Mcdanielca\|Mcdanielca]] 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

	Should the ending of the section on technology and the Book of Mormon perhaps be revised? The analogy and comparison with Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life are quite good - but the ending phrase "A missionary could be completely prepared for his (or her) mission, and be happily filling out their mission papers – on the Internet – and they would be only one click away from accessing material that would prevent them from serving that very mission." seems to be relying a bit too much on hyperbole. While I agree that the internet contains many things that could lead one down a path that would ultimately prevent someone from serving a mission - the scenario described seems to be a bit extreme. A single accidental click on a link to a pornographic site, for instance, would not disqualify someone from serving a mission. Especially not if they quickly closed the site. I am unable to think of anything that could be done on the internet with a single click that would automatically disqualify someone from serving a mission. If anyone has any examples that could make this example true, I'd be interested in knowing about them (although not interested in accessing them, for obvious reasons! ;).		Should the ending of the section on technology and the Book of Mormon perhaps be revised? The analogy and comparison with Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life are quite good - but the ending phrase "A missionary could be completely prepared for his (or her) mission, and be happily filling out their mission papers – on the Internet – and they would be only one click away from accessing material that would prevent them from serving that very mission." seems to be relying a bit too much on hyperbole. While I agree that the internet contains many things that could lead one down a path that would ultimately prevent someone from serving a mission - the scenario described seems to be a bit extreme. A single accidental click on a link to a pornographic site, for instance, would not disqualify someone from serving a mission. Especially not if they quickly closed the site. I am unable to think of anything that could be done on the internet with a single click that would automatically disqualify someone from serving a mission. If anyone has any examples that could make this example true, I'd be interested in knowing about them (although not interested in accessing them, for obvious reasons! ;).--[[User:Ryebrye\|Ryebrye]] 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryebrye: questioning if the end of the tech and book of mormon section is too over the top or not

2012-01-15T21:54:32Z

questioning if the end of the tech and book of mormon section is too over the top or not

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 15 January 2012
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:: I am in agreement with Ken's summary from the preceding discussion. -[[User:Mcdanielca\|Mcdanielca]] 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)		:: I am in agreement with Ken's summary from the preceding discussion. -[[User:Mcdanielca\|Mcdanielca]] 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

			Should the ending of the section on technology and the Book of Mormon perhaps be revised? The analogy and comparison with Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life are quite good - but the ending phrase "A missionary could be completely prepared for his (or her) mission, and be happily filling out their mission papers – on the Internet – and they would be only one click away from accessing material that would prevent them from serving that very mission." seems to be relying a bit too much on hyperbole. While I agree that the internet contains many things that could lead one down a path that would ultimately prevent someone from serving a mission - the scenario described seems to be a bit extreme. A single accidental click on a link to a pornographic site, for instance, would not disqualify someone from serving a mission. Especially not if they quickly closed the site. I am unable to think of anything that could be done on the internet with a single click that would automatically disqualify someone from serving a mission. If anyone has any examples that could make this example true, I'd be interested in knowing about them (although not interested in accessing them, for obvious reasons! ;).

Mcdanielca at 16:39, 19 July 2010

2010-07-19T16:39:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 19 July 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:

	::: Alan, I think we are in agreement - I am just not doing a good job of expressing it here. I want to make this wiki work more like the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project], and other traditional wiki's, in that as a topic is discussed (for example, the difference between texting and instant messaging), each topic is a link to another page that describes that topic. What I was referring to in my statement that you reference above, however, is the navigation. I want to remove the sub-topics (generally speaking) from the navigation, and simplify it for those who don't know the difference between these technologies, thus discussing it in more of the "big picture" overview. Then, as they are learning about something (i.e., mobile computing), and we begin discussing text messaging, that will be an in-context link to that topic. I hope I am making sense. This should result not in less detail, but in more detail overall - just simpler navigation for those who may not know all of the terms, but do know what general topic they want to learn about. I will try to get this all in place in the next week or so, and then we can have more discussion if we need to. We are not risking loosing much, if any, content at this point by removing these sub-topics, as most of the pages are just empty place-holders at this point. Also, I am opening the discussion regarding the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project] with its creator(s) to see how we can help each other. Hopefully something will come of that as well. Thanks for your input! - Ken 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		::: Alan, I think we are in agreement - I am just not doing a good job of expressing it here. I want to make this wiki work more like the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project], and other traditional wiki's, in that as a topic is discussed (for example, the difference between texting and instant messaging), each topic is a link to another page that describes that topic. What I was referring to in my statement that you reference above, however, is the navigation. I want to remove the sub-topics (generally speaking) from the navigation, and simplify it for those who don't know the difference between these technologies, thus discussing it in more of the "big picture" overview. Then, as they are learning about something (i.e., mobile computing), and we begin discussing text messaging, that will be an in-context link to that topic. I hope I am making sense. This should result not in less detail, but in more detail overall - just simpler navigation for those who may not know all of the terms, but do know what general topic they want to learn about. I will try to get this all in place in the next week or so, and then we can have more discussion if we need to. We are not risking loosing much, if any, content at this point by removing these sub-topics, as most of the pages are just empty place-holders at this point. Also, I am opening the discussion regarding the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project] with its creator(s) to see how we can help each other. Hopefully something will come of that as well. Thanks for your input! - Ken 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			:: I am in agreement with Ken's summary from the preceding discussion. -[[User:Mcdanielca\|Mcdanielca]] 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Knaptonks at 22:04, 13 July 2010

2010-07-13T22:04:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 13 July 2010
Line 41:		Line 41:

	:: My bottom line is that I very much welcome the additional overview and the high-level articles, but we should increase, not decrease, the detailed content so that we can provide parents and others with specific tools to meet specific threats. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 21:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		:: My bottom line is that I very much welcome the additional overview and the high-level articles, but we should increase, not decrease, the detailed content so that we can provide parents and others with specific tools to meet specific threats. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 21:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			::: Alan, I think we are in agreement - I am just not doing a good job of expressing it here. I want to make this wiki work more like the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project], and other traditional wiki's, in that as a topic is discussed (for example, the difference between texting and instant messaging), each topic is a link to another page that describes that topic. What I was referring to in my statement that you reference above, however, is the navigation. I want to remove the sub-topics (generally speaking) from the navigation, and simplify it for those who don't know the difference between these technologies, thus discussing it in more of the "big picture" overview. Then, as they are learning about something (i.e., mobile computing), and we begin discussing text messaging, that will be an in-context link to that topic. I hope I am making sense. This should result not in less detail, but in more detail overall - just simpler navigation for those who may not know all of the terms, but do know what general topic they want to learn about. I will try to get this all in place in the next week or so, and then we can have more discussion if we need to. We are not risking loosing much, if any, content at this point by removing these sub-topics, as most of the pages are just empty place-holders at this point. Also, I am opening the discussion regarding the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project] with its creator(s) to see how we can help each other. Hopefully something will come of that as well. Thanks for your input! - Ken 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Aebrown: Respond

2010-07-13T21:13:28Z

Respond

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 13 July 2010
Line 35:		Line 35:

	:::Tom - thank you - I think we are in complete agreement. With regard to the TV/movies section, my intent was just to expand the current topic (Television), which has no content as of yet, to include movies, and to make it consistent with Elder Ballards urging to be cautious with regard to all of our media choices. I do not plan to make any specific suggestions regarding movie titles or television programs - just general guidance following direction from the Church. I would also include here information about TV rating systems, parental controls on DVD players, satellite dish systems, etc. I will get to work on this overhaul ASAP. - Ken 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		:::Tom - thank you - I think we are in complete agreement. With regard to the TV/movies section, my intent was just to expand the current topic (Television), which has no content as of yet, to include movies, and to make it consistent with Elder Ballards urging to be cautious with regard to all of our media choices. I do not plan to make any specific suggestions regarding movie titles or television programs - just general guidance following direction from the Church. I would also include here information about TV rating systems, parental controls on DVD players, satellite dish systems, etc. I will get to work on this overhaul ASAP. - Ken 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			:: Ken, I find it difficult to agree with your statement "I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether."

			:: To use your example, there are huge differences between MMS, chat rooms, and online chatting. Each has specific implementations. If we really want to help non-techie parents, they need some specifics. If we are too vague, they may end up thinking that if they disable Instant Messenger on their computer, they are safe. But chat rooms are a different threat, and texting on a cell phone is completely different. I think the high-level articles will be wonderful, but it would be a big mistake to remove all the detailed articles. Besides, I really don't understand the push towards eliminating details in the context of our discussion regarding the [http://wiki.internetsafetypodcast.com Internet Safety Project]. I thought you were excited about incorporating that content, yet that project is even more detailed than our current information.

			:: My bottom line is that I very much welcome the additional overview and the high-level articles, but we should increase, not decrease, the detailed content so that we can provide parents and others with specific tools to meet specific threats. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 21:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Knaptonks: moved Talk:Family safety to Talk:Family safety with technology: Expanded title to make it more self-explanatory

2010-07-13T20:44:52Z

moved Talk:Family safety to Talk:Family safety with technology: Expanded title to make it more self-explanatory

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:44, 13 July 2010
(No difference)

Knaptonks at 19:34, 13 July 2010

2010-07-13T19:34:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 13 July 2010
Line 33:		Line 33:

	::Ken, as far as I am concerned, the whole family Internet safety section is yours to maintain. If you feel that it is better to rename or re-categorize items, then I support it. The only thing that I want to make sure happens is that we adhere to our wiki standards for the whole site. If there are requirements that are unique to your area, please bring them up to the wiki council, otherwise, let's keep the same standards in place. Make sense? It looks like your desires are to broaden the category more than what I had. Specifically I am not sure what you intend with the TV/Movies area but I think we need to stay away from targeting certain movies or songs within the articles. Whereas we may mention many of the web filtering products by name, we should avoid mentioning specific music, tv shows, movies, games, etc. by name unless there is a very clear reason why we are doing that. We are not trying to create a list of tv shows that are acceptable, for example. [[User:Welchtc\|Tom Welch]] 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		::Ken, as far as I am concerned, the whole family Internet safety section is yours to maintain. If you feel that it is better to rename or re-categorize items, then I support it. The only thing that I want to make sure happens is that we adhere to our wiki standards for the whole site. If there are requirements that are unique to your area, please bring them up to the wiki council, otherwise, let's keep the same standards in place. Make sense? It looks like your desires are to broaden the category more than what I had. Specifically I am not sure what you intend with the TV/Movies area but I think we need to stay away from targeting certain movies or songs within the articles. Whereas we may mention many of the web filtering products by name, we should avoid mentioning specific music, tv shows, movies, games, etc. by name unless there is a very clear reason why we are doing that. We are not trying to create a list of tv shows that are acceptable, for example. [[User:Welchtc\|Tom Welch]] 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			:::Tom - thank you - I think we are in complete agreement. With regard to the TV/movies section, my intent was just to expand the current topic (Television), which has no content as of yet, to include movies, and to make it consistent with Elder Ballards urging to be cautious with regard to all of our media choices. I do not plan to make any specific suggestions regarding movie titles or television programs - just general guidance following direction from the Church. I would also include here information about TV rating systems, parental controls on DVD players, satellite dish systems, etc. I will get to work on this overhaul ASAP. - Ken 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Welchtc: /* Overhaul */

2010-07-13T19:28:55Z

Overhaul

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 13 July 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:

	: One of the additional thoughts I have been having about this is the different audiences that would consume this section of the wiki. Much of the tech.lds.org wiki is targeted at clerks and those with some technical abilities - whereas, this section is targeted more at those who don't have much technical experience, namely mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc. I want to ensure this is as easy to navigate as possible, and that the information is presented in non-tech speak wherever possible. To that end, I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether. I would love to hear your thoughts. - Ken 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		: One of the additional thoughts I have been having about this is the different audiences that would consume this section of the wiki. Much of the tech.lds.org wiki is targeted at clerks and those with some technical abilities - whereas, this section is targeted more at those who don't have much technical experience, namely mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc. I want to ensure this is as easy to navigate as possible, and that the information is presented in non-tech speak wherever possible. To that end, I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether. I would love to hear your thoughts. - Ken 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			::Ken, as far as I am concerned, the whole family Internet safety section is yours to maintain. If you feel that it is better to rename or re-categorize items, then I support it. The only thing that I want to make sure happens is that we adhere to our wiki standards for the whole site. If there are requirements that are unique to your area, please bring them up to the wiki council, otherwise, let's keep the same standards in place. Make sense? It looks like your desires are to broaden the category more than what I had. Specifically I am not sure what you intend with the TV/Movies area but I think we need to stay away from targeting certain movies or songs within the articles. Whereas we may mention many of the web filtering products by name, we should avoid mentioning specific music, tv shows, movies, games, etc. by name unless there is a very clear reason why we are doing that. We are not trying to create a list of tv shows that are acceptable, for example. [[User:Welchtc\|Tom Welch]] 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Knaptonks: /* Overhaul */

2010-07-13T19:10:36Z

Overhaul

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 13 July 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: Just some small points: instead of "the Brethren" I think we should use "Church leaders"; you don't see any Church publications these days that use the phrase "the Brethren." And of course, sections and articles should not use title case. But I certainly do like the overall direction -- especially the new overview article on family safety and the structure of the recommended article sections to teach uplifting uses, dangers, etc. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)		: Just some small points: instead of "the Brethren" I think we should use "Church leaders"; you don't see any Church publications these days that use the phrase "the Brethren." And of course, sections and articles should not use title case. But I certainly do like the overall direction -- especially the new overview article on family safety and the structure of the recommended article sections to teach uplifting uses, dangers, etc. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

			: Alan - Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the new front-end, which will direct users to a section entitled "Protect your family when using the Internet", which I had understood was going to point to this page. This was specifically one of the catalysts to my suggestion for overhaul. I am not familiar with the exact wording of "Internet & Family Safety Wiki Menu", or where it would show up, but I believe that the general direction that I propose above will still fit very nicely into that category. I would love to hear from Tom and/or Cassie on that front. I will touch base with them.

			: One of the additional thoughts I have been having about this is the different audiences that would consume this section of the wiki. Much of the tech.lds.org wiki is targeted at clerks and those with some technical abilities - whereas, this section is targeted more at those who don't have much technical experience, namely mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc. I want to ensure this is as easy to navigate as possible, and that the information is presented in non-tech speak wherever possible. To that end, I was actually thinking about removing some of the sub-sections, and trying to simplify the content considerably. For example, non-techies don't really know the different between MMS, text messaging, chat rooms and online chatting. We could remove all of these subsections (or possible subsections), and simply adress the larger issues very simply in a mobile computing or cell phone topic. This would remove the need for the sub-sections altogether. I would love to hear your thoughts. - Ken 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)