> But do I understand correctly, Emily, that > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? Yes, that's what I mean!
I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes. Emily On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:15 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Fred Bauder > <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>> However, I am becoming more >>> interested in the "social" aspect of wikipedia, which is why I >>> joined >>> the list! >> > > I like where Fred is going here. But do I understand correctly, > Emily, that > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? My/our apparent > confusion/misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate fact that for > many > people here, the word "social" is a kind of codeword for "community > interactions that have no aspect of the purpose of writing an > encyclopedia > in mind." > > Everyone is to some degree interested in "community," and that's why > Wikipedia works. But the connection between "social aspects" and > community, > though essential, is still not yet well understood. Hence its my > sense (?) > that many people think that "if the idea doesn't have the > encyclopedia in > mind," it therefore must be "social," (discarded), often quite with > little > regard for whether or not that "social" idea contributes to > "community." > But, as with anything dynamic, there is a ongoing struggle to find a > balance > between different forces. > > If your interested, you might even do a little research into the > history of > how social aspects have tried to coexist with the prime directive of > building (and even writing) an encyclopedia. Maybe writing up a meta > page > about that history would help people get an overview. Places to look: > Barnstars, Userboxes, IRC and Meetups (after Geni), Projects (of > course), > and Medcom / other WP:DRR, and Signpost (late addition). Maybe after > checking these out you can have an idea or two of your own. > > You may be interested to know that there have been times when people > have > been quite at odds about the "social aspects." Search "userboxes" + > "wheel > war" for example --a very important example of when the "community" > decided > (somehow) to stomp on the "society." I still consider the mass > removal of > userboxes from the meta namespace to the user namespace to have been a > "social" faux pax. > > To wrap this up, people-oriented people have always helped very much > to > create a more integrated community. Those that get themselves > involved in > content issues often help to keep things from blowing up. And some > have even > been entrusted by the community to positions of authority. > > -Steve > > You sound like a wonderful addition to our community. One of the > problems >> we might have (others may disagree) is that the social side of >> Wikipedia >> is somewhat underdeveloped. That is certainly a legitimate topic of >> discussion on this list: how we might make Wikipedia a friendlier, >> more >> welcoming place. >> > > >> I first found Wikipedia in 2002, back in the days when articles like >> "Colorado" had not even been started. There was this guy, Larry >> Sanger, >> who while not in charge, had a lot of clout. And Jimmy Wales, was >> very >> hands on, following developments closely. >> > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l