The difference is, we tread a narrow line here. We want talk, but of a contributory kind, high signal-noise, high proportion of information. There are three kinds of "discussion" that can take place:
1. *User feedback* - characterized by specific one-off posts left for others to uprate or downrate and (presumably as far as they're concerned) editors to hopefully do something with or listen to. Ideally this filters 3 ways - (a)* ignore, (b) pass to editors with thanks, or (c) note but no action taken, with explanation and thanks*. 2. *Editor discussion of the article*, high quality dialog specifically about the article, or good points fed back on it. 3. *Discussion of the _topic_, or general chat, forum-y stuff, random whatever*... this is what people also expect. Look at any popular blog or facebook page, the chat below is often just people discussing the subject, what's said about it... low signal to noise generally. The article feedback tool is working towards (1); when it's closer to complete I imagine articles will have a "give feedback here". (2) we already have. * What is worth asking is, is there a place in Wikimedia for (3)?* If so it can only be for social interest and "stickiness" (people who discuss may contribute or at the least will be made more aware). It could be very good for that. The downside is it attracts advocates, might draw attention away from content discussion, needs patrolling (distraction from content), etc. So here's the focused question -- is there a net return from the "plus" side, and if so is there a way to get that benefit that returns more than it costs? Where: - "returns" will be oxygen for the project generally and articles specifically, awareness, wider attention, stickiness, more public eyeballs, a way to get some more focus here of the kind social sites leverage, and maybe a start for more editors from (3), and - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality discussions (1) (2) and article editing as a result of patroling and other needs of (3) (And of course the standard of comparison could be "better of two evils". For instance if the crystal ball says a wiki project dies due to fading attention then maybe chat and patrolling is net harmful but less harmful than eventual loss) FT2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM, David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com>wrote: > I would like to add my voice to the list of those who say that this is > a very bad idea, for reasons already listed. > > One kernel of truth is that users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia > expect discussion at the bottom of EVERYTHING on the web. Blog posts, > videos, facebook posts. > > Maybe at the bottom of the page, put a big fat link to the talk tab? > > I would not mind social media buttons at the bottom of a page, but I > think I'm the minority here. I certainly don't think it's > strategically necessary, but I'm no strategy expert. > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l