Instead of hosting comment sections on Wikipedia, there is also the possibility to just retrieve external comments using Google Blog Search. For example, if you're viewing [[Cat]], you can click a button called "Show comments" below the article, which will run a Google Blog Search that returns all blog posts mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat, sorted by date or by relevance (PageRank-style sorting, which can automatically surface the best comments to the top).
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]>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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
