Yes, Agreed with what Kerry has said.
Another way of phrasing that - correct me if you disagree Kerry - is that
being social is the currency of social media platforms. It is the
end-goal of twitter/facebook/etc and you are more valued on those platforms
the more social you are. However on Wikimedia being social is a
means-to-an-end. The currency of Wikimedia is good quality output (either
in articles, minor-edits, photos, bots, code) and more often than not
you are required to be social in the creation of that output. But the
crucial difference is that being social is not the end-goal. There is a
higher purpose.
-Liam
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
On 5 February 2014 10:47, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
While these are all Web 2.0 (or digital engagement platforms as Liam
calls them), there are distinct differences. There is a pretty clear goal
to WP and other WMF projects (open knowledge) that we work towards. But
Facebook, Twitter etc don't really have an overall goal as such (well,
apart from make money for their owners through advertising or whatever) but
none from a user perspective. They are more platforms that are
predominately used as pastimes, although of course some people may use that
platform for a goal of their own (promote a cause or product or whatever).
Personally I would describe the WP experience as much less social than
Facebook etc. People friend me and like my comments on Facebook, but
most of the WP talk interaction is much more critical (and sometimes
hostile). The old management saying phrase in public, criticise in
private is completely overlooked in the design of WP user talk pages. My
experience of some WP projects is that they behave with more of a gang
mentality, as in ooh, you've edited a page that's on our turf, so now
we'll beat you up, hardly what I would call social. Of course, my Facebook
friends are people that I choose to be my Facebook friends and they are
predominantly people that I know in real life, whereas I don't know most
WP editors (even the subset that write on my user talk page) in real life
and have no control over their ability to write on my public user talk page.
I'd hesitate to call Wikipedia social media.
Kerry
--
*From:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Liam Wyatt
*Sent:* Wednesday, 5 February 2014 9:11 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Australia Chapter
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Are the Wikimedia projects social media
Hi Leigh,
as the social media coordinator at a cultural institution now, I'm
simultaneously trying to have Wikimedia seen to be as, if not more,
important than other social media platforms but also wary of tying
Wikimedia too closely to the term social media because it has a connotation
of being simplistic only about 'likes' etc.
Therefore, I've been trying to use the phrase 'digital engagement'
wherever possible which has a different vibe to it - and an implied
different motive (to engage, not merely to be social).
Two other concepts that I've used a lot to help define Wikimedia are
Brianna Laugher's Community Curated Works (as opposed to User Generated
Content), defined here:
http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/123/an-alternative-term-for-user-generated-contentand
Lori Philips' Open Authority, defined here:
http://midea.nmc.org/2012/01/defining-open-authority-in-museums/
Hope that helps.
-Liam
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
On 5 February 2014 08:08, Leigh Blackall leighblack...@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who coined a phrase socially constructed media back in 2004
when everyone was using Web 2 I've been more than a little agitated by
the use of social media at the exclusion of the Wikimedia projects.
Either ask the stats, commentary and infographics are based on a poorly
defined category, or my understanding of the words social and media
somehow missed the new speak.
Does anyone who knows the inner workings of the Wikimedia projects have an
argument for me? I find them to be the MOST social of all the
user-generated sites I use. From sharing photos, video and graphics on
Commons, constructing reports on News, negotiating courses or documenting
research on Versity, or writing on Books... Why does this not warrant more
than a mention in the stats, commentary and infographics about social
media?
Please don't tell me it's a commercial interest thing!
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https
