Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam

[Vi to]

A channel can be easily logged if anyone joining it is made aware of.

Dealing with facebook: I have no accounts but there's nothing wrong in
discussing anywhere. What cannot be done outside of talkpage is building
consensus. No consensus can be reached on facebook, irc or elsewhere.

Vito

2016-02-23 15:08 GMT+01:00 Alex Monk :

> On 23 February 2016 at 12:17, Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > The main disadvantage is the lack of good archiving - it is pretty hard
> > to
> > > find something on fb after say - half a year.
> >
> >
> > Compare that to IRC which disallows logging altogether. It’s not just
> hard
> > to find discussions, it’s impossible.
> >
>
> IRC does not disallow logging. Certain channels try to prevent people from
> publicly logging.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam

[Alex Monk]

On 23 February 2016 at 12:17, Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > The main disadvantage is the lack of good archiving - it is pretty hard
> to
> > find something on fb after say - half a year.
>
>
> Compare that to IRC which disallows logging altogether. It’s not just hard
> to find discussions, it’s impossible.
>

IRC does not disallow logging. Certain channels try to prevent people from
publicly logging.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam

[Andrew Lih]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Facebook has many disadvantages as a communication tool. The only reason to
> use it just because more and more people adapt to it.
>

TL;DR version of my response - I feel your analysis is too simplistic.

Along with those “disadvantages” also come advantages. In the WW group,
more than 450 people (nearly 200 new people in one month) have found it
useful by providing interactivity and immediacy while cutting through
noise. You’ll find far fewer pontificating missives and a lot more sharing,
dialogue and encouragement. As I said in the intro message to the group,
it’s not meant to replace this list or to supplant on-wiki conversations. A
main role it has played is to bring the most significant messages on this
list to their attention, as many folks have abandoned Wikimedia-L as not
worth their while.


> The main disadvantage is the lack of good archiving - it is pretty hard to
> find something on fb after say - half a year.


Compare that to IRC which disallows logging altogether. It’s not just hard
to find discussions, it’s impossible.


> The other issue is the distraction which Facebook is causing… due to this
> -

have no more time to edit Wikipedia :-( Some people
> are more resitant to distraction some less - but fb affects everyone who go
> there and eat your time, which is the most precious asset of our
> volunteers.
>

Or, Facebook groups could be the exact reason you got back into editing
Wikipedia.

See 100 Wikidays for example, which is a multilingual, international
community of folks sharing their one Wikipedia article per day writings
with each other. At Wikimania, the Facebook group was showcased as the
reason this community of international editors was able to thrive, building
on the “sharing, dialogue and encouragement” theme mentioned earlier.

You completely miss the role that Facebook, or any other social media site,
can have in evangelizing Wikipedia.

- Facebook group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1426807560950747/
- Wikimania talk -
https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/100wikidays
- Wikimania video - https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-91

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam

[Tomasz Ganicz]

Facebook has many disadvantages as a communication tool. The only reason to
use it just because more and more people adapt to it.

The main disadvantage is the lack of good archiving - it is pretty hard to
find something on fb after say - half a year. The other issue is the
distraction which facebook is causing. You first enter fb just to join a
given discussion but then you are flooded by many adds, communications from
other parts of fb, pokes from your friends (that someone has birthday or
change the job or want to invite you to evening  concerto etc..)  and
finally you usually spend 3-4 time more on fb than you wanted. And - for
example - due to this - have no more time to edit Wikipedia :-( Some people
are more resitant to distraction some less - but fb affects everyone who go
there and eat your time, which is the most precious asset of our volunteers.



2016-02-23 11:21 GMT+01:00 Yury Bulka :

> For instant messaging (faster communication) there's IRC if a group
> discussion that's meant to be open for anyone is considered. Of course,
> IRC is a bit archaic, but it doesn't force one to agree to Facebook's
> TOS.
>
> IRC is still quite popular in the wikimedia and free software universe.
>
> Of course, if the only people you want to talk to are already on
> Facebook, it's one thing. But if you wants to create a discussion that
> anyone could join, Facebook is not an ideal choice.
>
> Best,
> Yury Bulka
> board member
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> Nikola Kalchev  writes:
>
> > For my part I can say that I've moved some discussions to Facebook,
> because
> > there the communication flow is faster. In a group chat there are no edit
> > conflicts and, since Wikipedians tend to write fast, the conversation
> goes
> > almost with the speed of talking.
> >
> > Another usage of Facebook is for communication in a hidden group. We use
> a
> > hidden group for discussing our social media posts and blog posts which
> we
> > do not want to discuss publicly, in order to not spoil the surprise in
> > them.
> >
> > For some documents like grant proposals or reports I, among others, have
> > tended to use Google Docs as a platform for the creation of a draft of a
> > certain document, which was then discussed by a core team before it went
> > public on meta or elsewhere.
> >
> > So, the two reasons for moving discussions out of the wikiverse are
> *faster
> > communication* and the *possibility to discuss stuff in a private
> > environment*. I would be really glad if there were a good chat function
> in
> > the wikiverse or if we started using namespaces, which are already part
> of
> > MediaWiki, but are not being used as a place for private discussions, at
> > least in my environment.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри)
> > Wikimedians of Bulgaria
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the discussion about post-mortems is vitally important, so I'm
> >> adding a new subject line for the discussion about the venue. I was one
> of
> >> the people involved in the discussion of post-mortems, and I'll add my
> >> comments to the original thread (and summarize what others have said)
> in a
> >> moment.
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >>
> >> > I can agree with what you're saying, Craig.  I can also understand
> what
> >> > Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface.
> >> >
> >> > Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot
> be
> >> > viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account.  It's the one venue
> that
> >> > many interested parties cannot even read, let alone participate in,
> >> unless
> >> > they're willing to give up some fairly significant privacy.  I am
> >> > disappointed, but I do not hold it against anyone for preferring to
> >> discuss
> >> > issues in a venue not associated with Wikimedia.
> >> >
> >> > Risker/Anne
> >> >
> >> > On 21 February 2016 at 19:01, Craig Franklin <
> cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > People will have discussions at a location that is personally
> >> convenient
> >> > > for them.  Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't
> see
> >> > that
> >> > > there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the
> >> > > discussion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > Craig
> >> > >
> >> > > On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB.
> Are we
> >> > > > applying for a grant?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thyge
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad :
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I too am one of those people who is not to be found on
> Facebook.  I
> >> > > > > only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I
> already
> >> > > > > have Wikipedia :)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Newyorkbrad
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 2/21/16, Risker  wrote:
> >> > > > > > As has already been explained o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam

[Yury Bulka]

For instant messaging (faster communication) there's IRC if a group
discussion that's meant to be open for anyone is considered. Of course,
IRC is a bit archaic, but it doesn't force one to agree to Facebook's
TOS.

IRC is still quite popular in the wikimedia and free software universe.

Of course, if the only people you want to talk to are already on
Facebook, it's one thing. But if you wants to create a discussion that
anyone could join, Facebook is not an ideal choice.

Best,
Yury Bulka
board member
Wikimedia Ukraine

Nikola Kalchev  writes:

> For my part I can say that I've moved some discussions to Facebook, because
> there the communication flow is faster. In a group chat there are no edit
> conflicts and, since Wikipedians tend to write fast, the conversation goes
> almost with the speed of talking.
>
> Another usage of Facebook is for communication in a hidden group. We use a
> hidden group for discussing our social media posts and blog posts which we
> do not want to discuss publicly, in order to not spoil the surprise in
> them.
>
> For some documents like grant proposals or reports I, among others, have
> tended to use Google Docs as a platform for the creation of a draft of a
> certain document, which was then discussed by a core team before it went
> public on meta or elsewhere.
>
> So, the two reasons for moving discussions out of the wikiverse are *faster
> communication* and the *possibility to discuss stuff in a private
> environment*. I would be really glad if there were a good chat function in
> the wikiverse or if we started using namespaces, which are already part of
> MediaWiki, but are not being used as a place for private discussions, at
> least in my environment.
>
> Best regards,
> Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри)
> Wikimedians of Bulgaria
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>> I think the discussion about post-mortems is vitally important, so I'm
>> adding a new subject line for the discussion about the venue. I was one of
>> the people involved in the discussion of post-mortems, and I'll add my
>> comments to the original thread (and summarize what others have said) in a
>> moment.
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>> > I can agree with what you're saying, Craig.  I can also understand what
>> > Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface.
>> >
>> > Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot be
>> > viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account.  It's the one venue that
>> > many interested parties cannot even read, let alone participate in,
>> unless
>> > they're willing to give up some fairly significant privacy.  I am
>> > disappointed, but I do not hold it against anyone for preferring to
>> discuss
>> > issues in a venue not associated with Wikimedia.
>> >
>> > Risker/Anne
>> >
>> > On 21 February 2016 at 19:01, Craig Franklin 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > People will have discussions at a location that is personally
>> convenient
>> > > for them.  Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see
>> > that
>> > > there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the
>> > > discussion.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Craig
>> > >
>> > > On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we
>> > > > applying for a grant?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thyge
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad :
>> > > >
>> > > > > I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook.  I
>> > > > > only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
>> > > > > have Wikipedia :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Newyorkbrad
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 2/21/16, Risker  wrote:
>> > > > > > As has already been explained on this list, many people do not
>> have
>> > > > > access
>> > > > > > to Facebook.  If this is something germane and useful to a lot of
>> > > > people
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to
>> post
>> > it
>> > > > > here.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Risker/Anne
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response
>> to
>> > > > > >> Jonathan
>> > > > > >> Cardy's comment here:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Anthony Cole
>> > > > > >> ___
>> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > > > ,
>> > > > > >> > > > ?subject=unsubsc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook as a discussion mediam (was: Post mortems)

[Nikola Kalchev]

For my part I can say that I've moved some discussions to Facebook, because
there the communication flow is faster. In a group chat there are no edit
conflicts and, since Wikipedians tend to write fast, the conversation goes
almost with the speed of talking.

Another usage of Facebook is for communication in a hidden group. We use a
hidden group for discussing our social media posts and blog posts which we
do not want to discuss publicly, in order to not spoil the surprise in
them.

For some documents like grant proposals or reports I, among others, have
tended to use Google Docs as a platform for the creation of a draft of a
certain document, which was then discussed by a core team before it went
public on meta or elsewhere.

So, the two reasons for moving discussions out of the wikiverse are *faster
communication* and the *possibility to discuss stuff in a private
environment*. I would be really glad if there were a good chat function in
the wikiverse or if we started using namespaces, which are already part of
MediaWiki, but are not being used as a place for private discussions, at
least in my environment.

Best regards,
Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри)
Wikimedians of Bulgaria

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> I think the discussion about post-mortems is vitally important, so I'm
> adding a new subject line for the discussion about the venue. I was one of
> the people involved in the discussion of post-mortems, and I'll add my
> comments to the original thread (and summarize what others have said) in a
> moment.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I can agree with what you're saying, Craig.  I can also understand what
> > Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface.
> >
> > Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot be
> > viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account.  It's the one venue that
> > many interested parties cannot even read, let alone participate in,
> unless
> > they're willing to give up some fairly significant privacy.  I am
> > disappointed, but I do not hold it against anyone for preferring to
> discuss
> > issues in a venue not associated with Wikimedia.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 21 February 2016 at 19:01, Craig Franklin 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People will have discussions at a location that is personally
> convenient
> > > for them.  Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see
> > that
> > > there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we
> > > > applying for a grant?
> > > >
> > > > Thyge
> > > >
> > > > 2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad :
> > > >
> > > > > I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook.  I
> > > > > only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
> > > > > have Wikipedia :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Newyorkbrad
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/21/16, Risker  wrote:
> > > > > > As has already been explained on this list, many people do not
> have
> > > > > access
> > > > > > to Facebook.  If this is something germane and useful to a lot of
> > > > people
> > > > > on
> > > > > > this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to
> post
> > it
> > > > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response
> to
> > > > > >> Jonathan
> > > > > >> Cardy's comment here:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Anthony Cole
> > > > > >> ___
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > > >>  > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
>