what i see is that developing a full FB type network is outside the current
scope and capacity of the movement and will probably remain there. There
is always room for further development of tools for user and talk pages the
will enhance collaborative activities.
I also think that at some stage in the process of collating and sharing the
sum of all knowledge we need to consider a project for the collection of
the intangible knowledge, from the oral traditional knowledge of Indigenous
communities to some limited firsthand experiences. Its these that bring
life and understanding to the information adding a new complimentary
dimension to the very masculine rigid structures we currently focus on.
On 10 April 2018 at 17:03, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unlike Erik, I don't think an open alternative to Facebook will emerge, the
> inertia at this point is too big and you would need a huge critical mass of
> people (and organizations) to make it useful. Hard to attain. The only
> contender on the long run to FB could be reddit, because they seem to be
> moving in that direction with the new profiles and so on. They have almost
> all the features that make a (general purpose) social network attractive,
> the amount of users, and the content.
> Regarding the question if the WMF should build a social network for the
> masses, I don't think it should. A general purpose social network is mainly
> used for sharing personal events, viral stories, cat pictures, and so on.
> It does not offer long-term cultural value. A more interesting approach
> could be a niche social network, like a *social **learning network*. It is
> related to open knowledge, it offers some cultural value and it doesn't
> attract the same kind of idiocy that general networks attract.
> A social learning network could be oriented to life-long self-learning
> where users would share stories about what are they discovering each day,
> groups, creation of materials, etc. It could be said that users are already
> discovering new knowledge in our sites, but they have to go to other
> websites to talk about it... (for instance /r/wikipedia)
> Another possible kind of network, could be one geared towards *governance
> and public oversight*. This is perhaps more interesting for governments,
> institutions and organizations, but still in the realm of the Wikimedia
> movement, because we also need some kind of social governance to build
> understanding and consensus both ways bottom-up, and top-down, and
> inter-organization. Not that we don't do it already, but perhaps with
> specific tools it would be easier.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org