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-gen erated-content and 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 Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaauemail@example.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l