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".






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:
erated-content and Lori Philips' "Open Authority", defined here:

Hope that helps. 


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 mailing list

Reply via email to