Being social on WP isnt a requirement to participate there are many contributors that arent social they just work on content or be gnomes with minimal interaction with others.
On 5 February 2014 07:55, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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