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
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to