Thanks for the responses.

Liam: I've using the phrase "web integrated" to describe teaching methods
here at the university that engage projects like Wikimedia, but also other
platforms. This attempts to distinguish a difference from LMS-based
teaching and learning, which predominately amount to scanned PDFs listed in
a restricted access intranet. The premise here is that Wikimedia projects
are at least in common with the Social media platforms, in that they are
all web projects.

Kerry: "phrase in public, criticise in private" I haven't heard that
before.. could you expand on its meaning and origin, or link me? Sounds
interesting. The hostility you describe (mostly in Wikipedia in my
experience) is in some ways common with Youtube.. which of all the Social
platforms, I find Youtube has the most in common with Wikimedia projects
(if only phenomenologically, or common end-use, such as search for a
definition - watch it on youtube).

All: If social is the currency, I think Wikimedia projects has very similar
traits. The badges issued in Wikipedia, the contribution records as a kind
of status symbol, the policy debates, the meetups, IRC and RCCs.. and much
more. Yes, they centre around the production of reference material
generally speaking.. but I don't see much of a difference in that to
subgroups in the Social channels using Youtube to teach, or Facebook to
coordinate campaigns...




On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
--
Leigh Blackall <http://about.me/leighblackall>
+61(0)404561009
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to