I'd agree with Kerry here. It is part of the same generation of web apps as Facebook, etc but serves an entirely different purpose. It would be like comparing the development of open source software "social media" because they deal with other developers around the globe, for example.
Having said that, a couple of years ago there was a mock up of a future Wikimedia interface (looking 10-15 years away) which included facebook/twitter like influences such as notification pop-ups, etc, and of course the "wikilove" icon today could be compared to a "like". Regards, Charles On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:47 AM, 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 > 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