Sorry, auto-spell-corrector-on-iPad problem. I was trying to say
Praise in public, criticise in private. If you criticise people in public, you may humiliate them and make them angry with you and dig in their heels over the issue. A "quiet word" is more likely to produce the desired outcome. Also, you never criticise the person, just the behaviour and you usually suggest that what happened isn't their fault but rather that "probably nobody told you that ." or "maybe you missed the memo about ." to allow them to save face and say "oh sorry, I didn't realise, thanks for letting me know, I'll get it right next time". If you ever get a chance to do an Emotional Intelligence course, I can say that I have always found such courses helpful. While some people are naturally intuitive about dealing with others (just as some people are naturally gifted at music, or whatever), the rest of us need to learn the techniques. I used to find it ironic that my colleagues who would scoff at Emotional Intelligence were usually the ones completely lacking it :-) Kerry _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leigh Blackall Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2014 11:02 AM To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Are the Wikimedia projects social media 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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-gen erated-content and 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l -- -- Leigh Blackall <http://about.me/leighblackall> +61(0)404561009
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
