Mailing List Archive

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
>> and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
>> who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
>> that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
>> when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
>> people don't see it that way.
>
on 11/2/08 1:40 PM, Milos Rancic at millosh@gmail.com wrote:

> * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
> social networking because of the principles...

A sidebar: When The Apple Computer organization was created, a conscious
decision was made by its creators to establish a company culture that was,
by existing corporate standards, considered informal. This encouraged
creativity, reduced stress and produced a culture of tolerance and,
ultimately, a great product. Their mission was to create the best damn
computer a creative mind in a creative culture could produce. "Socializing"
among its employees was not only encouraged, but the ability to socialize
was almost a prerequisite for being a part of the team.

The quality of a culture can be measured, in part, by what that culture
produces.

Be healthy,

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
If you do not know the inner workings of a project, you would not get mad
because you would be happy with what you love about the project. This would
be all the great information that is available to you. Once you learn about
a project and you learn that this social networking software has as a
benefit that the cohesion of our community improved and as a result the
quality of the data improved with it, you would applaud the social
networking that is facilitated by the software.

Really, your point is as valid as mine. It just has a different orientation.
As it is, there is a lot of networking going on. This networking is
fragmented over many platforms and consequently we are not reaping the
benefits as we might do. A strong case can be made for implementing existing
social networking software. However, when it comes to straight
functionality, there are other things that i would give priority over
developing our own social software.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
> >> and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
> >> who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
> >> that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
> >> when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
> >> people don't see it that way.
> >
> > There are three issues here:
> > * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
> > social networking because of the principles -- besides your (positive)
> > point -- I have one more (negative): We are not able to choose anymore
> > what do we like, we are in the critical position and we desperately
> > need some fresh blood. Even it may be not so obvious at the field,
> > leaving this discussion for the next year this time -- may be too
> > late.
> > * For those who really don't want to have social networking options,
> > there should be an option "turn it off".
> > * I think that I am not the only one who is using social networking
> > sites just to be in touch with friends. And a lot of my friends are
> > Wikimedians; and I am more interested in their Wikimedian activities
> > than what did they do at Elven Blood :) However, I think that games at
> > some future social networking for Wikimedia projects would be much
> > better: there are a lot of possible educational games which may be
> > very nice.
>
> I've always looked at it from this perspective:
> Imagine you are a donor, who doesn't edit, who knows nothing of the
> inner workings of the projects, and who only sees the content pages. You
> see a great resource full of lots of information, so you think "Of
> course I'll support this" and donate. Later you find out that the sites
> are also being used for social networking and that your money is going
> to fund a free-content, open-source version of Myspace/Facebook. If you
> could care less about free content/open source stuff, and donated simply
> to help spread information, you're probably going to be a little mad
> that your money isn't going to fund what you though it did.
>
> Whether making the "social networking" aspect of the projects "official"
> parts would make this issue better or worse I'm not sure. If its
> official, there's going to be a lot more resources put into it (though
> software-wise, Wikia has already done a lot of the work), but it would
> potentially seem less deceptive or hidden from the general public.
>
> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> We should keep in mind that there is a much broader community out
> >> there beyond Wikimedians, who are interested in cooperative efforts in
> >> promoting priojects.
> >>
> >> Personally, we've had great success working with the 2 Students For
> >> Free Culture chapters in New York City, who have supported Wikimedia
> >> projects as ardently as any Wikimedians.
> >>
> >> On a level of real-life organization, there should be no sharp line
> >> between people with Wikimedia user accounts and those without. The
> >> basic skills in organizing real-life events and projects are
> >> orthogonal to particular technical skills or specializations.
> >>
> >> What we really need is a social networking site for the whole Free
> >> Culture/Open Source community, so that we can build a thousand
> >> coalitions in a thousand different cities.
> >>
> >> In researching this idea, I happened upon this proposal last year from
> >> the Free Software Foundation for a "Planet Libre":
> >>
> >>
> http://www.libervis.com/article/july_2007_letter_to_free_software_foundation_associate_members
> >>
> >> That particular initiative appears to have foundered over recent
> >> months. I suggest we should revive it, and in cooperation with Free
> >> Software Foundation, develop a "Planet Libre" social networking site
> >> based on Elgg.
> >
> > I would like to see such social networking site. But, I am skeptical
> > about making one another social networking site. I've got calls for
> > some academic and free society social networking sites, but I don't
> > see them as active. Maybe it may function in some areas, like Orkut
> > functions well in Brazil (I saw one more in Russia and one more in
> > India). But, none of them is near to even MySpace, not to talk about
> > Facebook.
> >
> > At the other side, Wikipedia has the potential to gather significant
> > community. We don't even need a notice at the site. We just need to
> > make it and to tell that to the world. And we will be in this position
> > for some time; at least until Wikipedia is at the top ten sites. Also,
> > I am sure that free software community would treat Wikimedia social
> > networking platform as their own.
> >
>
> The other option is to create a separate social networking site and
> encourage Wikimedians to use it. The Freenode IRC network is heavily
> used by Wikimedians and fairly integrated into some projects, despite it
> being an entirely separate service.
>
> --
> Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
If you do not know the inner workings of a project, you would not get mad
because you would be happy with what you love about the project. This would
be all the great information that is available to you. Once you learn about
a project and you learn that this social networking software has as a
benefit that the cohesion of our community improved and as a result the
quality of the data improved with it, you would applaud the social
networking that is facilitated by the software.

Really, your point is as valid as mine. It just has a different orientation.
As it is, there is a lot of networking going on. This networking is
fragmented over many platforms and consequently we are not reaping the
benefits as we might do. A strong case can be made for implementing existing
social networking software. However, when it comes to straight
functionality, there are other things that i would give priority over
developing our own social software.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
> >> and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
> >> who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
> >> that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
> >> when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
> >> people don't see it that way.
> >
> > There are three issues here:
> > * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
> > social networking because of the principles -- besides your (positive)
> > point -- I have one more (negative): We are not able to choose anymore
> > what do we like, we are in the critical position and we desperately
> > need some fresh blood. Even it may be not so obvious at the field,
> > leaving this discussion for the next year this time -- may be too
> > late.
> > * For those who really don't want to have social networking options,
> > there should be an option "turn it off".
> > * I think that I am not the only one who is using social networking
> > sites just to be in touch with friends. And a lot of my friends are
> > Wikimedians; and I am more interested in their Wikimedian activities
> > than what did they do at Elven Blood :) However, I think that games at
> > some future social networking for Wikimedia projects would be much
> > better: there are a lot of possible educational games which may be
> > very nice.
>
> I've always looked at it from this perspective:
> Imagine you are a donor, who doesn't edit, who knows nothing of the
> inner workings of the projects, and who only sees the content pages. You
> see a great resource full of lots of information, so you think "Of
> course I'll support this" and donate. Later you find out that the sites
> are also being used for social networking and that your money is going
> to fund a free-content, open-source version of Myspace/Facebook. If you
> could care less about free content/open source stuff, and donated simply
> to help spread information, you're probably going to be a little mad
> that your money isn't going to fund what you though it did.
>
> Whether making the "social networking" aspect of the projects "official"
> parts would make this issue better or worse I'm not sure. If its
> official, there's going to be a lot more resources put into it (though
> software-wise, Wikia has already done a lot of the work), but it would
> potentially seem less deceptive or hidden from the general public.
>
> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> We should keep in mind that there is a much broader community out
> >> there beyond Wikimedians, who are interested in cooperative efforts in
> >> promoting priojects.
> >>
> >> Personally, we've had great success working with the 2 Students For
> >> Free Culture chapters in New York City, who have supported Wikimedia
> >> projects as ardently as any Wikimedians.
> >>
> >> On a level of real-life organization, there should be no sharp line
> >> between people with Wikimedia user accounts and those without. The
> >> basic skills in organizing real-life events and projects are
> >> orthogonal to particular technical skills or specializations.
> >>
> >> What we really need is a social networking site for the whole Free
> >> Culture/Open Source community, so that we can build a thousand
> >> coalitions in a thousand different cities.
> >>
> >> In researching this idea, I happened upon this proposal last year from
> >> the Free Software Foundation for a "Planet Libre":
> >>
> >>
> http://www.libervis.com/article/july_2007_letter_to_free_software_foundation_associate_members
> >>
> >> That particular initiative appears to have foundered over recent
> >> months. I suggest we should revive it, and in cooperation with Free
> >> Software Foundation, develop a "Planet Libre" social networking site
> >> based on Elgg.
> >
> > I would like to see such social networking site. But, I am skeptical
> > about making one another social networking site. I've got calls for
> > some academic and free society social networking sites, but I don't
> > see them as active. Maybe it may function in some areas, like Orkut
> > functions well in Brazil (I saw one more in Russia and one more in
> > India). But, none of them is near to even MySpace, not to talk about
> > Facebook.
> >
> > At the other side, Wikipedia has the potential to gather significant
> > community. We don't even need a notice at the site. We just need to
> > make it and to tell that to the world. And we will be in this position
> > for some time; at least until Wikipedia is at the top ten sites. Also,
> > I am sure that free software community would treat Wikimedia social
> > networking platform as their own.
> >
>
> The other option is to create a separate social networking site and
> encourage Wikimedians to use it. The Freenode IRC network is heavily
> used by Wikimedians and fairly integrated into some projects, despite it
> being an entirely separate service.
>
> --
> Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> The other option is to create a separate social networking site and
> encourage Wikimedians to use it. The Freenode IRC network is heavily
> used by Wikimedians and fairly integrated into some projects, despite it
> being an entirely separate service.

You have to be a Wikimedian (or from free software community, or from
freenode staff) to know that some channels at irc.freenode.net are
useful. We don't need one more cabal place, but one more place
attractive for users who are possible contributors.

However, Wikipedia *is* very attractive, but not for participation!
All of my non-Wikimedian friends with Internet access are using
Wikipedia without any will to make an account. But, they are
participating in Facebook very extensively.

BTW, usual impression related to Wikipedia is something like:
- Wow, this is the new Babel Tower! It is so impressive, I am looking
at The Tower every day.
- But, inside... Oh, this is The Taboo! This is just for The Priests
of The Cabal!

Or a typical conversation with a person well introduced in Internet
(including the fact that Wikipedia may be edited by anyone):

- Oh, you are working for Wikipedia!
- It's not like that...
- Oh, this is great! Wikipedia is so great!
- Yes, it is, but...
- I am using it every day! It is so useful!
- Yes...
- And you are so lucky 'cause you work for Wikipedia!
- ...

Usually, it is useless to try to explain that it is not so hard to
"work for Wikipedia". Actually, because it *is* hard -- to explain it.
Even we are an open community, there are tons of implicit and explicit
rules which should be learned to start to participate at any level. As
I mentioned before, I am finding Wikipedians with 2-3 years of
experience who don't know for this list.

Whatever the reasons are (global culture which is not able to believe
that there is a really open community somewhere in the world; or
idiosyncratic culture of Wikipedia), we are in the position that we
have to try to work to transform users to contributors. And social
networking platform is one very valid option.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
>>> and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
>>> who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
>>> that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
>>> when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
>>> people don't see it that way.
>>
> on 11/2/08 1:40 PM, Milos Rancic at millosh@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
>> social networking because of the principles...
>
> A sidebar: When The Apple Computer organization was created, a conscious
> decision was made by its creators to establish a company culture that was,
> by existing corporate standards, considered informal. This encouraged
> creativity, reduced stress and produced a culture of tolerance and,
> ultimately, a great product. Their mission was to create the best damn
> computer a creative mind in a creative culture could produce. "Socializing"
> among its employees was not only encouraged, but the ability to socialize
> was almost a prerequisite for being a part of the team.

I think we already have a very social environment, but this
socialising is "focused". We chat about topics that interest us all
the time on the wikis, usually with people who are also similarly
interested enthusiasts and often with people who are surprisingly well
informed. But, we are always doing it in a way that is also
"productive".

For example, we dont endlessly tolerate trolling and idle speculation
on Wikipedia, because it isnt productive. It isnt strictly forbidden,
but if it is done on pages that others frequent, it will be viewed as
an interruption, because there is more valuable discussions going on,
and the rest of us want to focus on those, and we want to "clear the
air" so that more valuable contributions are attracted.

There is so much to learn and participate in on the wikis, that if
someone is primarily socialising, they havent caught the "wiki bug".
These are the people who would be fired from Apple because they didnt
fit in.

> The quality of a culture can be measured, in part, by what that culture
> produces.

I think it is fair to say that the Wikimedia culture has already
proved itself to be a producer of the "impossible". This speaks
volumes about the culture as it is.

Can our culture be improved? Perhaps.

But ... it isn't broken, so we should be wary about trying to "fix it".

Thanks for your input Marc.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> What we SHOULD be
>>> talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
>>> walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and their
>>> first created articles, &c.
>> I agree.
>>
>> And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is
>> what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million
>> articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached
>> "mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.
>>
>> Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help
>> quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader
>> range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then
>> editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not
>> representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).
>
> Tutorials and walkthroughs are useful only after you have got that
> first click. We need to get better at getting that first click.
> Perhaps even just making the edit button bigger or a different colour.
>
> We also need to get better at highly our different ways of attracting
> that first click. Luring people onto talk pages or the like. A system
> which went "you have view 100 pages why not try editing one" would be
> too annoying to allow for live use but perhaps some smarter way to
> target those likely to edit.
>

I agree, this is a problem. I've corresponded with people on OTRS who,
despite the edit button on every page, the "anyone can edit" on the main
page, and the "you can improve this" on various maintenance templates,
really had no idea that they could edit articles. I don't recall how
many of the survey questions asked about this, but hopefully the survey
results will give us some reasons on why people don't edit and hopefully
we can address them.

I agree with David and Greg though as well. Wikitext is /supposed/ to be
simple. Unfortunately, several years of adding more and more
complexities through complex templates, parser functions, and tag
extensions has changed this somewhat. Its still easier than a
programming language or raw HTML, but many articles are well past the
point where one can look at the wikitext and easily figure out how the
basics of editing work.

A while ago (more than a year now) I started work on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard designed to help
new users write articles. I eventually got distracted by other things
and stopped working on it, but its still there if others want to work on
it. The Slovenian Wikipedia seems to have a slightly more developed
version -
http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Napi%C5%A1i_%C4%8Dlanek - that
they also link to in the various system messages shown when creating a
new article; the en.wikipedia version never quite got that far.

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l