Tom, has a reputable news source actually verified this? Even Wikipedia editors know that HuffPost isn't reliable...
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org> wrote: > On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Kučera <kozuc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at > all??? > > > > These go in the right direction: > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features > > > > Is WMF going to act finally??? > > > > Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed > social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons > and so on. And editors don't want it. > > See > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twitter_etc > . > > English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller > community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate > with. > > If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with > deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do > hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine > discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided > the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that > were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, > which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. > Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up > information on health conditions they think they might have, as well > as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, > advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I > wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles > shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share > that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has > allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after > Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1] > > I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social > services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And > Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support > sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? > Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social > networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And > we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago > and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so > popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) > de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a > big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. > We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way > to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate. > > You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into > the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve > sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like > Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better > experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded > adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been > discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the > browser level. > > [1] > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-teen_n_1200404.html > > -- > Tom Morris > <http://tommorris.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l