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
