On 18 June 2013 12:06, Bob Kosovsky <bobkosovsky(a)nypl.org> wrote:
One of my "crusades" is that Wikipedia
really *is* a social network. The
social aspect may not be emphasized as it is on Facebook and similar sites,
but the fact is you can't do anything on Wikipedia without it being
observed by others. (I note that over the years, the Wikipedia
documentation has gradually eliminated the "Wikipedia is not a social
network" guideline.)
Regarding your observation, it's interesting to point out that that
guideline has gone from "Wikipedia is not a social network" to "Wikipedia
is not a social networking service". Because, as you say, of course
Wikipedia is a social network (but so is any other community of people
interacting, even a boring workplace), and the purpose of that statement
all along was that Wikipedia is not like Facebook. That part is still true:
Wikipedia is mission-driven and social for the purpose of collaboration,
and therefore consciously avoids many social features that are not regarded
as furthering that goal. Even better than making the point that Wikipedia
really is a social network might be to make a point of the fact that it is
a *social encyclopedia*.
Based on experiments like the Wikipedia Teahouse, I think it's better to go
into Wikipedia knowing it is a social space, and to be
aware that anything
you create or add won't be owned by you, but is going to be a
collaboration. Regarding all the different editors not as adversaries
(however terse their statements) but as teachers and collaborators
shouldn't diminish one's enthusiasm for adding content, and should mitigate
many of the problems people have by thinking of Wikipedia as a monolithic
encyclopedia.
I would never advise a newbie to jump into a controversy, but observing
passively how controversies develop and resolve themselves can be an
instructive lesson.
This is a really good point. I can't tell you how many times I've heard
people who tried to edit Wikipedia complain that they were alienated after
Wikipedia told them they couldn't do X or Y (usually adding links to their
site or editing their article). For most of these people, it never occurs
to them that it's just another person who has given them that warning or
reverted them, and that they have the option of starting a dialogue. In
most cases, I think teaching people about the social and mission aspects of
the Wikipedia community is more important than teaching them the technical
skills.
Dominic