Thinking on Emily's point about social interaction on wikipedia, I'm well aware that the amount of interaction that I have with other editors varies dramatically depending on the areas of the Wiki that I spend time in.
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:38 -0700 From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 7c402e010906182141y47e1ec10kd0211735cdee695f@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Stevertigo wrote:
But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
by "social aspects" you mean more what we might
call "community," or
"collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?
Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com
wrote:
Yes, that's what I mean!
I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.
(Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've retitled the thread)
It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a question or idea. If your stated interest can be translated into a question, it might go something like: What socially-oriented ideas might make Wikipedia better?
Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still would not be out of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially when you want to start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal with a few different things at once, and who knows what might come up?
I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made into bumperstickers.
-Steven
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of the wikipedia need to have different levels of discussion.
What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do they serve only as assessment graders?
Emily On Jun 19, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Dahsun wrote:
Thinking on Emily's point about social interaction on wikipedia, I'm well aware that the amount of interaction that I have with other editors varies dramatically depending on the areas of the Wiki that I spend time in.
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:38 -0700 From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 7c402e010906182141y47e1ec10kd0211735cdee695f@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Stevertigo wrote:
But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
by "social aspects" you mean more what we might
call "community," or
"collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?
Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com
wrote:
Yes, that's what I mean!
I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.
(Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've retitled the thread)
It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a question or idea. If your stated interest can be translated into a question, it might go something like: What socially-oriented ideas might make Wikipedia better?
Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still would not be out of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially when you want to start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal with a few different things at once, and who knows what might come up?
I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made into bumperstickers.
-Steven
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of thewikipedia need to have different levels of discussion.
What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or do theyserve only as assessment graders?
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
Articles on current events are commonly collaborative.
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them.
I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still...
What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about wikiprojects in every signpost.
Emily On Jun 19, 2009, at 4:12 PM, geni wrote:
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of thewikipedia need to have different levels of discussion.
What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or dothey serve only as assessment graders?
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
Articles on current events are commonly collaborative.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On WikiProjects: The performance of collaboration projects varies almost as drastically as does the quality of Wikipedia's articles. At some ends, we have some quite impressive organisations - such as WProj Military history - that are very hands-on. At others, there are some quite useless projects that seem to exist simply for the sake of existing. There are still others - such as WProj Law - that aren't very 'collaborative' but do provide some useful tools and resources for improving the parallell subject area: for example, in my experience, WProj Law has little editor colloboration but, by virtue of its in-depth indexes of law articles, is useful for identifying articles that need improvement.
AGK
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them.
I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still...
What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about wikiprojects in every signpost.
Too many. In most cases they are best thought of as being in statis. Whatever targets the original people wanted to meet have either been met, abandoned or people have moved on to another forum. If a couple of new people come along with fresh targets they can re-awake.
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
I guess whatever floats their boat is what's best for them.
I notice, from time to time, that some wikiprojects I run across have become inactive. It's sad, really--almost like a memorial to once might've been a tight-knit community. Even if it wasn't, still...
What should we do that about that? One thing I'm worried about is, is the less collaborative ones more likely to become inactive? Should we write an short paragraph in the signpost about any wikiproject that's *just about* to go inactive? I know there's an article about wikiprojects in every signpost.
Emily
We could, but you might also join one and see what you, and others, can make of it. One project which is quite collaborative is the Arbitration Committee, not that I'm suggesting that...
Fred
On Jun 19, 2009, at 4:12 PM, geni wrote:
2009/6/19 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
True, true. It would makes sense that different parts of thewikipedia need to have different levels of discussion.
What about wikiprojects? Are they very "collaborative", or dothey serve only as assessment graders?
Varies from project to project over time. Some are quite collaborative others more stick to highlighting weak points and standardisation.
Articles on current events are commonly collaborative.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l