So, not a place to socialize, but nonetheless a welcoming place to be? Emily

On Jun 18, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

So, not a place to socialize, but nonetheless a welcoming place to be?

Emily, You sound like a wonderful addition to our community. One of the problems we might have (others may disagree) is that the social side of Wikipedia is somewhat underdeveloped. That is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion on this list: how we might make Wikipedia a friendlier, more welcoming place. I first found Wikipedia in 2002, back in the days when articles like "Colorado" had not even been started. There was this guy, Larry Sanger, who while not in charge, had a lot of clout. And Jimmy Wales, was very hands on, following developments closely. I've posted on the mailing lists quite a lot, nasty habit, takes up way too much time. I still edit a little bit, although most of my Wikipedia work these days is on a list unblock-en-l which tries to handle requests to bypass blocks. It sounds like you are off to a good start. Fred

To wrap this up, people-oriented people have always helped very much to create a more integrated community. Those that get themselves involved in content issues often help to keep things from blowing up. And some have even been entrusted by the community to positions of authority.

But do I understand correctly, Emily, that by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: I like where Fred is going here. But do I understand correctly, Emily, that by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? My/our apparent confusion/misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate fact that for many people here, the word "social" is a kind of codeword for "community interactions that have no aspect of the purpose of writing an encyclopedia in mind." Everyone is to some degree interested in "community," and that's why Wikipedia works. But the connection between "social aspects" and community, though essential, is still not yet well understood. Hence its my sense (?) that many people think that "if the idea doesn't have the encyclopedia in mind," it therefore must be "social," (discarded), often quite with little regard for whether or not that "social" idea contributes to "community." But, as with anything dynamic, there is a ongoing struggle to find a balance between different forces. If your interested, you might even do a little research into the history of how social aspects have tried to coexist with the prime directive of building (and even writing) an encyclopedia. Maybe writing up a meta page about that history would help people get an overview. Places to look: Barnstars, Userboxes, IRC and Meetups (after Geni), Projects (of course), and Medcom / other WP:DRR, and Signpost (late addition). Maybe after checking these out you can have an idea or two of your own. You may be interested to know that there have been times when people have been quite at odds about the "social aspects." Search "userboxes" + "wheel war" for example --a very important example of when the "community" decided (somehow) to stomp on the "society." I still consider the mass removal of userboxes from the meta namespace to the user namespace to have been a "social" faux pax. To wrap this up, people-oriented people have always helped very much to create a more integrated community. Those that get themselves involved in content issues often help to keep things from blowing up. And some have even been entrusted by the community to positions of authority. -Steve You sound like a wonderful addition to our community. One of the problems _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l