On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
volunteers.
Yet there are plenty of organizations which rely extensively on
volunteer labor and yet manage to preserve a professional and focused
working environment.
A number of universities have used tools like Elgg in fostering a
professional environment. I don't think there have been serious
problems along these lines in academic settings.
Unless you hope to argue that
"social networking" would be a useful organization tool, but if so
you're using the wrong word ("social networking" is a tainted word;
linkedin doesn't describe themselves that way for example), and the
wrong arguments (that some people would enjoy using isn't a good
argument).
I think Pharos is generally on the ball with respect to the genuinely
useful uses: If the tools are generally on-topic then it's possible
for it to be productive.
I think we have to draw a reasonable line with the scope of tools.
Obviously there -are- certain things that would be inappropriate for a
Wikimedian networking tool (these things are probably obvious to
everyone).
Still, I don't think allowing say, local Wikimedians in Los Angeles to
go bowling together, and organizing that through such a tool would be
such an unproductive thing. It is social activities like this that
can lay the groundwork for future "productive" projects.
In this, I think we should try to follow the models for such tools as
used by university projects. Certainly we should be aiming for a
compromise that is someway between Facebook and our userpage policy
with respect to such tools.
Thanks,
Pharos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l