On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l