"Tweet this page" from some or all sites???

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question: How...

FDC Letter of Intent process and...

billinghurst

18 Apr 2013 18 Apr '13

4:28 a.m.

I am wondering why there is no "tweet this page" capability through the WMF sites? It is so widely available through the web, and here is a range of sites that would be a prime place to do it, and NADA, no capacity. Even if we had it for something like https://blog.wikimedia.org/ would be a good place to start. Howwever, the ability to easily tweet about a book at Wikisource, an article at one of the WPs all sound like marvellous things to easily do. Regards, Billinghurst

Show replies by date

K. Peachey

18 Apr 18 Apr

4:33 a.m.

Discussion about this has occurred on en.wiki at least multiple times, info can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Share_pages_on_….

Tilman Bayer

4:39 a.m.

On blog.wikimedia.org, some social media sharing buttons will be implemented (in a privacy-friendly way) as part of the upcoming redesign. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM, billinghurst <billinghurst(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB

James Alexander

5 a.m.

I tend to think that they can be incredibly useful and reader friendly. I've always found it a bit disappointing we don't have it as they are probably the bigger reader request I've ever seen. That said I know that enWiki has had multiple discussions about it ending in failure. The issues mostly seem to stem from the "we're not MySpace" crowd which I think misses the point that we both "are" a social network and that we're an educational site (and should encourage sharing that information) but <sigh>. However! That doesn't stop other projects from doing it and I would love to see those that do. Wikinews has ha their social bookmarks template for a while now and we adapted it for the fundraiser a while ago on WMF wiki as well as a very nice version for the anti SOPA protests.. I don't have the links handy but can get them at home and I think the best thing to do would be to search through the history because they've gone through a couple variations. There is a bug on bugzilla as well to add the meta information required for a more useful Facebook share (and I think G+) which also is unlikely to be that big of a problem. The only thing to keep in mind is that we occasionally need creativity. The "default" way that most sites tell you to share is often problematic for our privacy policy because it either has a script call to the home sight on page load or requires an iframe (Facebook likes I'm looking at you). That said they all have options that can work for us they are just a bit more hidden. James Sent from my iPhone James Alexander Manager - Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x6716 On Apr 17, 2013, at 19:28, billinghurst <billinghurst(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sarah Stierch

5:05 a.m.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:00 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

I agree. Readers ask a lot about it, and so do new editors. I think it's so lame. Then again, people said the same about the Teahouse (NOTFACEBOOK). I wonder if we did a test for it what people would think. Talk abou reach - we'd be getting more people to read articles and content, which means potentially more people editing. But, I'm also a regular Twitter user and I see boosts in viewership for anything I post on my Twitter and Facebook. So sick of anti-social media Wikipedia. People love to deny we are a social network, when most of us involved in the community know that isn't true. A lot of my friends and so forth come from the Wikipedia world. If that isn't social media, then I don't know what is.

...

The only thing to keep in mind is that we occasionally need creativity. The "default" way that most sites tell you to share is often

CREATIVITY? NOOO!!!! We're writing an encyclopedia....we're not being creative!!! (sarcasm) (Again...see the Teahouse :) ) -Sar -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedia* *www.sarahstierch.com*

Mathieu Stumpf

12:17 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 05:05, Sarah Stierch a écrit :

...

But, I'm also a regular Twitter user and I see boosts in viewership for anything I post on my Twitter and Facebook. So sick of anti-social media Wikipedia. People love to deny we are a social network, when most of us involved in the community know that isn't true. A lot of my friends and so forth come from the Wikipedia world. If that isn't social media, then I don't know what is.

Before you go any further, you should come with a more precise definition of what you call a "social media". You may say Internet is a social media, so anything within it share this property.

...

Teahouse

Excuse me but I had never heard about "Teahouse" before. I suppose you are talking about[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Tom Morris

12:46 p.m.

On Thursday, 18 April 2013 at 04:05, Sarah Stierch wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:00 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org (mailto:jalexander@wikimedia.org)>wrote:

The problem I have is that we lose some independence by doing this. Five years ago, we'd be all about putting MySpace links all over Wikipedia. Today, it'd be Twitter and FB. The services we include will be something we'll constantly be debating. Some hip new startup gets going and we'll have to have a long debate as to whether to add them. Then if we decided to include, say, Google Plus but not include some other service, we get accused of favouring Google because we're supposedly in cahoots with them in destroying copyright, stabbing babies, bringing on the infoapocalypse and all that. Or we choose services that are only used by Westerners. Or we include every damn service and we end up with those horrible palettes of 2000 different social services. We implicitly waste the time of people who don't use social sharing services or who, say, are trying to undermine the social services by building their own. [1] Browsers already come with a social media sharing service: it's called copy'n'paste. It doesn't infringe your privacy, it supports all services, allows easy reformatting, [1] http://indiewebcamp.com/ Come join in and free yourself from the social media silos! ;-) -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/>

Mathieu Stumpf

12:05 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 05:00, James Alexander a écrit :

...

I tend to think that they can be incredibly useful and reader friendly. I've always found it a bit disappointing we don't have it as they are probably the bigger reader request I've ever seen.

Please provide metrics and numbers. You know how our personal impressions are biased with our personal interets. And you also know how metrics, while not providing "absolute truth", assuage our biases.

...

That said I know that enWiki has had multiple discussions about it ending in failure. The issues mostly seem to stem from the "we're not MySpace" crowd which I think misses the point that we both "are" a social network and that we're an educational site (and should encourage sharing that information) but <sigh>.

Then you may promote "wikisocial" if you like. I'm not sure it would be manageable to come with a solution responding to both "social network features" and "privacy concerns".

...

However! That doesn't stop other projects from doing it and I would love to see those that do. Wikinews has ha their social bookmarks template for a while now and we adapted it for the fundraiser a while ago on WMF wiki as well as a very nice version for the anti SOPA protests.. I don't have the links handy but can get them at home and I think the best thing to do would be to search through the history because they've gone through a couple variations. There is a bug on bugzilla as well to add the meta information required for a more useful Facebook share (and I think G+) which also is unlikely to be that big of a problem.

Not talking about the privacy dilema, Wikipedia must remain neutral which mean whether providing more **internal** social network features (the coming Echo extension may provide some of them) or providing nothing. But in my humble opinion, including some third party dependances is a not an option if we want to stay neutral. Argumentum ad populum[1] is not receivable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

...

The only thing to keep in mind is that we occasionally need creativity. The "default" way that most sites tell you to share is often problematic for our privacy policy because it either has a script call to the home sight on page load or requires an iframe (Facebook likes I'm looking at you). That said they all have options that can work for us they are just a bit more hidden.

There's no such thing as "the only thing to keep in mind". We sure want more engaged editors, and "creativity" surely is welcome. But we have other constraints which are not less important, and we can't afford to forget it. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

James Alexander

19 Apr 19 Apr

2:53 a.m.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Mathieu Stumpf < psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 05:00, James Alexander a écrit : I tend to think that they can be incredibly useful and reader

friendly. I've always found it a bit disappointing we don't have it as they are probably the bigger reader request I've ever seen.

I'm sorry, I don't keep a journal of every reader request I've ever seen or heard and I didn't try to make any claim of 'absolute truth' I said it was probably the biggest reader request I had ever seen which I stick by. Want rough numbers? Amount of people who have personally told it to me, to my face? In the 100s (over 200 less then a thousand). That I have seen 2nd hand where they were just commenting somewhere on the internet or in print? 10s of thousands. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Mathieu Stumpf < psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

... Ok, but what I don't understand is what prevent them to share links to Wikimedia projects?

At some level? Everything. We have long found that every little extra step makes it much less likely people will do something. Asking someone to copy the link and go to their site and paste it (hopefully along with a short description) means MUCH MUCH less people will do it. This is true even if that was how they were used to sharing content, however it's even more true when it is NOT how they are used to sharing content. They are used to sharing it with buttons and those buttons 'invite' them to share, to spread the knowledge they found. That isn't contrary to our goals, in my mind it's EXACTLY our goals. A book is near useless unless it's read.

...

Why should be only be building and sharing content within Wikimedia? The

vast majority of the consumers of the site could not care one thing about "within Wikimedia", and that is fine. Foisting it upon them is the poor approach :D

I agree. However if people are intending to give feed back on the page, especialy feedback which would be useful to improve it, I think it would be far better to keep this comments within the Wikimedia echosystem.

Most of this discussion is about sharing in general, not sharing specifically to give feedback on a page. I can understand the concern about neutrality, it isn't an easy question but it isn't something that we are new too. The community makes decisions like that all of the time. It is, however, the best argument against that I've tended to hear.Overall I want to make it easy for as many people as possible to use our information ,and I think sharing buttons can be a huge help in that direction. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Benoit Landry <benoit_landry(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

I think that's generally true of most wikimedians but not generally true of most of our readers. James

Mathieu Stumpf

10:14 a.m.

Le 2013-04-19 02:53, James Alexander a écrit :

...

Just providing me links to pages where this feature is requested and optionaly a way to compare with other requested features would be very kind. I don't have your experience, I can't emit any relevant judgement if I don't have a minimum material on which I can base my reasoning, don't you think?

...

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Mathieu Stumpf < psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote: At some level? Everything. We have long found that every little extra step makes it much less likely people will do something. Asking someone to copy the link and go to their site and paste it (hopefully along with a short description) means MUCH MUCH less people will do it. This is true even if that was how they were used to sharing content, however it's even more true when it is NOT how they are used to sharing content. They are used to sharing it with buttons and those buttons 'invite' them to share, to spread the knowledge they found. That isn't contrary to our goals, in my mind it's EXACTLY our goals. A book is near useless unless it's read.

While I am also enthusiast with the share and spread knowledge goal, I don't think that any means are admissible regardless of other ethical concerns. And it's seems that even on the legal ground they may be issues regarding the Term Of Use of most popular social media (see Matthew Roth message in this thread).

Andy Mabbett

10:50 a.m.

On 19 April 2013 09:14, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

And it's seems that even on the legal ground they may be issues regarding the Term Of Use of most popular social media (see Matthew Roth message in this thread).

Matthew discusses the reposting of images, not URLs. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Mathieu Stumpf

18 Apr 18 Apr

11:27 a.m.

Le 2013-04-18 04:28, billinghurst a écrit :

...

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our general policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive answer to your "why not". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_policy -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

David Gerard

11:37 a.m.

On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our general policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive answer to your "why not".

You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so that's not a problem. - d.

Stevie Benton

11:43 a.m.

[Speaking personally, not from WMUK] I like the idea of sharing buttons, as long as they aren't too prominent. Wikipedia was a social medium before the term was really in widespread use. I think it also shows that our audience is important. Aren't we ultimately about sharing? Stevie On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our

general

policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive answer to your "why not".

You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so that's not a problem. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

Mathieu Stumpf

2:04 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit :

...

To my mind, it's not just about sharing, it's about sharing knowledge in a form which is as neutral as we can achieve to produce. If you stop to "sharing", then you may just as well let "free to share" advertisments invade wikipedia.

...

On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet

our general

policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a

definitive

answer to your "why not".

-- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

David Gerard

2:10 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

I don't see how that's a sensible analogy at all. - d.

Stevie Benton

2:11 p.m.

[Speaking personally, not from WMUK] Not sure how advertisements came in to the discussion, it's totally different. If we agree we want to share the sum total of all human knowledge, then it makes sense that we make it as easy to share that knowledge as possible. Having small, discreet buttons that allow one / two click sharing removes some of the barriers that may exist. Just my opinion, of course. Stevie On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit : [Speaking personally, not from WMUK]

I like the idea of sharing buttons, as long as they aren't too prominent. Wikipedia was a social medium before the term was really in widespread use. I think it also shows that our audience is important. Aren't we ultimately about sharing? Stevie

On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org**>

wrote:

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our

general

policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive answer to your "why not".

You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so that's not a problem. - d. ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

-- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

Mathieu Stumpf

2:46 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 14:11, Stevie Benton a écrit :

...

I really don't understand what's the supposed "barriers", you can save the whole page to send it, copy/paste the whole page, send the direct URL. What the use case where current possibilities would prevent one to share this knowledge?

...

On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit : [Speaking personally, not from WMUK]

On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org**>

wrote: > I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our general > policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive > answer to your "why not". You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so that's not a problem. - d. ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

-- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Thomas Morton

2:52 p.m.

Or, you could click a button. Why is making something easy a problem? And more to the point; a very large number of people would become confused with the processes you're describing. You are somewhere in the top 0.1% of technically literate persons!! So judging what is possible or not based on your own skills/abilities introduces a critical bias. A lack of neutrality, if you will :) Tom On 18 April 2013 13:46, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 14:11, Stevie Benton a écrit :

On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org**

wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit :

[Speaking personally, not from WMUK]

On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org* ***> > wrote: > > > I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our > general > > policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a > definitive > > answer to your "why not". > > > You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so > that's not a problem. > > > - d. > > ______________________________****_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >

> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… > <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >

> > > -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>

-- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

Mathieu Stumpf

4:54 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 14:52, Thomas Morton a écrit :

...

Or, you could click a button. Why is making something easy a problem?

Because easiness is not our **only** concern. Making things easier is great, losing neutrality for the sake of convenience and ease-of-use, to my mind it is not a good trade. Also as it appears that the link that I make between that and ads is only obvious to me, to me they are related by the neutrality topic. As other said probably in a better way than I am currently able to do, if you chose to include some third party support, this may lead to losing neutrality. If the foundation revenue was depending on ads, to my mind it would also lead to such a lose of neutrality. I hope it make more clear what is the connection I do between this two topics. Also you may be interested to know that I wrote a very short essay "on easyness"[1](I wrote it several years ago it wasn't intented specificaly for this thread) where in a short, I say that you can hardly develop a critical mind if you never go through experiments which aren't trivial to manage. Thus said I don't mean that cluttering a learning activity with artifical difficulties should be encouraged. [1] https://www.culture-libre.org/wiki/Sur_la_simplicit%C3%A9 It's in French but if anyone is realy interested, I may translate it, just ask me.

...

And more to the point; a very large number of people would become confused with the processes you're describing. You are somewhere in the top 0.1% of technically literate persons!! So judging what is possible or not based on your own skills/abilities introduces a critical bias. A lack of neutrality, if you will :)

Well, while I don't know how much a "technically litterate person" minority I am, I do agree that my own representation of the world is full of biases. Also, I wish that anyone may have access to ressources that would enable one to become litterate person in any topic. I just fail to perceive a copy/paste action as a huge barrier to knowledge diffusion. To my mind Wikipedia Zero for example seems to adress a real concern of knowledge diffusion.

...

Tom On 18 April 2013 13:46, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 14:11, Stevie Benton a écrit :

On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org**

wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit :

[Speaking personally, not from WMUK] > > I like the idea of sharing buttons, as long as they aren't too > prominent. > Wikipedia was a social medium before the term was really in > widespread > use. > I think it also shows that our audience is important. Aren't we > ultimately > about sharing? > > Stevie > > To my mind, it's not just about sharing, it's about sharing knowledge in a form which is as neutral as we can achieve to produce. If you stop to "sharing", then you may just as well let "free to share" advertisments invade wikipedia. > On 18 April 2013 10:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf > <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org* > ***> > >> wrote: >> >> > I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it >> feet our >> general >> > policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a >> definitive >> > answer to your "why not". >> >> >> You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to >> Twitter, so >> that's not a problem. >> >> >> - d. >> >> ______________________________****_________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org >> <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** >> >> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… >> >> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >> > >> >> >> > > -- > > Stevie Benton > Communications Organiser > Wikimedia UK > +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 > @StevieBenton > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in > England > and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. > Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard > Street, > London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter > of a > global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the > Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other > projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal > control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > ______________________________****_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org > <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… > > <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > > > > -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

David Gerard

5:25 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 15:54, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 14:52, Thomas Morton a écrit :

...

> Or, you could click a button. > Why is making something easy a problem?

...

Because easiness is not our **only** concern.

It is, however, an extremely important one. It only takes a *tiny* inconvenience to lose a *lot* of people. (Someone noted on wikien-l that the "Oh Shit" moment in the editor graph coincides pretty well with the decision to lock down article creation on en:wp. Tiny inconveniences.)

...

Making things easier is great, losing neutrality for the sake of convenience and ease-of-use, to my mind it is not a good trade.

I don't see a way around the neutrality one either, but that's my only objection.

...

I just fail to perceive a copy/paste action as a huge barrier to knowledge diffusion.

And yet, it seems to be. People keep asking for the buttons.

...

To my mind Wikipedia Zero for example seems to adress a real concern of knowledge diffusion.

Wikipedia Zero is not particularly related to the present discussion. However, consider the mobile interface. Copy-and-pasting a URL is considerably more difficult there. How would you work around that? - d.

Mathieu Stumpf

5:47 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 17:25, David Gerard a écrit :

...

On 18 April 2013 15:54, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 14:52, Thomas Morton a écrit :

> Or, you could click a button. > Why is making something easy a problem?

Because easiness is not our **only** concern.

It is, however, an extremely important one. It only takes a *tiny* inconvenience to lose a *lot* of people.

I do agree that it's important to make it easy to diffuse knowledge. I don't agree that it's a tiny inconvenience. Sure my feelings are not more credible than yours, but to my mind the teapote proof[1] is on your side. :P [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

...

(Someone noted on wikien-l that the "Oh Shit" moment in the editor graph coincides pretty well with the decision to lock down article creation on en:wp. Tiny inconveniences.)

Sorry, I think I miss some context to understand this paragraph.

...

I just fail to perceive a copy/paste action as a huge barrier to knowledge diffusion.

And yet, it seems to be. People keep asking for the buttons.

Would you be kind enough to provide some links to this queries, please?

...

To my mind Wikipedia Zero for example seems to adress a real concern of knowledge diffusion.

Wikipedia Zero is not particularly related to the present discussion.

It's related to knowledge diffusion, which was used as a pro argument for this feature if I am not mistaken.

...

However, consider the mobile interface. Copy-and-pasting a URL is considerably more difficult there. How would you work around that?

Having a "copy this page address" button maybe? And you may paste it in whatever "social media" you like, as an email for example. ;) -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

David Gerard

5:55 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 16:47, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 17:25, David Gerard a écrit :

...

> (Someone noted on wikien-l that the "Oh Shit" moment in the editor > graph coincides pretty well with the decision to lock down article > creation on en:wp. Tiny inconveniences.)

...

Sorry, I think I miss some context to understand this paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-02/Inter…

...

> And yet, it seems to be. People keep asking for the buttons.

...

Would you be kind enough to provide some links to this queries, please?

The link to the "perennial proposals" page on en:wp has already been given in this thread.

...

> However, consider the mobile interface. Copy-and-pasting a URL is > considerably more difficult there. How would you work around that?

...

Having a "copy this page address" button maybe? And you may paste it in whatever "social media" you like, as an email for example. ;)

This is a difficult and annoying action on a phone. - d.

Mathieu Stumpf

11:51 p.m.

Le jeudi 18 avril 2013 à 16:55 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-02/Inter…

Thank you, I will read it tomorow.

...

> However, consider the mobile interface. Copy-and-pasting a URL is > considerably more difficult there. How would you work around that?

Having a "copy this page address" button maybe? And you may paste it in whatever "social media" you like, as an email for example. ;)

This is a difficult and annoying action on a phone.

By just saying "a phone", to my mind it's hard to emit any relevant judgement. There are phone with which you can't consult any webpage in the firstplace. Now for the "smartphone" I've been able to test, while I found copying a part of a text very hard, pasting was not a big deal. Moreover if you can push a button to send a link on some specific social media, you are probably able to push a button which put the url right into your copy/paste buffer and paste it wherever you want, don't you think?

Brion Vibber

19 Apr 19 Apr

12:09 a.m.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mathieu Stumpf < psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

> However, consider the mobile interface. Copy-and-pasting a URL is > considerably more difficult there. How would you work around that?

Having a "copy this page address" button maybe? And you may paste it in whatever "social media" you like, as an email for example. ;)

This is a difficult and annoying action on a phone.

In many cases there's no need to manually copy-paste a URL on a smartphone; "sharing" is commonly built into the browser. Android has an extensible framework for inter-app communications which allows Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other social networks and similar apps to register to appear right in the browser's "share" button prompt. Current versions of iOS have a 'share' button in the browser with direct access to Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo (in China), as well as a one-touch "copy URL" option for those 'other' services. Unfortunately Apple doesn't allow apps to add themselves to this list, so only Apple-approved services will appear directly. Less sure about Windows Phone or other relative rarities. Note that desktop browsers are in some cases gaining similar capabilities; for instance Apple's Safari in latest versions includes a "Share" button similar to iOS's, with access to a couple hardcoded services. Nearly all browsers that I know of support sharing a link over email directly through a menu item, and those supporting extensions can install various social network goodies. -- brion

Matthew Roth

2:43 a.m.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Note that desktop browsers are in some cases gaining similar capabilities; for instance Apple's Safari in latest versions includes a "Share" button similar to iOS's, with access to a couple hardcoded services. Nearly all browsers that I know of support sharing a link over email directly through a menu item, and those supporting extensions can install various social network goodies.

Happy that Brion brought this angle up, as I am perpetually vexed by how incompatible social networks are with CC licenses (mostly with BY-SA). The browser plug-ins bring up an even bigger problem for our projects and the licenses. First, note that most of the really popular social networking sites have boilerplate language in the Terms of Service that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. See Michelle Paulson's legal analysis related to Facebook here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Fa… You cannot post 3rd party CC-BY-SA licensed images to Facebook (and likely most other social networks) because you will be violating the sublicensing section of the CC license, and arguably the ToS of the social network. This isn't a small matter. If you look at a number of the Wikimedia movement partners and Wikimedians who use Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. they are posting images that violate the license. We were doing the same at WMF until Michelle produced her guidance. We've tried to find all instances where we had uploaded images, instead replacing them with links (the auto-generated thumbnails are not a concern, legally). Although the legal team hasn't published formal guidance on the other social networks, a survey of their terms of service show a very similar sublicensing clause. I'm not super optimistic that we can participate fully with them, so that's why we have not had an active presence on, for example, Pinterest. They make such heavy use of images in their pins and I don't see a workable way forward at present, despite how much I like their site aesthetically. I would love to find a solution to the problem from a licensing standpoint. IMO, using images on social networks is a fantastic way to promote the projects and hopefully encourage more people to participate/contribute, but I don't think it's something we can reasonably do at present. -Matthew -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org*

Andy Mabbett

10:46 a.m.

On 19 April 2013 01:43, Matthew Roth <mroth(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

You cannot post 3rd party CC-BY-SA licensed images to Facebook (and likely most other social networks) because you will be violating the sublicensing section of the CC license, and arguably the ToS of the social network

s/cannot/should not/ -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Mathieu Stumpf

11:28 a.m.

Le 2013-04-19 10:46, Andy Mabbett a écrit :

...

On 19 April 2013 01:43, Matthew Roth <mroth(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

s/cannot/should not/

"cannot legaly without commiting copyright infraction"? -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

David Gerard

11:24 a.m.

On 19 April 2013 01:43, Matthew Roth <mroth(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

First, note that most of the really popular social networking sites have boilerplate language in the Terms of Service that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. See Michelle Paulson's legal analysis related to Facebook here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Fa… You cannot post 3rd party CC-BY-SA licensed images to Facebook (and likely most other social networks) because you will be violating the sublicensing section of the CC license, and arguably the ToS of the social network. This isn't a small matter. If you look at a number of the Wikimedia movement partners and Wikimedians who use Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. they are posting images that violate the license. We were doing the same at WMF until Michelle produced her guidance. We've tried to find all instances where we had uploaded images, instead replacing them with links (the auto-generated thumbnails are not a concern, legally). Although the legal team hasn't published formal guidance on the other social networks, a survey of their terms of service show a very similar sublicensing clause. I'm not super optimistic that we can participate fully with them, so that's why we have not had an active presence on, for example, Pinterest. They make such heavy use of images in their pins and I don't see a workable way forward at present, despite how much I like their site aesthetically. I would love to find a solution to the problem from a licensing standpoint. IMO, using images on social networks is a fantastic way to promote the projects and hopefully encourage more people to participate/contribute, but I don't think it's something we can reasonably do at present.

Worth a small public grumble on the blog? The TOS incompatibility is not well known. - d.

Samuel Klein

1 p.m.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 April 2013 01:43, Matthew Roth <mroth(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > First, note that most of the really popular social networking sites have > boilerplate language in the Terms of Service that are incompatible with

...

Worth a small public grumble on the blog? The TOS incompatibility is not well known.

That's a good idea. SJ

Mathieu Stumpf

9:34 a.m.

Le 2013-04-19 00:09, Brion Vibber a écrit :

...

Tell me if I misunderstanding, but it seems to me that this pieces of software are not integrated right into websites, but on the client side. To my mind that's fine as long at it doesn't affect other users experience. Especialy if it should not hide some relevant information by making them non-standard client-feature dependant. What I understood of what was proposed so far was to include a "share" feature on the server side, which is – to my mind – very different from a neutrality point of view. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

18 Apr 18 Apr

6:03 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

(Someone noted on wikien-l that the "Oh Shit" moment in the editor graph coincides pretty well with the decision to lock down article creation on en:wp. Tiny inconveniences.)

It's been more than seven years since article creation was disabled for anonymous editors on the English Wikipedia, and I was not able to find any discussion that would suggest to re-enable it; quite the contrary, there had even been an attempt to limit it to the 'autoconfirmed group'[1] that was rejected by the developers community. I heard from many people that it is a total disgrace for the movement that its biggest project does not allow all users to create new pages (specifically as there was, as I am told, no discussion about it); indeed, this is something that is regularly denied for all wikis requesting it even with overwhelming community support[2], as being in opposition to our founding principles[3]. If there is significant evidence that not having the 'createpage' user right for all users results in falling editor numbers, then it would probably be best to start a discussion to change it. == References == * [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial> * [2] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes> * [3] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles> -- Tomasz

Stevie Benton

2:53 p.m.

"I really don't understand what's the supposed "barriers", you can save the whole page to send it, copy/paste the whole page, send the direct URL. What the use case where current possibilities would prevent one to share this knowledge?" By barriers, I mean anything that may dissuade users from taking an action - in this case, sharing content. The fewer clicks / less time it takes to share content, the more likely users (especially casual users) are to take the required action. Worth noting in supplement here that a vast number of users of Wikimedia projects are neither Wikipedians or dedicated readers. They are casual visitors who may just be looking for a quick piece of information or the answer to a specific question. I hope this helps - and I think this is a useful discussion to have :) Stevie On 18 April 2013 13:46, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 14:11, Stevie Benton a écrit :

On 18 April 2013 13:04, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org**

wrote:

Le 2013-04-18 11:43, Stevie Benton a écrit :

[Speaking personally, not from WMUK]

Andy Mabbett

19 Apr 19 Apr

10:39 a.m.

On 18 April 2013 13:46, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

Yes, people can do those things, but they are more likely to do so if we make it /easier/ for them; by enabling sharing with a single click. We need to remember that not everyone has our skills and experience with digital tools. There's a reason why many high profile sites include social media sharing buttons; it increases the posting of links to their content. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Mathieu Stumpf

18 Apr 18 Apr

12:51 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 11:37, David Gerard a écrit :

...

On 18 April 2013 10:27, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

I didn't read the tweeter EULA, as I don't use it. Does it feet our general policy[1]? If no, as one may easily expect, then you have a definitive answer to your "why not".

You could tweet from a button without WMF sending data to Twitter, so that's not a problem.

I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Do you mean "publish a short message" on a talk page of a WMF project? If so, I can't see the difference with what you can already do. If you mean publish something on tweeter while browsing a WMF project, I can't see the point. I'm sure most users know they can have more than one tab/window at a time. If the point is to gather relevant information on a specific page elsewhere than the talk page, then to my mind it's a really bad idea. Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Thomas Morton

12:54 p.m.

...

If you mean publish something on tweeter while browsing a WMF project, I can't see the point. I'm sure most users know they can have more than one tab/window at a time.

Weren't you asking for evidence to back up similar assertions a minute ago? :D

...

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature.

Mathieu Stumpf

2:28 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 12:54, Thomas Morton a écrit :

...

If you mean publish something on tweeter while browsing a WMF project, I can't see the point. I'm sure most users know they can have more than one tab/window at a time.

Weren't you asking for evidence to back up similar assertions a minute ago? :D

You are right, I will try to make research on the subject, "Measuring Tabbed Browsing" seems to provide some (hopefuly) meaningful results. Thus said, here I'm not trying to convince you that most browser users know how to use tabs and windows. I am asking you what would be the gap it would fill as I am unable to find it by myself.

...

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature.

All appologies, while I for sure have a tech background, I didn't meant to sound elitist. On the contrary, I'm asking you to explain me what is the obvious need that you hope to fill with such a feature and that couldn't be achieved within Wikimedia, espcecialy with the coming Echo extension. Discussing is a great way to discover how hard it is to agree on "obvious things" because our representation of the world is an idiosyncrasy.

...

Of course sharing buttons would be wonderful for our readers - that is the whole point of the internet, facilitating the building of the web of links!

Sure, but I just don't understand what prevent you from building links within Mediawiki. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Thomas Morton

2:42 p.m.

...

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no

idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature. *rolls eyes*

Sorry, I don't mean to be snippy but this discussion always frustrates me. It's the sort of elitest tech snobbery (anti-social-networks, lack of understanding of how 90% of the world use the web, etc.) we suffer from.

What would it achieve? Well, people share content all over the web to their network; Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, etc. Facilitating this is obvious The reason it hasn't happened yet is that the editing community seems generally politically against the idea of social networks, so anything relating to them is evil! ;) Why should be only be building and sharing content within Wikimedia? The vast majority of the consumers of the site could not care one thing about "within Wikimedia", and that is fine. Foisting it upon them is the poor approach :D

...

espcecialy with the coming Echo extension.

I'm not sure how the Echo extension is relevant to sharing Wikipedia content as widely as possible. It's an internal notification system. :S I'd be *very *disappointed to see us build a system for sharing content internally (which is what you appear to be advocating), that is not our purpose (to be a social network).

...

Of course sharing buttons would be wonderful for our readers - that is the whole point of the internet, facilitating the building of the web of links!

Sure, but I just don't understand what prevent you from building links within Mediawiki.

See above; are you really suggesting that no one should be sharing content outside of Mediawiki?? ;) Tom

Mathieu Stumpf

3:39 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 14:42, Thomas Morton a écrit :

...

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no

idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature. *rolls eyes*

Ok, but what I don't understand is what prevent them to share links to Wikimedia projects?

...

Why should be only be building and sharing content within Wikimedia? The vast majority of the consumers of the site could not care one thing about "within Wikimedia", and that is fine. Foisting it upon them is the poor approach :D

...

espcecialy with the coming Echo extension.

Ok, it seems to me that I am really misunderstanding what you are talking about.

...

See above; are you really suggesting that no one should be sharing content outside of Mediawiki?? ;)

Of course not, it looks like I just don't understand what are the barriers that seems to annoy you. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Thomas Morton

3:45 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 14:39, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 14:42, Thomas Morton a écrit : Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no

idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature. > > > *rolls eyes* > Sorry, I don't mean to be snippy but this discussion always frustrates me. It's the sort of elitest tech snobbery (anti-social-networks, lack of understanding of how 90% of the world use the web, etc.) we suffer from.

Ok, but what I don't understand is what prevent them to share links to Wikimedia projects?

Nothing; as you say they can copy the link and paste it to Facebook. But that doesn't mean making that process *easier *is a bad thing! :)

...

Why should be only be building and sharing content within Wikimedia? The

vast majority of the consumers of the site could not care one thing about "within Wikimedia", and that is fine. Foisting it upon them is the poor approach :D

Yeh you're considering the problem too narrowly here; we're not talking about contributing to the development of an article. For example; a social news site I hang out on regularly has interesting Wikipedia articles posted to it. The comments then involve discussing the topic and putting forward our personal experience, viewpoints or related information. None of which is relevant to the Wikipedia talk page :) (e.g. NOTFORUM). Tom

Samuel Klein

19 Apr 19 Apr

12:20 a.m.

It's a fine idea, certainly good enough and popular enough to be worth testing -- say, on logged-out readers. Once we have some data on how much this is used, we can decide how and where to include it. As with any new feature, it might make sense for the first tests to be on a community most friendly to it. So for instance spanish wikinews has a significant (80k followers) twitter presence: we should clearly be able to offer a "tweet this" option that they could turn on in their interface. And on general principle, I think we should be able to run any such tests at 0.01% density on the largest projects -- so as to get statistically interetsing results with minimal visibility or impact on active community members. SJ On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

If you mean publish something on tweeter while browsing a WMF project, I can't see the point. I'm sure most users know they can have more than one tab/window at a time.

Weren't you asking for evidence to back up similar assertions a minute ago? :D

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature.

*rolls eyes* Sorry, I don't mean to be snippy but this discussion always frustrates me. It's the sort of elitest tech snobbery (anti-social-networks, lack of understanding of how 90% of the world use the web, etc.) we suffer from. Of course sharing buttons would be wonderful for our readers - that is the whole point of the internet, facilitating the building of the web of links! Tom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

Daniel Zahn

12:31 a.m.

in the past i would have liked this feature on commons. l after i uploaded new images to commons i would have likely used a feature to share this on other networks. like "I just uploaded new images to wm.commons.. see here" for one it would show people (my friends) that i have uploaded new images and i don't have to put them on, say FB itself, and it would also point out to others (non-Wikimedians) there is an alternative place where your images can be free added as a feature request last year: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40456

Benoit Landry

1:44 a.m.

I regularly Tweet or (share on Facebook) diff, discussions, articles or other pages. I'm not sure an on-wiki button would necessarily augment the rate at which I post Wikipedia stuff on my social media accounts... ~~~~, Salvidrim -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Zahn Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:31 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Tweet this page" from some or all sites??? in the past i would have liked this feature on commons. l after i uploaded new images to commons i would have likely used a feature to share this on other networks. like "I just uploaded new images to wm.commons.. see here" for one it would show people (my friends) that i have uploaded new images and i don't have to put them on, say FB itself, and it would also point out to others (non-Wikimedians) there is an alternative place where your images can be free added as a feature request last year: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40456 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

David Gerard

18 Apr 18 Apr

1:11 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 11:51, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

...

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature.

Your entire objection appears to be "I personally don't want to do this, therefore your request is stupid." This is somewhat obnoxious. - d.

Mathieu Stumpf

2:40 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 13:11, David Gerard a écrit :

...

On 18 April 2013 11:51, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:

Those said, I don't use Twitter in the first place, so I really have no idea what kind of gap you would like to fill with your feature.

Your entire objection appears to be "I personally don't want to do this, therefore your request is stupid." This is somewhat obnoxious.

Sorry, I don't know if it's my rhetoric skills which are so bad or those which are answering me that are particularly inclined to interpret my text in such a "obnoxious" manner, but I'm sure that I didn't mean something like "I personally don't want to do this, therefore your request is stupid.", nor even thougt such a rude thing. My objection would be more something like "I'm afraid that this kind of actions could threaten some general policies of the Wikimedia movement, policies that promote human values that I share". -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Thehelpfulone

2:49 p.m.

On Thursday, April 18, 2013, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:

...

My objection would be more something like "I'm afraid that this kind of actions could threaten some general policies of the Wikimedia movement, policies that promote human values that I share".

Which policies would those be? -- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone

David Gerard

2:51 p.m.

On 18 April 2013 13:49, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thursday, April 18, 2013, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:

...

> My objection would be more something like "I'm afraid that this kind of > actions could threaten some general policies of the Wikimedia movement, > policies that promote human values that I share".

...

Which policies would those be?

So far, it's apparently a gateway to advertising. Mathieu, I'm not a huge advocate of Twitter buttons, and I think the neutrality objection (do we favour a few services, or have 2000 buttons?) is a serious problem. But your arguments so far have been absolutely terrible. - d.

Katie Chan

2:56 p.m.

On 18/04/2013 13:51, David Gerard wrote:

...

We already selectively choose which outside service we display when a user click on say an ISBN number or geoip. Doing likewise for share buttons wouldn't be something new.... Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Mathieu Stumpf

5:07 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 14:56, Katie Chan a écrit :

...

On 18/04/2013 13:51, David Gerard wrote:

We already selectively choose which outside service we display when a user click on say an ISBN number or geoip. Doing likewise for share buttons wouldn't be something new.... Katie

I admit you have a point here. How were this services selected? Was it a community process? -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton

5:17 p.m.

Something like this buttons? http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil_nas_escolas On 18 April 2013 12:07, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Le 2013-04-18 14:56, Katie Chan a écrit : On 18/04/2013 13:51, David Gerard wrote:

We already selectively choose which outside service we display when a user click on say an ISBN number or geoip. Doing likewise for share buttons wouldn't be something new.... Katie

I admit you have a point here. How were this services selected? Was it a community process? -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884

Mathieu Stumpf

3:57 p.m.

Le 2013-04-18 14:51, David Gerard a écrit :

...

On 18 April 2013 13:49, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 18, 2013, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:

> My objection would be more something like "I'm afraid that this > kind of > actions could threaten some general policies of the Wikimedia > movement, > policies that promote human values that I share".

Which policies would those be?

Oh, well sorry for that, any advice that would help me to make more constructive/positive comments is welcome. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

billinghurst

2:49 p.m.

New subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Tweet this page" from some or all sites???

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:28:54 +1000, billinghurst <billinghurst(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I am wondering why there is no "tweet this page" capability through the WMF sites? It is so widely available through the web, and here is a

range

...

of sites that would be a prime place to do it, and NADA, no capacity. Even if we had it for something like https://blog.wikimedia.org/ would

...

a good place to start. However, the ability to easily tweet about a

book

...

at Wikisource, an article at one of the WPs all sound like marvellous things to easily do. Regards, Billinghurst

Hmm, a whole lot of personal preference has been shared. For the good folks who solely have a wikipedia focus, neutrality, etc. ... open your minds as WMF is bigger than Wikipedia! WMF is bigger than each of our personal biases and approaches. It is for all of us, not just the flavour that we individually want. This place is full of people, which makes it a social site, but definitely not its primary purpose, that said, its complete and utter purpose is to share and to share with people, a clear social activity. We are NOT an archive, and a tweet is just one way to share a piece of information. There was an excellent article last year (somewhere on the web) about a researcher who tweeted and otherwise engaged in social media forums about her scientific research and she had empirical data with regard to far great activity and interaction with her research from that approach; rather than the research just sitting in a electronic database where people had to go and dig, or didn't! In my initial post I mentioned two places of perceived use, specifically the blog, and Wikisource. Though I can see that wiktionary, wikiquote and commons are all great candidates to be able to tweet something. And yes there are privacy concerns, though one would expect that the users are already those who have accounts, and then it becomes about eyes-wide open (explanations). I also think that there are enough privacy experts around who can assist to minimise adverse consequences. Thanks Tilman for your answer, that will be great, and addresses my primary question with a solution. And to James A for his explanations of some of the existing aspects. I am not advocating that we look to all social media forms, or that we have a careless approach. It may be gadgets, it may be things that people can turn on and off. Not exactly certain, I just know that like sharing newspaper articles, that I wanted to share a blog post. Regards, Andrew

Tobias

5:17 p.m.

On 04/18/2013 04:28 AM, billinghurst wrote:

...

Since we have this discussion every now and then, I've started a page on meta to gather supporting and opposing arguments and to identify potential difficulties: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media_plugins Please participate in improving that page! Regards, Tobias

4022

days inactive

4023

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

52 comments

22 participants

tags (0)

participants (22)

Andy Mabbett
Benoit Landry
billinghurst
Brion Vibber
Daniel Zahn
David Gerard
James Alexander
James Alexander
K. Peachey
Katie Chan
Mathieu Stumpf
Matthew Roth
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
Samuel Klein
Sarah Stierch
Stevie Benton
Thehelpfulone
Thomas Morton
Tilman Bayer
Tobias
Tom Morris
Tomasz W. Kozlowski