On 10/01/15 09:17, Brian Wolff wrote:
I think its important to separate two types of social
media interaction:
*allowing people to post their favourite article (share this links)
*meta level interaction (stuff about the community)
Nobody objects to the second afaik. The first is like proposing nsfw
filters on commmons (ie get ready for the pitchforks).
Hmmm, IIRC I did actually propose NSFW filters on Commons at one
point. I'll happily propose this one too.
As far as i can tell, the arguments (on enwiki)
usually boil down to:
*providing a share this link is a tacit endorsement/free advertisement of a
website we dont like. Selecting who to show could present neutrality issues
Yes, there's a risk we could end up with an alphabetical list of
hundreds of social networks to share an article on, like
Special:Booksources. Better than nothing, I guess.
*privacy concerns (this is usually a knee jerk
reaction. I think that many
of our users have some notion that third party cookies and remote
javascript loading = bad, without entirely understanding how those things
work and not realizing that any proposal would almost certainly not involve
the common approach of loading external resources)
By the same argument, we should probably ban all external links.
*contradicting the "serious" tone
In my experiance, some wikipedians (esp. On enwiki) feel the wiki should
have a very formal tone, and that share this links are out of place. Ive
always wondered if thats partially in response to all the "wikipedia is
unreliable" talk from academics when 'pedia first became popular causing
people to want wikipedia to have a dry academic feel associated with
reliability.
Surely this is an untenable argument now that the websites of so many
scientific journals have share links? e.g.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/6/1721.abstract
-- Tim Starling