[WikiEN-l] Hi there, everybody!

[Emily Monroe]

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

I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.

Emily
On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:15 PM, stevertigo wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Fred Bauder  
> <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>>> However, I am becoming more
>>> interested in the "social" aspect of wikipedia, which is why I  
>>> joined
>>> the list!
>>
>
> 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
>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l