[Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Yao Ziyuan yaoziyuan at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 14:19:09 UTC 2012

Instead of hosting comment sections on Wikipedia, there is also the
possibility to just retrieve external comments using Google Blog
Search. For example, if you're viewing [[Cat]], you can click a button
called "Show comments" below the article, which will run a Google Blog
Search that returns all blog posts mentioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat, sorted by date or by relevance
(PageRank-style sorting, which can automatically surface the best
comments to the top).

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is, we tread a narrow line here.
> We want talk, but of a contributory kind, high signal-noise, high
> proportion of information. There are three kinds of "discussion" that can
> take place:
>   1. *User feedback* - characterized by specific one-off posts left for
>   others to uprate or downrate and (presumably as far as they're concerned)
>   editors to hopefully do something with or listen to.  Ideally this filters
>   3 ways - (a)* ignore, (b) pass to editors with thanks, or (c) note but
>   no action taken, with explanation and thanks*.
>   2. *Editor discussion of the article*, high quality dialog specifically
>   about the article, or good points fed back on it.
>   3. *Discussion of the _topic_, or general chat, forum-y stuff, random
>   whatever*... this is what people also expect. Look at any popular blog
>   or facebook page, the chat below is often just people discussing the
>   subject, what's said about it... low signal to noise generally.
> The article feedback tool is working towards (1); when it's closer to
> complete I imagine articles will have a "give feedback here". (2) we
> already have. *
> What is worth asking is, is there a place in Wikimedia for (3)?* If so it
> can only be for social interest and "stickiness" (people who discuss may
> contribute or at the least will be made more aware). It could be very good
> for that. The downside is it attracts advocates, might draw attention away
> from content discussion, needs patrolling (distraction from content), etc.
> So here's the focused question -- is there a net return from the "plus"
> side, and if so is there a way to get that benefit that returns more than
> it costs?  Where:
>   - "returns" will be oxygen for the project generally and articles
>   specifically, awareness, wider attention, stickiness, more public eyeballs,
>   a way to get some more focus here of the kind social sites leverage, and
>   maybe a start for more editors from (3), and
>   - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality
>   discussions (1) (2) and article editing as a result of patroling and other
>   needs of (3)
> (And of course the standard of comparison could be "better of two evils".
> For instance if the crystal ball says a wiki project dies due to fading
> attention then maybe chat and patrolling is net harmful but less harmful
> than eventual loss)
> FT2
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM, David Richfield
> <davidrichfield at gmail.com>wrote:
>> I would like to add my voice to the list of those who say that this is
>> a very bad idea, for reasons already listed.
>> One kernel of truth is that users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia
>> expect discussion at the bottom of EVERYTHING on the web.  Blog posts,
>> videos, facebook posts.
>> Maybe at the bottom of the page, put a big fat link to the talk tab?
>> I would not mind social media buttons at the bottom of a page, but I
>> think I'm the minority here.  I certainly don't think it's
>> strategically necessary, but I'm no strategy expert.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list