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