Usability Yes. Social Features, Uh-Oh.

Bodnotbod, I really like that idea. The overall idea makes sense. We can't stop people from having a POV. But we can make sure that groups aren't organized around a POV. That people with multiple POVs end up in the same group.

How do we generalize it into a statement of principle? I'm not sure. But let me try a few "assertions":

  • Groups are organized around areas of content, to allow editors with diverse viewpoints to collaborate.
  • Groups should otherwise be neutral and civil in their purpose.
  • Groups must not take on a partisan purpose, whether through the scope of its mission or its recruitment practices.

Not sure if that's too aggressive, or not aggressive enough. I hope it's close to the mark, though. I think it describes why putting the abortion and anti-abortion people into the same group could ensure neutrality overall.

Thanks a lot for your work so far. The CH task force couldn't have pulled it off without you.

Randomran00:59, 22 January 2010

Cheers Random, the feeling's entirely mutual.

Hmm, so it sounds like we're concluding that the ability to join a "category/group" should not be switched on by default. And that, instead, the formation of such a group should be applied for and then approved. Would it please folk if I make an effort to build this into the recommendation?

Bodnotbod10:35, 22 January 2010
 

I don't know that it has to be "invite only". Just that we want to keep track of who is doing the inviting, and if there is a pattern to the editors they are recruiting. A wide recruitment of active editors is good. But a systematic recruitment of editors who all share a specific POV would give the group undue weight.

But the creation of a group in the first place should definitely have some kind of approval process. And a recall process, too, for extreme cases.

Randomran16:36, 22 January 2010
 

@Randomran

I don't see why anyone could not join any groups as long he/she is an autoconfirmed user. There should be groups log showing who joined or left and when.

The less strict for someone to join a group and broader range of opinions it will permit within this group. So i'm against the idea of "invite only".

KrebMarkt17:03, 22 January 2010
 

Definitely agree. We want groups to be very open. That said, there are people who notify users to join groups already, and we want to make sure they're not canvassing a particular POV to dominate a group.

Randomran17:19, 22 January 2010