Getting from five recommendations to four: bury social networking?

Getting from five recommendations to four: bury social networking?

Technically, we were supposed to have only four recommendations. Right now we have five on the short list. That's bad.

We may already have our four. There was pretty universal support for two of them: improved dispute resolution, and improved rewards/recognition. Those are already in. There has also been no opposition to "new/improved volunteer roles" and "new/improved tools". If we added those, we'd have our top four.

Which is a major reason I think we should abandon the social networking proposal. Sjc (who appears to be AWOL now), wanted to "bury" social networking features. I was sympathetic but on the fence. I've since moved towards stronger opposition, and other editors have shared that view. So in addition to it being less appealing than the other four, it also has significant problems. Social networking may make the cabal problem much worse, for a debatable benefit.

That adds up to support for blocking it. That said, I know that Bodnotbod worked very hard on it. I don't want to just abandon it without him checking in. Or if someone else wants to speak up for it, maybe we can discuss whether it's a better recommendation than any of the others, or if there are other ways to salvage it.

The deadline has passed. But I want to move on this before the 19th, to cement our top four recommendations and eliminate confusion.

Randomran16:03, 14 January 2010

I support adding Social features because I think that it has a large potential for bringing and keeping under-represented groups, particularly females.

Integrating into existing social websites is already happening. For example Wikimania 2009 had a Facebook page, as does Wikimedia Denmark. Many users have blogs. I think that finding ways to tap these features will boost user satisfaction.

FloNight♥♥♥16:48, 14 January 2010

I have significant issues with burying social networking as well - I am not a member of the task force, but I strongly support leaving it in... we don't know the outcome of the "cabal" issues, and we won't until we try it. We need to be open to experimenting with these things, and this is a request we hear over and over from users...

~Philippe (WMF)17:14, 14 January 2010
 
  • Shrug*

This task force was asked to form a consensus about 2-4 recommendations that would have the most impact. The other four recommendations came out of numerous discussions about what would be helpful, and have zero or limited side effects. Social networking represents a fifth recommendation that encountered significant controversy, and runs counter to the actual problem we identified: that there are actual factions who are coordinating to make Wikipedia a worse place.

I acknowledge that there is significant support for social networking, to match opposition. So it's incumbent on us to find a compromise:

  • We need to allow room for a fifth recommendation, and find a way to contain the cabal issue ... OR ...
  • We need to cut out the controversial aspects of the social networking proposal, and incorporate the rest into an existing recommendation ... OR ...
  • The supporters of social networking have to make a persuasive case that it is somehow a more valuable recommendation than the other four, and come up with the data to support it.

Is there a compromise that lets us salvage the social networking idea?

Randomran22:41, 14 January 2010
 

I started a recommendation for social features for the Reader Conversion task force. I'm using CH as a base but will modify it to address bringing the under-represented demographic.

FloNight♥♥♥22:46, 14 January 2010
 

Thanks FloNight. This is a compromise I can support, and I'll try to help out once you've taken a crack at it. I think there is a way to get the best from social features, without as many negative side effects.

Randomran23:06, 14 January 2010
 

I think that's a reasonable position to take. But then there has to be some "give" by the people who support social networking features. There's a decent opposition to it on valid grounds. Do you honestly think that it's a higher priority with better impact than any of the other four?

... you know, since the "reader conversion" task force hasn't produced any recommendations, and since you think social networking could convert more female readers, it would clearly fall within their scope. We could polish it and add it under the "reader conversion" task force. Might seem like hijacking, but really, the task force is abandoned and needs someone to pilot it.

What do you think?

Randomran17:13, 14 January 2010
 

I think that incorporating social features and networking into our wikis and into our onsite philosophy has the potential to have the greatest impact because it could make some other of our recommendations doable.

FloNight♥♥♥17:27, 14 January 2010
 

(Hit send to soon) I think that moving it to Reader Conversion task force could work, as long as we note that we initiated it as a possible measure to assist Community health.

Many task forces have noted the overlap between the topics we each are addressing. I see this as good since it shows that we are on the same track.

FloNight♥♥♥17:32, 14 January 2010
 

Making room for it as a fifth recommendation, geared more towards reader conversion, might be a good way to salvage it. I can get on board with that. I read a few objections that social networking won't do much to help, but seeing as our other community health recommendations will have no direct impact on converting readers (except maybe the "find stuff to do" interface), it would be good to do at least *something* for reader conversion.

The remaining objections relate to forming groups for the purposes of advancing an agenda, and canvassing a group in a way that runs counter to building a consensus. I've said before that this is an objection I share, but I don't think it's insurmountable. We could at least mention the objection, and maybe even come up with a few ways to prevent it, or address it once it happens.

Randomran22:46, 14 January 2010

As it is up to the larger community to decide whether or not to actually implemt the recommendations or not, I think it is a good idea to pass this idea on to the community. Make notes about what the possible pitfalls might be. I don't think it is a good idea to drop a recommendation with great potential just because of the uper limit of 4 recommendation. Especially not as some Task Forces not has produced any recommendations at all, and the total amount of recommendations are less than initially hoped for.

Dafer4509:30, 15 January 2010

Go for it. I'll link up a fifth observation if you set it up.

~Philippe (WMF)16:21, 15 January 2010
 

FloNight is already working on adapting it for "reader conversion".

But if you think it's a good idea, we can have a second version of the same proposal here, giving us five recommendations.

Or we could just post some kind of link to a single unified version.

Which makes more sense?

Randomran16:33, 15 January 2010

My preference is that it be endorsed by a group and not an individual. Community Health has so far not succeeded in coming to agreement on any proposals, so my preference is that (rather than being a recommendation of a single individual, as at community health where it is essentially just FloNight - and me by proxy), it be proposed by a task force. I think it carries more weight that way.

Sorry, Flo, for having you do it over there just to request that it be proposed here! Philippe

~Philippe (WMF)17:41, 15 January 2010
 

Got it. So to be clear, the community health task force will make five recommendations, which will include a cleaned up version of social networking. And we'll leave the reader conversion task force alone?

Randomran18:40, 15 January 2010

That would be acceptable to me.  :) If one of you would just add the new recommendation to the /recommendations page, or let me know what the page name is, I'll do it.

~Philippe (WMF)19:13, 15 January 2010
 

Done. Hopefully I haven't missed it anywhere else.

Randomran21:56, 15 January 2010
 

We propose social network project to "Expanding Content" task force

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Task_force/Expanding_Content#Proposal_-_Fusion_of_social_network_and_Wikimedia_2757

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Fusion_of_social_network_and_Wikimedia

Let me move proposal to this task force.

I think it is reasonable to deal with social network features in one place.

Achech21:48, 17 January 2010
 
 
 

This is a late reply... I understand the wish for integrating social networking features into the wiki site, as it allows for more direct discussing of issues evolving, but I have a fear: The fear, that it would lead to more closed groups of editors of an article, collaborating only amongst themselves, and rigorously protecting "their" articles from anyone else' edits. Can anyone refute that argument?

Nageh12:06, 9 February 2010

Social networking features could be as open as traditional message board, or closed as facebook groups. So I think it depends on the implementation.

Dafer4512:23, 9 February 2010
 

I'm glad you share those concerns, because it's a concern that a lot of people have echoed. But as Dafer pointed out, so much depends on the implementation. The more open and broad the groups, the less likely they are to be promoting a narrow agenda. We already have WikiProjects, which have some problems but are generally pretty good about having a diversity of opinions.

I really really want to consult with the foundation on where they're going though, because I'm worried they might miss the potential for disaster.

Randomran15:13, 9 February 2010
 

I think i and Randomran raised loudly our concerns on the potential abuses of the social networking features.

@Randomran I think Philippe diligently transmitted our opinions to the higher-ups.

Bottom line if those features screw up blame the Foundation.

KrebMarkt19:29, 9 February 2010