Misplaced Pages

:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buster7 (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 22 March 2011 (→View from User:Llywrch: in the highest regard...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:44, 22 March 2011 by Buster7 (talk | contribs) (→View from User:Llywrch: in the highest regard...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Project page Requests Resources for Guides Email templates Userpage templates Guides (members) Resources for New Users "When I first joined..." Home Project Talk page RfC on welcoming RfC on socializing RfC on IP editors creating pages RfC on CSD to userpage drafts Minimizing talk page templates New Pages

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In order to increase participation, Misplaced Pages should allow more socializing.

This is part of a series of RfCs that came about early during the Wiki guides project. The objective is to generate new active contributors to help fulfill the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increased participation. A recent update from the Wikimedia Foundation is helpful in understanding the need for new users. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Humans are social beings, so Misplaced Pages should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Misplaced Pages's IRC channels.

View from User:TomStar81

This is not Myspace. This is not Facebook. This is not Sparta (although to be honest at times I am sure we have all wished it was since there is always that one guy you can think of that you'd love to shove down the bottomless pit :) This is an encyclopedia, and as such it is a site intended to capture and present knowledge. Yet the people behind the pages - the men and women who endeavor to edit here - are people, and to deny us the ability to socialize a little - to have designated spot chat, to carry on a non encyclopedic discussion on talk page, etc - denies a fundamental fact that we as humans are sociable creatures. After my family fell apart around me I found the days spent in the house alone to insufferable to the point where I would go to school just to have someone to hang out with. This experience instilled something in me: No man is an island, but several men working together can form a peninsula. By WP:NOT mandate, we are at this point all islands; we are not suppose to treat this site like facebook, or myspace, but this is bad for morale in that it forces volunteers to approach this as a job. We already have pages we maintain simply for the lolz to be found in them - pages like the wikiholics test that serve no encyclopedic purpose, but help us form a sense of community as Wikipedians. Why not build on this by loosening the restraints on socialization a little? If you come to know our neighbors better than we will be able to look forward to working with others toward a common goal, rather than working for a goal at the expense of others. Approached form a more social angle our site would not appear so rough around the edges, which could help us gain new users by creating an environment in which they do not feel threatened if they ask a question or two and are encouraged to make friends to in the course of learning the ropes.

I will admit that we will need to define how best to approach this venue if we are in agreement that this would help our site. If we do not change then our fate will be to forever be ignorant of our community, but if we change too much, then the encyclopedia element of wikipedia will end up being choked off. We will have to determine that ourselves as we go along - assuming of course that we decide to BOLD in this respect.

Users who endorse this view
  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Well said! JaneStillman (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I too support an emergent Community spirit. Buster Seven Talk 20:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Tryptofish

I saw the RfC notice, and, sorry, I disagree. Misplaced Pages is not, and should not become, a social website. Frankly, there is too much of this already, and it sometimes verges on cliquishness. (Cabal, anyone?)

But I'm a big fan of inviting new users to "feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here". I do that all the time. The difference is that it still stays focused on building an encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --J04n(talk page) 11:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Shanata (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. There are countless places online to argue, chat, and play games. We are not one of them. If anything, the few social elements we do have have proved largely nothing but problematic, for example the mostly-incorrect but still hard to shake impression among many users that those who frequent IRC and Wikimania and such are givent preferential treatment. The last thing we need to do is add to that further. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. While some "socializing" is inevitable, opening the floodgates would be an ill choice. Collect (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Jayron32 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. We are here to build an encyclopaedia. We are civil, we are polite, we are even friendly and supportive, but let's be professional and maintain appropriate relationships with each other. Friendships can interfere with judgements, can lead to inappropriate levels of support, can result in slanting the development of articles. It happens - we know it happens - and when it happens sides are drawn up for battle and it turns ugly. Article development should not be decided by who has most friends. SilkTork * 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Of course there is "socializing", we are doing it now, and occasional jokes break out at ANI etc. You can come and offer suggestions or ask a question on my talk. If I feel like it, I'll reply. However, encouraging chatter would be very unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. MER-C 13:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Agree that socializing should be kept to a minimum, and that it should be centered around editing Misplaced Pages. There's nothing wrong with a "Feel free to drop me a line if you need any help/have any questions", but encouraging all-out socializing would be counterproductive. – GorillaWarfare 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Mr.Z-man

I agree with about half of this. We should increase the visibility of the IRC channels, and possibly look into expanding socializing to other places. But creating policies about where, how much, and about what topics people are allowed to socialize is just a recipe for bureaucracy and it will be counterproductive. Yet all of those will be necessary if we want to allow on-wiki socializing but still want to maintain encyclopedia building as the primary focus of the site.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. (albeit with low enthusiasm for IRC) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. A nice webchat, perhaps divided by topics, would be nice to have. Mono (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Misplaced Pages does need to be more welcoming, but not to the point of random blabbering. Sumsum2010·T·C 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Agree, including with increasing the visibility of the IRC channels. – GorillaWarfare 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Fetchcomms

Absolutely not. I, for one, believe in blocking MySpacers as soon as possible because they distract other users (especially younger ones), as well as waste my own time trying to get them to work on articles instead of chatting about nonsense. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and making it seem social will not help advance that goal, no matter how many new users start coming here to gossip. Creating limitations on how much chatting is too much, etc. only hurts the building-an-encyclopedia process.

IRC is an entirely different beast. It is both useful and harmful. We should neither be encouraging nor discouraging it, especially as it is not regulated via WMF policies and there are significant privacy risks involved. Instead, we should simply detail the pros and cons of IRC on the relevant page and let users figure out if they should use it.

Users who endorse this view
  1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I agree about IRC, which is what I was getting at above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. The first part, I endorse. Misplaced Pages has a generally younger audience; this would make a mess. Mono (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6.   -- Lear's Fool 10:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Alpha Quadrant 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. HaeB (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Per Clay Shirky (, see also) and Wilfred Bion, who decades ago showed how universal, basic urges like banter and gossip can derail a collaborating group from pursuing its common purpose. Even if one were to disregard this, and redefined the purpose of the Misplaced Pages community to include "meeting and hanging out with friends", one would need to shed the naive expectation that this would only bring positive interactions ("a bit of friendship and community kinship", as someone puts it below) - building and moderating a functional community for socializing is hard work too, something that Facebook and Myspace staff are surely aware of. - All in good measure, of course; there's no need to police every little offtopic joke between users that mostly do productive encyclopedia work. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Any encouragement of chatter would result in a deluge of unhelpful nonsense, starting with jokes on talk pages of BLP articles, continuing through trolling at noticeboards ("I was just socializing!"), and a lot more. Agree about IRC. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. MER-C 13:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. as a chatter on IRC I agree --Guerillero | My Talk 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Kaldari

The fact is, we already have socializing but it's restricted to 3 specific groups: those geeky enough to figure out IRC; those with enough money to go to Wikimania; and people who work for the WMF or chapters. I don't see any reason why the rest of the internet should be chastised for wanting to do the same thing on-wiki. Instead of enabling a cabal to form (as suggested above), I think it would balance out the existing "cabals" by allowing a greater diversity of voices, and in a more transparent medium. I also think it would be a boost for editor morale, by making Misplaced Pages feel more like a group effort and less like a thankless job. That said, we should make sure that social features never supersede our top priority--writing the encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. The last sentence is key. Having a stronger community is great, but if managing the community distracts from building the encyclopedia, it defeats the purpose. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Buster Seven Talk 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support. Our top prority is writing an encyclopedia but we must also be a community if we are to succeed at that. (imo, the problem of myspacers is greatly exaggerated generally by those that socialize more then anyone else.) Said totally in my capacity as a volunteer editor and administrator and not as part of the WMF. James (T C) 21:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support. In any real life group of volunteers, the 'beers in the pub' socialising afterwards is an important part of what keeps people coming back. It makes people feel part of a group. It sparks ideas and collaborations. Discouraging socialising is counterproductive.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Me too. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. I can support expanding the current level of socializing to be more all-inclusive, but it should not interfere with editing. – GorillaWarfare 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Agree, but there's a fourth way for Wikipedians to socialize, & it's telling that Kaldari overlooked it: participating in Wikimeetups. Is it just my faulty memory, or were these far more common five years ago? -- llywrch (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Buster7

I don't see how a bit of friendship and community kinship can endanger the encyclopedia we all cherish. No one is proposing a 24 hour frat party just a normal acceptable level of interpersonal friendly contact. If you choose not to participate, that's fine. Remain stoic. But with the growing widespread use of Facebook and Twitter as vehicles for Worldly communication, Misplaced Pages needs to embrace a modicum of increased social interaction by editors. Camaraderie would improve some of the indifferent and sarcastic interchanges that take place. We naturally assume good faith. Why not assume friendship too. Buster Seven Talk 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Buster Seven Talk 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Me too. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

View from Collect

IRC channels are not part of Misplaced Pages, are not under direct control of Misplaced Pages (although closed channels exist primarily for Misplaced Pages business, and not for socializing), and there is a risk that misuse of such channels could bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Promotion of such channels for "socializing" is therefore contrary to the reasonable interests of Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Collect (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Shooterwalker

I think some socialization could be productive. But I see it as dangerous if it takes place in the article talk space. Maybe in certain designated areas. If the community were a little more social, maybe it would be more inviting and bigger. Maybe we would fight a little less if we all knew a bit more about each other -- your favorite movie, the political candidate who inspires you, where you're from. And sometimes people need to blow off some steam and talk off topic. Sometimes. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Peterstrempel

Socializing isn't forbidden or prevented now. I have seen lengthy asides in talk pages that no one has censored or trashed. It is true that contributors should be mindful of sticking to the point in article talk pages, but what's wrong with dialogue in user talk pages?

Personally I will probably never really want to know what your favourite colour is, or what music you listen to, but exchanges about Misplaced Pages and the many topics covered here are just part of life. With a forum open for editing, it was inevitable that this would occur. What's the big deal?

Users who endorse this view
  1. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Exactly. Whats the big deal? Buster Seven Talk 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Anthonyhcole

The big deal is, chatting about anything other than article content or matters related to Misplaced Pages is expressly forbidden by WP:What Misplaced Pages is not anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including on user pages and user talk pages. I can understand reserving user talk pages for focussed discussion on article content and Misplaced Pages matters, but can see no point in restricting what happens on user pages, provided it's not excessively consuming resources. We should be able to talk about whatever we want on our user pages with whoever we want. I do. But presently I could be sanctioned for it.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Rd232

Misplaced Pages is a community-edited encyclopedia: it isn't (pace Misplaced Pages Review) constructed by hordes of a-social monkeys bashing at typewriters. We should do more to encourage socialising in limited ways (safely away from article talk pages, above all) which help build and maintain the community, and therefore the encyclopedia. We do this in various ways anyway, but we could do more. The concern about WP:NOTMYSPACE is valid (the purpose remains building an encyclopedia), but it's just one of the issues here. I mean, it has to be remembered that we're all volunteers, and motivation and support is rather important: it's not like we're beavering away thinking about our paychecks.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Rd232 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, one of the biggest issues I have with the staunch opposition to this is "rawr it takes away from time spent working on the important part", but as THIS IS NOT A JOB, it's all a question of people doing what they want to, it not. I think Rd232's view is just about what I think -- promoting a 'good feeling" of being here is what's needed, and if a bit of socializing helps, then so be it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. So....Does this mean that the check is NOT in the mail? I endorse this view.Buster Seven Talk 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Llywrch

First I need to preface my statement by stating that I've contributed to Misplaced Pages for well over 8 years now. One thing that means is I may be the longest active contributor here, which is something I feel no joy in: I feel a little more lonely every time I discover one more person has left who was an active Wikipedian when I started.

As to the proposal, I'm not sure what it means or how it should be adopted. I don't see how making Misplaced Pages more like Facebook would solve any problems. I may be saying this because I consider social networking sites like Facebook to be nothing more than huge time sinks, & I have enough of those in my life. But I suspect there aren't very many Wikipedians who would like that: of the two Misplaced Pages groups I belong to on LinkedIn, only one has any traffic, & that has been about three or four messages in the last 6 months. Even a networking site like ResearchGate seems to be dead & without any obvious benefit for a private scholar -- hopefully, the ideal Wikipedian -- like me.

On the other hand, we need to nourish the social side of Misplaced Pages more. When I started back in October 2002, there were a lot more attempts to encourage social interaction completely unrelated to creating an encyclopedia. There were no WikiProjects back then, but there was an organized group called the "Misplaced Pages Volunteer Fire Brigade" whose goals was to welcome & inculturate new members, which was done without templates (didn't have them then) or bots (nor those); I haven't heard about it in years. At one point someone found all of the photos people had put on their user pages of themselves, & made a gallery from them; I remember Jimmy Wales commenting that his picture was the only one that had any books in it. And then there was "Misplaced Pages: Bad Jokes and Other deleted nonsense", created simply to build community. At one point, some humorless individual convinced himself that this collection of pages was "not appropriate" for an encyclopedia, & with help from others repeatedly nominated it for deletion without success until they came up with the excuse that the proper proof of open licensing could not be established for any the material. And then, it was gone.

Did any of you know that the Signpost was created as a means to help build community? While it still exists, despite having gone through several editors-in-chief, I sometimes wonder if it still serves that purpose.

I could provide more examples of how things, once upon a time before any of you were part of this, were far more sociable. Back when we were comfortable with being a just a band of amateurs -- or to use Samuel Johnson's famous phrase, a group of "harmless drudges" -- & we could laugh at ourselves, especially when presented with jokes like an Encyclopedia Brown parody involving Misplaced Pages. (I can't find it now; I wonder if the site has been removed due to copyright infringement, or more likely people forgot about it & the site was accidentally deleted.) But now, everything involving Misplaced Pages is too serious for even gentle humor; everyone is concerned about making Misplaced Pages professional, & being kind to the newbies, & woe to anyone who doesn't turn the other cheek & is as warm & kind as a therapist. (I can attest, from years of experience & observation, that kooks, publicity hogs, & lusers who think its funny to troll Wikipedians have at one point or another have successfully mimicked every possible iteration of naive yet earnest newcomers. I'm not surprised that an otherwise reasonable & easy-going Wikipedian once in a while actually tells an annoying editor to fuck off & die.) The issue really isn't that we should not bite the newbies, but that it's amazing more of them haven't not only been bitten, but that someone hasn't gotten medieval on their asses. Established editors need love too.

But I doubt we established, long-term editors will ever receive any. Not when one of the few non-content pages where Wikipedians have the possibility of socializing or standing out is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents; the fact Wikipedians socialize there leads newcomers to believe that the only way to make an impression on Misplaced Pages is to be an enfant terrible or otherwise stand out with incivil behavior. People who quietly write articles, try to play nice with other editors, or otherwise make a minimum of fuss are met with silence -- which unfortunately sends the message that they don't matter as much as a semi-literate editor with poor social skills who is dragged to WP:AN/I on a regular basis for being a jerk, yet finds an adoring crowd of supporters to defend him there. The troublemaker is rewarded; the good Wikipedian is ignored, discouraged, & leaves.

And that's part of the reason I get nasty when someone like Sue Gardner makes an inexcusably stupid remark, such as ways to motivate contributors should exclude "extrinsic rewards, which are demotivating to intrinsically motivated people. ... we know money is out. ... I think extrinsic rewards that work for us and are authentic in our world include things like tenure support letters, or scholarships to Wikimania." Language like that leads me to suspect that she believes in that obnoxious phenomena known as "crowd sourcing", that she doesn't value my contributions, & that I should be happy with just being allowed to contribute. She wouldn't have a job without the contributions & sacrifices people like me have made to create the content that has made Misplaced Pages one of the top ten websites today.

I apologize for drifting off into bitter rant here. I'm allowing my emotions get the better of me because I do care about Misplaced Pages, & I want it to grow & flourish into an even better ecosystem of knowledge & learning than it is currently. Instead I've watched Misplaced Pages fail to achieve its potential because of incompetent gardeners & absentee owners, who have inadvertently slowed its growth, poisoned its health & threatened its long-term existence. I wish I could provide a simple & quick solution for all of this. But I can't. And I worry that the people who have the power to do something not only lack one, they don't know they're clueless. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the energy from which this flows. I'm sure I am not alone in expressing my fondness for the History of Misplaced Pages and the esteem for the veteran editors that made it. Thank you, Editor:Llywrch. Behind all our made-up names are human beings. You cause me to remember the social neighborhood vegetable and flower gardens in the Major City in which I grew up. Without them, we would all have been strangers. Buster Seven Talk 20:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Example

Duplicate this section. Then, in the first copy, replace "Example" above with your username. Then replace all this text with your view on the situation and sign your name below.

Users who endorse this view
  1. sign you name here
Category: