Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

John Du Hart
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, David Richfield
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, FT2 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
> > for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
> > dead ends for so many reasons.
>
> Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
> for each article?  I don't know what Conde Nast's nastiness level is,
> though.
>
> Or maybe a slashdot portal?
>
> Just throwing ideas around here...
>
> --
> David Richfield
> [[:en:User:Slashme]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I doubt relying on a third party service is going to fly.

--
John
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by FT2
On 01/24/12 6:50 AM, FT2 wrote:
> Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
> for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
> dead ends for so many reasons.
>

That usually begins to fail when the proponent discovers that he might
have to pay to keep that site up.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
>> what it is.  A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
>> on.
> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it
> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was
> recently changed back to "talk".
>
>
I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place for
wide ranging discussions on a subject.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Oliver Keyes-4
Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions
on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they
directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well,
"people who are interested in the subject".

On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
>>> what it is.  A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
>>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
>>> on.
>>>
>> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it
>> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was
>> recently changed back to "talk".
>>
>>
>>  I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place for
> wide ranging discussions on a subject.
>
>
> Ray
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

FT2
+1.... exactly

There are 3 basic kinds of dialog - ** editors and participants actively
hoping to improve the article; ** feedback that is intended to have a
decent proportion of useful comments and can be sifted for them quickly;
and **  "chat about the topic, article, and anything else people get into".

However you label them, whatever means and venue we were to use, the third
of those is where the question mark goes.

FT2


On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
> the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
> relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
> can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions
> on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they
> directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well,
> "people who are interested in the subject".
>
> On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
> >>> what it is.  A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
> >>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
> >>> on.
> >>>
> >> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it
> >> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was
> >> recently changed back to "talk".
> >>
> >>
> >>  I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place
> for
> > wide ranging discussions on a subject.
> >
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Oliver Keyes-4
On 01/24/12 3:26 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
> the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
> relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
> can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions
> on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they
> directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well,
> "people who are interested in the subject".
The first part of your comments refer to mechanical issues which
shouldn't invite a lot of controversy. Basic wikimarkup will be the same
on article and talk pages. For the other, having material "subject to
removal" give us the same problem that deletionists cause on article
pages. It requires judging what other people write. Even expecting
minimal relevance to the subject requires judging. I can go to an
article see even a documented point made in it as questionable, but not
have the resources to pursue the matter further. I can't validly change
the article, but I would be remiss in not addressing the issue. Much of
what is on the talk page will be unnecessarily long-winded, but that's a
reasonable price for openness.

Ray

>
> On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
>>>> what it is.  A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
>>>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it
>>> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was
>>> recently changed back to "talk".
>>>
>>>
>>>   I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place for
>> wide ranging discussions on a subject.
>>
>>
>> Ray
>>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

Alec Meta
In reply to this post by FT2
Yao Ziyuan is thinking along the right lines.   Wikipedia can be more
than it currently is.  We need experiments, we need to be experimental
again.

FT2 makes the excellent case that we need a level of 'insulation' to
protect our existing project from the potential negative effects of
failed experiments.

FT2 asks:

>   3. *Discussion of the _topic_, or general chat, forum-y stuff, random
>   whatever*
> ...
> What is worth asking is, is there a place in Wikimedia for (3)?

My own answer is a resounding yes.    The total set of the world's
personal opinion is an exciting data set.

Facebook, Google+, and Twitter capture "discussion" data in bulk.
But Facebook and Google and Twitter don't have Wikimedia's Values.
I don't trust Facebook with my data.  I don't trust Google+ with my
data-- they unilaterally change their privacy policies.

For-Profit companies sell out their users and we all know that's a
risk.   At the same time, we know that  Wikimedia respects its users.
Wikimedia stops things like SOPA in the tracks. I trust Wikimedia.

The more data we have, the more services we provide, the more our
movement thrives and the more we prove that Wikimedia Values work.

Whenever feasible, grow grow.   Don't just be Wikipedia-- be more!   :)
AlecMeta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123