Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Miscellaneous/A social wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal ►

 ◄ Back to Miscellaneous  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


  • Problem: actually all contact with the other users it's only with discussion pages and articles, but isn't possible to follow the actions of users who problably are your wikifriends
  • Who would benefit: users with a long experience on wiki
  • Proposed solution: create a social connections with users. Possibility to check easily what they do and what they modify.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Codas (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Is this different than Provide a 'user-watchlist' that lists all recent contributions of a set of users which was voted into the top 10 in the 2015 survey? That functionality was investigated by the CommTech team and determined to be too easily abused by bad actors to be implemented. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems to be somewhere between that and Facebook-style friending. Anomie (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • wikimedia projects have many elements of social networks, even if some here vehemently deny this. I agree with the Proposer that it i s almost impossible to keep track of "friends", especially if you have many on busy projects. How to do this without enabling bad actors is another question. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the problem of a wiki community itself. You can just create user categories for users from specific town, whith specific hobbies and working or school background. I have proposed the creation of such system years ago on cs.wp, but I had no stamina to discuss it. And it is also not about stamina, but also about free time, as you can discuss two month and you should argue with people, who say this is not needed, wikipedia is not social, or it is a load for WMF servers (what a bull...).--Juandev (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the big part of why the user-watchlist was turned down was because it allows you to follow someone even if they don't want that you follow them. If you change the feature to be like friending on Facebook, people can easily prevent other people from following them. That way the feature can't be used for stalking. ChristianKl (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Codas: - what do you think of ChristianKl's comment? Is there a way you have in mind for doing this? There's no actionable way to do this defined in the proposal and I'd have to close it if it's still the same within the next 24 hours. Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the best way is to consider connections like facebook. You can ask to follow someone and you keep a connection with him. So you can see what he does, which pages modify and articles create. So you can help him in some situations. Or for example you can remember a specific user for some arguments. For this reason should be good to create a profile with interests in wikipedia. But le't's keep discussion on first idea... --Codas (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
But user contributions are already public. How would this be different? I'm trying to understand what you mean by "create a social connections with users" exactly. Please clarify in the proposal. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are public, but I think it’s necessary to have a link in your account to watch your connections. Actually you have to remember who is and search like all users. In this case is more easy to remind and keep,in touch. Or maybe a page with all modify from your favorite users. --Codas (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposal still does not say what you mean by "social connection". Where will the other person's activity show up? In the watchlist? This proposal is very similar to User watchlist, as BDavis pointed out above. Several users have expressed concerns about this. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Isn't this basically Facebook? As of now the only real difference between Wikipedia ans Facebook is that Wikipedia requires references, so I'm opposed to such an idea. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment The real mission isn't to be Facebook, but use the social connection to help each other or add your skills with similar users. --Codas (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Social" does not equate to "same as facebook". Facebook have not invented nor defines what social is. Actaully, is Facebook "social", really? So my support vote does not go for facebook-y whatchlists, or whatver features. It goes to: study what can be done so that "comunity" makes sense (because I doubt it does in most "social media"). Maybe we're already doing those studies, if so, this is moot. - Nabla (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Potentially if this is abuse prone, require the second party consent for the first party to follow them. Gryllida 00:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is both the best and worse tool for bettering climate on-wiki. The best because it might actually work, people are social animals, and the worse because it invites to group building and stalking. Create a group of users you are following, and another group of users following you. Both groups should be public. Limit the number you can follow that does not follow you back. Allow the number of coreferences to grow if you cooperate with the users on some articles. Allow a user to block another user from following {him|her}self. — Jeblad 00:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

  • Oppose Oppose Go to Facebook if you want to friend G41rn8 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This is contrary to the purpose of Wikimedia sites, and would violate foundational policy over on en.wp. No. MER-C (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per MER-C. Mahir256 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support This is similar to 2015 top 10 wish, but I must support it. Ability to watch user actions of novices or vandals would be super-useful even if allowed only for e.g. admins (because of high risk of abuse) Dvorapa (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Violates our privacy policy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Adding social networking functions probably would not help in the creation of content, since we already have talk pages and email with which to communicate and share usernames for actual social networks which aren't encyclopedias. It would also have probably adverse effects on Wikipedia Zero, and complicate/violate the WMF privacy policy. Jc86035 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose WIKI is not FB. — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose There are social media for that. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose because of privacy impacts Libcub (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support People are using Facebook right now, because they miss social media features in the Wikipedias. A lot of article discussion happens separated fro articles on Facebook. Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose – Completely unnecessary. This is not the purpose of wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Terrible idea. Use Facebook. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose wikihounding extension. Wikipedia is not social media. --Ailura (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Leave social tools to social media, please. --L736Etell me 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose M11rtinb (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Liuxinyu970226 and others. --Vachovec1 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose as this is against fundamental essence of Wikipedia. Ammarpad (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose because everyone else is doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, not a social mediaBraveheidi (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Theklan (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose WNSN. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 20:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support support noting that "social" must not equate to "same as facebook". Nabla (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Szoltys (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Wikipedia like social media? No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedy. Ented (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Termininja (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose As Ented. Wiklol (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Let's not add things that distract users from working with the content. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gryllida 00:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - We are not Facebook. –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose If you have an urge to communicate about Wikipedia, that's what the WP:IRC is for. NotTheFakeJTP (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Wikipedia isn't a social network. -glove- (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose : Wikipedia is just an encyclopedy. —— DePlusJean (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think that this idea sounds excellent. we do need this. Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, this will be much more interesting for stalkers than for good-faith users — NickK (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)