From: Michael T. <mic...@gm...> - 2012-03-17 06:49:58
|
"And no one mentioned yet some other types of functionality that are usually grouped into "social software": - blogging - defining user groups based around shared interests - public "favoriting" of content - chat (although there was a link to some chat-based extensions)" "Overlap with", yes. "Grouped into"? Not so much. Take blogging. Blogging is really a kind of publishing. Sure, comment sections on blogs often become somewhat social, as the frequent contributors get to know each other. But when I think of social networking software, it's not just about inclusion and/or publicizing your opinions and knowledge. It's about exclusion and secrets as well. Some people are your friends, acquaintances or family. But most are not. Most things you might post are harmless (to yourself and others) if made accessible by the world. But some are not. This is why we see periodic eruptions of outrage over changes in privacy policies at the major social networking sites. Wikis are also a form of publishing. I'm all for making wikis more social if it also makes wikis themselves better. But you have to beware of competition for people's free time. I think one factor (which I admit is probably not the biggest one) behind the precipitous drop in contributions to Wikipedia in the last few years is the social networking sites. They began to consume ever greater fractions of people's free time -- simply because people found those sites more immediately rewarding (that "dopamine fix" we've all been hearing about.) I know I spend a lot less time editing Wikipedia, now that I'm on FB and G+. I still like doing my little wiki-gnomish things on WP, or starting a new article that looks pretty decent right off the bat because of all the editing skills I've accumulated over the years. But I don't get a "like" from anybody I know, when I do that. I don't get an immediate comment from someone who's interested. Most recently, I just got some ridiculous tagging by a new page patroller who didn't know what he was doing and who took a while to admit it. Wikistress like that is the *opposite* of what makes social network sites appealing, even addictive. Making a wiki better has long-term personal rewards, but it's still basically work, not socializing. Writing, editing, proofreading, fact-checking, correcting -- these are essentially solitary pursuits. I'm all for making that work easier and more collaborative -- and SMW certainly enables ease-of-use (and maybe collaboration) in several ways. But you have to bring in social features without the downside of (net) distraction from the work itself. The challenge, I think, in leveraging social networking for wikis is in identifying (and amplifying) incentives to perform. Specifically, it's how to make contributing to a wiki a form of *real-world* social status and positive feedback. Wikipedia does this to some extent, with its barnstar system, and its ascent hierarchy (editor, patroller, sysop, bureaucrat) and various meters of cumulative activity. But it's not very "real world" because most editors hide behind handles and pseudonyms. In some ways, I think contributing to wikis is currently almost the opposite of a social status marker. To be an ardent contributor to Wikipedia, for example, is to practically advertise that you're irretrievably nerdy. Changing that perception might be difficult. In some ways, Semantic Forms (which reduce the need to know markup) might be the most effective step in the direction of destigmatizing wiki activity. Just in making wikis easier to edit, semantic technologies might already be doing everything possible to make wikis more social *and* better in the long run. -michael turner On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Yaron Koren <ya...@wi...> wrote: > Hi, > > This is an interesting topic, and one I've thought about to some extent. > The big difficulty, I think, with talking about social software is that it > can refer to so many things. This discussion thread is a perfect example - > just in this last set of emails, people have mentioned extensions that do > the following social-software-related things: > > - describing oneself (Social Profile, Semantic Social Profile, Semantic > Signup) > - declaring connections to others (Social Profile, Semantic Social Profile) > - micro-blogging (WikiTweet) > - discussion forums (LiquidThreads) > - feedback on the editing experience (MoodBar) (I'm not sure this one > really counts as social software) > - feedback on other users (WikiLove, Semantic Social Profile) > - feedback on pages (Collaboration Extension, Article Feedback) > - commenting on the contents of pages, not on their quality (Comments) > - numeric ratings about the subject of each page > > And no one mentioned yet some other types of functionality that are usually > grouped into "social software": > > - blogging > - defining user groups based around shared interests > - public "favoriting" of content > - chat (although there was a link to some chat-based extensions) > > So it's a big world out there, as far as social software, and no one system > does it all; even Facebook doesn't offer all of these (though they have > almost all). > > What is, or should be, the connection to Semantic MediaWiki? My general > view is that SMW is better used to describe things in the outside world, > vs. things in the wiki. So the first two of these - describing oneself, and > describing connections to others - make the most sense to me to be stored > via SMW. Thankfully, SMW-based extensions already exist to help with those; > though, as Yury notes, they're not really necessary, since you can do it > all via just SMW (and ideally Semantic Forms). > > Still, more generally speaking, I think there is a connection between these > things and Semantic MediaWiki, which is that both the semantic stuff and > the social stuff fits into a view of wikis as something more than just a > holder of text-based documentation. > > If I may be permitted to give a plug, I actually plan to give a talk about > this very topic, entitled "Semantic MediaWiki and "enterprise social > software"", at the next SMWCon, in Carlsbad, California, at the end of > April: > > http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/SMWCon_Spring_2012#Friday > > -Yaron > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Krabina Bernhard <kr...@kd...> wrote: > >> This also seems to be a nice commenting extension: >> >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments >> >> regards, >> Bernhard >> >> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> > Hi Yury, >> > >> > > Semantic Forms seems much more powerful and flexible and next >> > > versions of SSP >> > > won't be based on Social Profile. >> > >> > that's very interesting. In the wiki I am currently implementing, I >> > am planning to use SMWS/Semantic Forms in order to populate the user >> > page with semantic data. There is already pretty much you can do >> > with standard SMW functionality and most of the features of Social >> > Profile I don't need in a corporate setting e. g. for an SMW serving >> > as intranet (friends/foes, user levels, gifts etc.) >> > >> > What I would imagine being useful is to be able to "follow" another >> > wiki user, i. e. his/her "tweets" (WikiTweet extension) and follow >> > his/her edits in a wiki. This could probably be implemented quite >> > easily as the edits of another user are stored in MW anyway... >> > >> > I haven't tried the collaboration extension yet, becaus it seems to >> > need SMW+ which I don't use, but maybe I should give it a try on a >> > regular SMW installation. >> > >> > And yes, the Article Feedback extension really is worth a try! >> > >> > regards, >> > Bernhard >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user |