Community: Difference between revisions
m remove a funny character |
m Reverted changes by 183.171.67.103 (talk) to last version by Minorax Tag: Rollback |
||
| (81 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<languages /> |
|||
Is wikipedia really a '''community'''? Why or why not? State your views here: |
|||
{{Essay | specifiedcategory = Essays related to Wikimedia{{#translation:}}}} |
|||
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 1em 1em;">[[Image:Wikipedia community.png|Wikipedia community]]</div> |
|||
<translate><!--T:1--> |
|||
: No! We're a ''family''! Like The Tallini Family. But with more beards! -- Tarquin |
|||
This page is about '''community''', about interactions between users through wiki projects. Formerly this page opened with the question “Is Wikipedia really a community?” Now, the situation is much broader. |
|||
<!--T:2--> |
|||
Some say wikipedia is not a community because it doesn't share body risk. And from a first glance, it might be true, first because there might be a lot of pseudonyms writing compared to real people writing, second because sometimes only ip are writing, so can't be considered real persons. Proof is they are not considered real people, they are not included in that "voting system". It is unlikely a community could be built on virtual people maybe. |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia community.png|thumb|right|This obsolete diagram shows not-Wikipedia projects as part of the Wikipedia community. It is obsolete because such projects attract users who are not from Wikipedia, and users who contribute much more to those projects than they do to Wikipedia.]] |
|||
<!--T:3--> |
|||
Before I thought a community could be built because people were sharing a vision, some ideals (building a free encyclopedia together). But though I share things with my wikipedian fellows, though I (sometimes) appreciate them much, it is not a community. A community goes beyond the simple sharing of a simplified vision. Maybe is that more a moral issue then. And clearly, many among us don't share some values I consider essential to my well-being and peace of mind. Or likely, quite a bunch of us could share it, if we took time to think about it. |
|||
[[File:Wikimedia community.png|thumb|right|This is an attempt to show a Wikimedia community partitioned into different projects, perhaps ignoring that some users contribute to multiple projects.]] |
|||
<!--T:4--> |
|||
Tarquin is quite right here. From my own definition, it is more a family than a community. We don't choose a family, we belong to it. |
|||
[[<tvar name="participation">File:2004 WMF Election participation2.png|thumb|right</tvar>|Users from <tvar name="ENWP"><bdi>enwiki</bdi></tvar>, <tvar name="DEWP"><bdi>dewiki</bdi></tvar>, and <tvar name="FRWP"><bdi>frwiki</bdi></tvar> effectively own the [[<tvar name="election">Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2004</tvar>|2004 Board election]]. Click image to zoom.]] |
|||
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 1em 1em;">[[Image:Wikimedia community.png|Wikimedia community]]</div> |
|||
Still, I am bothered by this notion that wikipedians can't constitute a community on behalf they do not share body risks. If we only consider those wikipedian who are humans, with a real body, we are all part of at least one community, the human community; and right now, we all more or less are sharing the risk of being hurt or killed, by war, by aids, or by an asthma attac due to a poor atmospheric quality, in short, simply because we are causing pain to the place we all live in, thus to all species, thus to us. |
|||
== Body risk == <!--T:5--> |
|||
In biology, a community is a group of species living together, strongly inter-related. Ie, mostly benefits, but also, some disadvantages for some of the species, as long as the whole community benefit from it and is in a stable equilibrium. It is not about risk first, it is about equilibrium, each species regulating itself thanks to and through the others. Untip it, and the whole community breaks up. And the most diverse the community, the more stable it is. |
|||
<!--T:6--> |
|||
Maybe is it a semantic question, and we don't all have the same definition of what a community is ? |
|||
An early claim was that {{<tvar name="wikipedia">ll|Wikipedia</tvar>|Wikipedia}} is not a community because it does not share body risk. The pseudonyms and IP addresses do not correspond to real people; it is unlikely a community could be built on virtual people maybe. Because the not-Wikipedia projects also allow pseudonyms and IP addresses, they have the same situation. |
|||
<!--T:7--> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
One idea for Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia together through the common goal of building a free encyclopedia. However, a community goes beyond the simple sharing of a simplified vision, and includes common community values. In 2012, English Wikipedia appears to have common values as well: [[en:WP:GF|assume good faith]], [[en:WP:PA|no personal attacks]], [[en:WP:NPV|NPOV disputes]], and user talk templates. {{<tvar name="wikinews">ll|Wikinews</tvar>|Wikinews}} also has those four attributes, but not in the same manner. In not-Wikipedia, not-Wikinews projects, NPOV disputes and user talk templates appear to be much less important. |
|||
<!--T:8--> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Perhaps Wikipedia and Wikinews are more like families than communities. One does not choose a family, but belongs to it. However, a [[wikt:family|family]] is a cultural idea that varies worldwide, so this paragraph may be incomprehensible to some peoples. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
*[[False community]] |
|||
<!--T:9--> |
|||
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Election_participation2.png an image to keep in mind when we talk of community] |
|||
Some users remain bothered by the notion that {{<tvar name="wikimedians">ll|Wikimedian</tvar>|Wikimedians}} cannot constitute a community because they do not share body risks. If we only consider those Wikimedians who are humans, we are all part of at least one community: the human community. Right now, we are all sharing the risks of being hurt or killed, by war, AIDS, or by poor atmospheric quality. In biological terms, a community is a group from one species living together and strongly interrelated. Communities cause a mixture of benefits and disadvantages; communities are stable when, over time, both the whole community and the individuals that make it up benefit. Diversity and communality both play roles in community. |
|||
[[Category:Community]] |
|||
== Wikibooks and partition == <!--T:10--> |
|||
<!--T:11--> |
|||
Wikibooks is a special case. The project divides itself into multiple, autonomous book projects. [[b:en|English Wikibooks]], in particular, is lacking a mechanism to repel new book projects that are outside the scope of Wikibooks, given by a [[b:en:WB:WIW|official enforced policy]]. |
|||
<!--T:12--> |
|||
Wikisource likes uniformity: a single standard [[s:en:Template:Header|Header template]] on English Wikisource introduces most texts. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<!--T:14--> |
|||
It is already so. For example, we have {{ll|IRC channel cloaks|IRC channel cloaks}} for different Wikimedia projects, and we also have "wikimedia/" cloaks. At least on Freenode, we can have a Wikimedia community. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<!--T:16--> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* {{ll|False community|False community}} |
|||
* {{ll|IRC channels|IRC channels}} |
|||
* [[:File:2004 WMF Election participation2.png]] ''image showing "community"'' |
|||
</translate> |
|||
[[Category:Community{{#translation:}}|Community]]<!-- this essay is not the main article of this category --> |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:42, 19 January 2024
|
(English) This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
This page is about community, about interactions between users through wiki projects. Formerly this page opened with the question “Is Wikipedia really a community?” Now, the situation is much broader.
Body risk[edit]
An early claim was that Wikipedia is not a community because it does not share body risk. The pseudonyms and IP addresses do not correspond to real people; it is unlikely a community could be built on virtual people maybe. Because the not-Wikipedia projects also allow pseudonyms and IP addresses, they have the same situation.
One idea for Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia together through the common goal of building a free encyclopedia. However, a community goes beyond the simple sharing of a simplified vision, and includes common community values. In 2012, English Wikipedia appears to have common values as well: assume good faith, no personal attacks, NPOV disputes, and user talk templates. Wikinews also has those four attributes, but not in the same manner. In not-Wikipedia, not-Wikinews projects, NPOV disputes and user talk templates appear to be much less important.
Perhaps Wikipedia and Wikinews are more like families than communities. One does not choose a family, but belongs to it. However, a family is a cultural idea that varies worldwide, so this paragraph may be incomprehensible to some peoples.
Some users remain bothered by the notion that Wikimedians cannot constitute a community because they do not share body risks. If we only consider those Wikimedians who are humans, we are all part of at least one community: the human community. Right now, we are all sharing the risks of being hurt or killed, by war, AIDS, or by poor atmospheric quality. In biological terms, a community is a group from one species living together and strongly interrelated. Communities cause a mixture of benefits and disadvantages; communities are stable when, over time, both the whole community and the individuals that make it up benefit. Diversity and communality both play roles in community.
Wikibooks and partition[edit]
Wikibooks is a special case. The project divides itself into multiple, autonomous book projects. English Wikibooks, in particular, is lacking a mechanism to repel new book projects that are outside the scope of Wikibooks, given by a official enforced policy.
Wikisource likes uniformity: a single standard Header template on English Wikisource introduces most texts.
Can the Wikipedia community become a Wikimedia community?[edit]
It is already so. For example, we have IRC channel cloaks for different Wikimedia projects, and we also have "wikimedia/" cloaks. At least on Freenode, we can have a Wikimedia community.
See also[edit]
- The Wikipedia Community
- False community
- IRC channels
- File:2004 WMF Election participation2.png image showing "community"