Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing

In order to increase participation, Wikipedia 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 of proposed change
Humans are social beings, so Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Wikipedia'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)
 * 5) Vital. Without some friendly interaction, I would probably  have said "Bugger that for a lark - why bother?" after a wobbly re-start, and never come back again.  Instead of which, I am now hooked.  Without the interaction, I may well not stay hooked. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. The 'friendly interaction' bit is how I found my mentors (and hand-picked some darned good ones, too!)  Without that, I would have had real trouble in knowing with whom I could develop some working rapport  - and rapport is a fundamental ingredient for a good mentor-mentee relationship. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)  Adding: my first article since re-starting, with the moral support and much help from my mentors (found through talk-page chat) has just done DYK and had over 9000 views.  No way would I have been able to do this without the friendly, sociable interaction.  Pesky  ( talk ) 06:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes (I guess) but isn't this what we're doing already? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Yea As one who is probably a bit too social at times, I'm inclined to think that a bit of chit .. and chat, around the water-cooler isn't really such a bad thing; at least until I get my first paycheck. — Ched :  ?  02:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Tryptofish
I saw the RfC notice, and, sorry, I disagree. Wikipedia 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) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  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 -  St ar bli nd  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)  Jayron  32  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  *YES! 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 &#124;  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 Wikipedia. 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 talk • contribs 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) The community is vitally important, but it's a community which discusses problems on noticeboards and collaborates on article talkpages &c. A sense of community can help motivate and engage people (and I suspect it helps deter some forms of vandalism; most humans are very good at fitting into unspoken social norms) but I think that encouraging more socialising would draw active editors away from contributing to the encyclopædia. I get along well with my colleagues, and that helps us do our jobs, but putting a minibar and pool table in my office is not going to improve productivity among existing colleagues or attract the right kind of new recruits. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 17)  Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 18)  &oelig; &trade; 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) One reason I edit from IP addresses is that I hate the "social" aspects and cliquishness that wikipedia already has.  Please don't make it even worse.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Allowing more "socializing" on talk pages is a bad idea and will most likely lead to more drama and trolling and other counterproductive results that will harm Wikipedia more than it will help it.-Schnurrbart (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) We don't need more tangential activities, we need a better focus on building an encyclopedia and improving its quality. Empty socialising invites the clueless good-for-nothings and busybodies. The good kind of socialising that we should encourage happens when working together on a concrete task. Hans Adler 08:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) I know this is right, and I know I tend to push the boundaries at times. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Certainly increase socializing for those who want it, including myself sometimes,  but not on the site itself.    DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) –  iridescent  19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Skinny87 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) I share the sentiments of the other position and in fact, cherish the comraderie I've had enjoyed with other editors. However, in my opinion, socializing on a more proactive scale would prove a distraction to both our objectivity and focus. Allreet (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Brammers (talk/c) 21:33, 7 May 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)  Mark   Dask  08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr.Z-man 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) (albeit with low enthusiasm for IRC) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) A nice webchat, perhaps divided by topics, would be nice to have. Mono (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Wikipedia does need to be more welcoming, but not to the point of random blabbering. Sumsum2010 · T · C  16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree, including with increasing the visibility of the IRC channels. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * comment I agree that we don't want more CREEP, but I can't see making a fuss if a couple people hold a conversation on a few user talk pages. — Ched : ?  02:26, 13 April 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. Wikipedia 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) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  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. Wikipedia 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    talk    22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  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 Wikipedia 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 &#124;  My Talk   01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 13)  Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) If users want to get to know each other beyond the usual levels of on-wiki interaction, they can exchange contact info through Special:Email and take it from there.  We shouldn't encourage that either (WP is not a singles bar), but I'm sure it happens quietly sometimes and I don't have a problem with it on that basis.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) . Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) –  iridescent  19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Skinny87 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 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 Wikipedia 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 talk • contribs 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)
 * 10) To an extent, I agree.  There are some of us, though, who prefer interacting with people on-page, who can be somewhat uncomfortanle with IRC for various reasons, and who either financially, emotionally, or logistically (real life issues) can't do the Wikimania or Wikimeetups thing.  What I've found is that good ideas for new articles can come from a combination of apparently off-topic 'chat' and brainstorming. Synergy works.  It's productive.  I'm personally not 'into' discussions about favourite colours, teams, games ... but who knows what may spring from these roots, which could eventually turn into another good article?  Pesky  ( talk ) 05:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Socializing doesn't mean frivolous chatting. It is an essential feature to be a community.--Netheril96 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) One of the possible ways to build community is suggested here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222. Rd232 talk 08:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Sounds close to my thoughts. — Ched :  ?  02:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Moray An Par (talk) 06:23, 8 May 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, Wikipedia 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)
 * 4) but also agree it shouldn't become the "primary" function of the pedia. — Ched :  ?  02:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

View from Collect
IRC channels are not part of Wikipedia, are not under direct control of Wikipedia (although closed channels exist primarily for Wikipedia business, and not for socializing), and there is a risk that misuse of such channels could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Promotion of such channels for "socializing" is therefore contrary to the reasonable interests of Wikipedia. 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)
 * 3) Agree. IRC poses some quite awkward information risks. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) –  iridescent  19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Skinny87 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  11:35, 22 April 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)
 * 3) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Completely agree that it needs to be restricted to user talk pages, NOT article or project space/talk pages. — Ched :  ?  02:08, 13 April 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 Wikipedia 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 &#124; Talk 11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly. Whats the big deal? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Talk pages are supposed to be for wiki stuff, but we have a loose enough atmosphere that a bit of socializing is accepted if it doesn't become disruptive. That seems fine to me.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) fairly accurate, although some of the guidelines do mention that it's frowned upon.  — Ched :  ?  02:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Lady  of  Shalott  21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Anthonyhcole
The big deal is, chatting about anything other than article content or matters related to Wikipedia is expressly forbidden by WP:What Wikipedia is not anywhere on Wikipedia, including on user pages and user talk pages. I can understand reserving user talk pages for focussed discussion on article content and Wikipedia 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
Wikipedia is a community-edited encyclopedia: it isn't (pace Wikipedia 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 talk 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.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Jayron  32  03:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) — Ched :  ?  02:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Llywrch
First I need to preface my statement by stating that I've contributed to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia. (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 Wikipedia is too serious for even gentle humor; everyone is concerned about making Wikipedia 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 Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents; the fact Wikipedians socialize there leads newcomers to believe that the only way to make an impression on Wikipedia 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. [cf. motivation crowding theory] ... 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, & I want it to grow & flourish into an even better ecosystem of knowledge & learning than it is currently. Instead I've watched Wikipedia 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.


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I endorse the energy from which this flows. I'm sure I am not alone in expressing my fondness for the History of Wikipedia 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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) In the same spirit as Buster Seven. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Interesting history lesson ;) I think you make a very good point in the paragraph about ANI. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Excellent point about ANI.  If the only 'sanctioned' way of interacting (other than expressly that-article-related) is confrontation, we could end up with the majority of our editors being those who have no other method of interacting than being confrontational! And on that note, has anyone else ever read this book?  Pesky  ( talk ) 05:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) People who got in on the ground level and remain still active are generally those with the best perspectives. The original principles of this website should continue to be upheld, and I see Llywrch's view as being closer to those original principles than any other view stated at this RFC.  Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Thank you. I appreciated reading this.  Having once belonged to one of those early social communities that got killed (Esperanza) I do find that I miss some of the aspects of nurturing the community that has gotten lost by the "write articles 100% of the time or you are worthless" mentality that exists.  Thanks for reminding me of what this used to be like "back in the day... -- Jayron  32  03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) I liked reading this too and agree with some parts, but really, in the old days the project was a lot smaller, it was much less valuable as an internet soapbox so there was more idealism and fewer self-serving editors, and the encyclopedia content didn't yet reach as deeply into the areas where most disputes arise now. Today, places like mathoverflow.net have much more of the "old wikipedia" feeling, in part by being very picky about what acceptable participation is, and immediately shutting down "socializing".  They simply focus on areas of common interest (I guess it helps that it's narrowly on one topic) instead of personality displays.  I think WP has also completely lost sight of its original goals, so its spirit has suffered, but this isn't the place for that rant.  In many ways, the community itself has a conflict of interest.  Of the different drastic prescriptions I can think of, more "socializing" isn't one of them.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Enjoyable read. — Ched :  ?  02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Qrsdogg (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) A very thought-provoking read; thank you Llywrch. My account is almost six years old but I only really started editing a couple of years ago, and noticing how much had changed since my brief stint in '05. I do think that there's room for a "mutual support" aspect of the community that is lacking at the moment. We can help each other along and make things more enjoyable without distracting ourselves from the encyclopedia, but making things more Facebooky isn't the way to do it. Brammers (talk/c) 21:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) We need a new WP:AN/K. jorgenev 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Couldn't agree more, especially the "incompetent gardeners & absentee owners, who have inadvertently slowed its growth, poisoned its health & threatened its long-term existence." The people who "run" wikipedia on a daily basis have got so incredibly into policy and principle that they are neglecting what really matters on here, for it to be an enjoyable site in which one can enjoy contributing. Offering a facebook social website format is not what is needed to actually get people to come up with the goods. We are NOT facebook, we are an encyclopedia. And what we need is good content written for us enmasse. If we want to come up with the goods and attract the people we need then we literally have to offer some bait, e.g a monthly prize scheme with a handsome reward which makes potential editors think they are in with the chance of gaining something personally. I only wrote Deforestation in Brazil because it offered a reward as part of the core contest. It appalls me that Sue Gardner could say something so ignorant of what would actually I'm certain bring us the editors we are looking for.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

View from User:The Interior
What do the majority of our interactions here consist of? Debate, argument, and adversarial encounters are more common than collegial collaboration. That ratio is somewhat under our control; i.e. we can seek out editors with similar interests and organize collaborative tasks. But disagreement is a central theme on WP. With disagreement comes stress, and with stress comes disengagement. We're not getting paid - this is one of the ways I rationalize stress levels in RL - it's worth it if it pays the bills. But here, there is no "extrinsic reward" as SG puts it. Nothing but the altruistic belief in the project to counter negative experiences.

I had my first chat on WP's IRC the other night, and found it like a breath of fresh air. I was able to speak freely and asks questions I wouldn't feel comfortable asking on-wiki. Because all of our on-wiki comments are part of a permanent record, we must self-censor anything that could be taken out of context. It's like being a politician with none of the perks.

So I feel that if we are going to retain editors for long periods of time (and it takes long periods of time to do well at this project), we have to strike a balance. Through wikimeetups, IRC chats, and fun project spaces, we must make this a pleasant workplace. Because once you've put in a certain amount of time here and the novelty wears off, it is a workplace. I too wonder why there aren't more editors from the early days, and it makes me question whether editing here is something I can make a long-term commitment to - better editors than me have tried and failed. I am heartened by the fact that we are discussing it though - let's keep at it.


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) This chimes with my thoughts, particularly the 1st paragraph. I haven't tried IRC yet - perhaps I should. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) "A pleasant workplace". What a unique idea! I support it in whatever guise it presents itself. There is enough arguing to last forever. Let's balance it with co-operation. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:s8333631
I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not currently blocked in China, but many social networking sites are, for the simple reason that a site is generally blocked if it could be used to organize a protest (or whatever). If we allow off-topic socializing, I'm sure no-one would want to pander to the Chinese government by specifically disallowing people from organizing uprisings. So, dissidents would quickly realize the potential utility of Wikipedia for that very purpose, and it would be quickly blocked. This would run directly counter to our mission of providing free access to informatiob for everyone in the world. There are millions of english-speaking people in China; Let's not deprive them of our encyclopedia jsut so that a few editors can chat it up on-wiki at the end of the day. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) That's a very interesting point. Thank you for thinking of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment 'specifically disallowing people from organizing uprisings'? Are you talking treason, subversion, etc? In an encyclopaedia? Are you a state security operative? Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   23:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter, I think that you misunderstood what was being said. I understand the comment to mean only that Wikipedia would not practically be able to monitor every social conversation, and thus some such conversation might take that form, with access to Wikipedia cut off before the community here could discover the social conversation and take action to remove it. The point is that we don't want to jeopardize our readers' access to Wikipedia, and encouraging non-encyclopedic discussion might tend to increase the odds of that happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia has been blocked in China many times, mostly because of article content that the Chinese government doesn't like. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an insubstantial portion of the article content "that the Chinese government doesn't like" is the result of activist editors (like the Falun Gong single-purpose accounts) who relentlessly try to incite revolution both on Wikipedia and off it. Reducing the social aspect of Wikipedia may help curtail this improper editing. Quigley (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that a lot of the content the Chinese government has blocked Wikipedia for, has been articles in the Chinese wikipedia (zh.wikipedia.org). We here at en.wp have absolutely no control over what happens on zh.wp.  69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment:China has everyone bending over backwards to please it, while it breaks every rule in the book. Shame on us.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Shame on us if we've been so rigidly ideological as to ignore the fates of 1.3 billion people. It must be thrilling to nationalist warriors or ideologues to effectively exclude one national or political point of view from the encyclopedia, but ultimately, the quality and reach of Wikipedia suffers when our aim is to promote certain political systems rather than to promote comprehensive compendiums of knowledge. As for "everyone bending over backwards to please [China]", I have seen little accommodation of China on Wikipedia; on the contrary, there has been a disquieting trend towards bending over backwards to meet India's censorious demands, all to please the WMF's desire for expansion. But that's okay, because India's good and China's evil, right? Quigley (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. This is a very silly argument. It's like saying that a grocer should not sell nuclear power plants because then the shop might become subject to government regulations that could impact the main business. The real reason why a grocer should not sell nuclear power plants is much simpler: That's not a grocer's job and the grocer is not going to be good at it. Exactly the same holds for Wikipedia and facebooking. Hans Adler 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Theo10011
Wikipedia might not be a social site, there is a strong argument against seeing it go down the road of Facebook or Myspace and trying to emulate something it will never be. However, I do think there is a unique social community here. The sort of social interactions and the like minded individuals, you can find on Wikipedia are unlike any in the social sphere. The spectrum of editor is so wide that no matter how obscure someone's interest might be, they will find someone else interested in the exact same things. I love that aspect of wikipedia.

You can debate a person about the most trivial of things for hours on end on a talk page, work on an article together or just hang out on the IRC listening to random chatter. Of course, there are always those debates and edit-wars and arguments that makes someone rethink things, some people get lost in those or turn away entirely but when it's all said and done, I wouldn't change even those. There are also these cool projects undertaken by community members to support each other, my current user-page for example was designed by someone else and I reviewed a GA status article as payment. Then theres the folks on IRC, I remember a while ago, I talked with someone I didn't know for an hour about an odd ice-cream flavor in a shop somewhere near mount fuji at 3 in the morning. You can't have conversations like those.

I think the social aspect is already there, we just need to make it more prominent and support what's already there instead of copying someone else. We definitely need to increase IRC visibility for everyone, and highlight social projects so more people can complain to each other. ;)


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) sign you name here
 * 2) "...social interactions and the like minded individuals, you can find on Wikipedia are unlike any in the social sphere". Exactly. Improved social relationships improve the "workings" of the "encyclopedia we love to edit". <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Yogesh Khandke
Though it may sound a little boring, it is a strong no from me. Editors could spend the time, writing better articles, and reviewing those which are written, I wonder what the percentage of Articles to FA is? There is so much to do and so few hands. This social thing would dilute Wikipedia's mission. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC) The one who wrote it.

View from Ched
OK, to be honest there's a bit of a back-story from my side. I actually had an oppose or two at my RfA because I tend to be chatty and social. I agree we don't want to emulate Facebook, and nobody needs to hear "I'm going to go potty now". I also agree that we don't want idle chit-chat on article talk page, or in project space. However, I think that sometimes a bit of friendliness can go a long way towards encouraging a (new or veteran) user to add some good things to the 'pedia. Example:
 * user a: Hey, how ya doin?
 * user b: good, you?
 * user a: not bad. Whatcha been up to?
 * user b: tryin to get things sorted out in
 * user a: cool, I'll take a look, and see if I can add anything.

I've read through WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOT), and in a large sense it reads more like a "guideline" in the sense that it's very general. Meaning, I wouldn't want to add more WP:CREEP to it, but I'm not in favor of landing on someone who has a bit of a chat with a friend on their talk pages. To be perfectly blunt, those that are here solely to edit articles, are perfectly free to ignore a bit of a chat between a couple users on their talk pages.

In other words, if we start landing on someone for talking to (or making) a friend, we're gonna chase them off anyway. If we actually "talk" to someone, it may bring them into the fold in a productive way.


 * (apologies to the actual User:B, it was purely an example)

— Ched : ?  02:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) well duh, I wrote it. — Ched : ?  02:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Hey Ched, how ya doin? I'm just signing here to indicate that my view, above, wasn't meant to imply that anyone should actually find fault with someone else for saying something neighborly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Dead right!  Pesky  ( talk ) 07:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Hey Neighbor! Glad you stopped by. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) This reminds me of a joke. Wish I could remember enough of it to share it with y'all. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Lady  of  Shalott  21:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this view
 * 1) Not to be unfriendly, but wading through reams of chit chat can't possibly help what dedicated editors do. The proposal is not to clamp down on courteous or even overly effusive exchanges, but to keep what few clamps there are, however one might regard them. Allreet (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)