Wikipedia talk:Social networking

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Essay v guideline

My intent in writing this is that I hope it's actually a guideline. I've called it an essay for now as that status won't be particularly disputable. If it becomes clear over time that this is really a guideline, eventually it can be marked as such. Friday (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

I've been involved with Adoption for several months now and while I understand that some editors misuse it as a venue for socializing, I've been paired up with several editors who really did want to learn Wikipedia. In fact, one needed advice on an ongoing Arb case. I don't think Adoption is so broke that people should avoid it, but maybe we can come up with a way to pair up editors with mentors that doesn't encourage people who just want to chat. Shell ^babelfish 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be better as an informal thing? Looking at the current Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User and even some of the early versions like this, it looks to me like this program was severely misguided all along. I'm surprised it wasn't deleted sometime around then. I'd be in favor of marking it historical and encouraging people to do this as needed on an informal basis. I consider it an attractive nuisance - some of the people most drawn to becoming adopters are the last people who should be mentoring anyone. I'm not sure I see a way to fix this problem as long as the program exists. Friday (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the particular program probably wasn't handled well. Something informal like a category which identifies editors willing to mentor maybe? One other thing that's bothered me lately is the Award Center that so many of these misguided editors manage to find. There have been several award possibilities posted for adopting a certain number of users and I think several of the people who had no business mentoring came at adoption from that route. Again, I'm not opposed to (though not very impressed with) the Award Center concept in general, but I'm genuinely shocked at some of the "awards" over there -- if there has to be such a place, limiting it to awards for improving the quality (not number) of articles would be a good first step. Shell ^babelfish 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love the sin, hate the sinner

Or maybe it's the other way around (tempus fugit/fugit tempus). The purpose of this essay should not be to find ways to make social networkers go away and not use Wikipedia, the purpose should be to explain that Wikipedia is not a place for social networking and social networking is not appropriate on Wikipedia. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to make this clear is to stop being such a welcoming environment for these people. We can't complain that they misuse Wikipedia when other editors actively help them do it. These other editors ought to know better; this essay is aimed at them. Friday (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think there's a signficant difference between newbies who want to learn how to contribute and happen to make friends along the way and need to help doing so vs. those whose primary goal is making friends. Not that there's anything wrong with making friends -- it should just be done in a more appropriate venue -- and there are a plethora of websites for that purpose. How does setting someone free in article space help if they need to be watched by so many admins at once? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]