Talk:List of social software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Social bookmarking

The article Social bookmarking contained a large list of social bookmarking services. I moved them all here, as I believe this article is a more appropriate place for such a list. Their insertion here is by no means an assertion on my part regarding their value; please feel free to trim the list as needed. I moved them here solely to get them out of the social bookmarking article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of Social Bookmarking sites is a very diverse list. I've deleted Bloglines and Netscape. Bloglines as a news reader, or Aggregator, does facilitate a form of social human contact via an online service, however if it were to be considered a bookmarking service, then the list ought to be subdivided to include social news aggregation sharing services, or something similar. Netscape is more known as a social news site. Again this is a form of social news aggregation, not Social bookmarking in general. I also believe that Newsvine ought to be removed from this list as it too is more news aggregation than bookmarking. Digg borders social bookmarking with a community popularity website. --Veeliam 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources that state or list what is a social bookmarking site and what is a social news site? That would be a very useful thing to find and cite, both for this article and the social bookmarking article. Dreamyshade 09:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Filipino Bookmarking Service (bookmarks.philippinecountry.com)

Philippine Country Bookmarks is hosting an opensource bookmarking software by scuttle. The aim of this service is to aid the Filipinos in particular to have their own Filipino bookmarking software dedicated to Philippine topics only. This will also help on easy learning about Philippines for the students and researchers. Adding to the list will be a help. Ariellim 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: merge

I don't think the merge is a good idea; at least considering the current form of List of social software. It's a large list of external links. Unless we're talking about eliminating 99.9% of them, I think merging that list article here would only degrade this article. Give any space in this article for a list, and we'll be fighting linkspam to no end. At least right now we can isolate the links on the list article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Against: the resulting article would be too long and unwieldy. --Buridan 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the anonymous IP, I hadn't noticed I wasn't logged in and didn't get round to adding in the talk page. I agree with the comment about linkspam, but the article is just a long list of links that are mostly duplicated in the main article. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia - is there a better way of managing this? Blowski 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

the way to solve it is to move any listed materials to here from social software. in line links though are different. lists in wikipedia provide the referentiality of an index or table of contents. --Buridan 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, just speaking from personal experience - I was using the article for research - I found it confusing as I only discovered the list by accident. What's more, there are some articles in the article that aren't in the list, and vice versa. It's the same problem with the search engine / list of search engines articles. Not sure on Wikipedia style here, but just giving a preference.Blowski 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of overlap between List of social software and Social cataloging applications. The latter does seem to be a large subset of the former, so I guess I'm weakly against the merge. --Karnesky

[edit] Cleanup time!

Ok I think it's time to clean this article up. As Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, I propose we remove all the external links, making this article a list consisting solely of internal links (wikilinks). If a particular piece of social software isn't notable enough for its own article, I don't see why we need to list it here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This list is unwieldy in scope. I'm slowly making it into a "list of lists" (those lists being both more comprehensive and better policed), but I think that it should probably just be a category. "Social applications" category can the cats of IM, IRC, etc. Thoughts? --Karnesky 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, its 4 months later, and I am about to remove all the red-links. Normally I do not absolutely object to red-links for articles forthcoming, but in this area there are so many lesser-known products that I think those that cannot justify a WP article should go. DGG 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, they shouldn't have links on this page unless they have an article, as they get articles add them to the list (if they do). --71.113.161.31 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slashdot ??

is it social software to be considered in the list ? --Notopia 13:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that one could make a convincing argument for including it here, particularly as it has changed over the years to add social and social-like features. However, I don't think that a Wikipedian should be the one to make that argument but if you can find a reliable source substantiating the claim then it would be fair game. --ElKevbo 14:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of this Wiki entry seems.. inaccurate..

This is my very first contribution to anything Wiki, so please forgive me if I do something wrong!

It seems to me that most (if not all--I did not click and check every link) of the items on this page do not refer to social "software", but websites which use social software in their operation. As I understand the term, "software" usually means just that--computer software--not a website which uses such software. Thusly, the title is ambiguous; I found it while doing a search on a search engine for "social networking software," while looking for actual software to create my own social networking website.

As a suggestion, what about "List of social websites" or "List of websites using social software?"

Regards, Casteele 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several apps here that are NOT websites, though (and the list currently links to IM, IRC, MMORPG, etc lists (which are full of mostly stand-alone apps. "Software" thus seems accurate. I think we should probably just turn this list into a cat already. With no redlinks/external urls & with no category, it doesn't do much that a category couldn't (and we do have subcats for many of the "types" of social software already). --Karnesky 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording was a bit hasty (I wrote it quickly as I was in a hurry to find something and get a website up for a client).. I think the word "software" used in the title is too narrow for the content, which contains lots of links to various social software, websites, articles, etc. I also understand that the term "social software" itself is often broadly applied (even if not correctly used), and sites like MySpace, FaceBook, etc., are often cited in articles about social software--but they are not usually the main focus.

I'm thinking more as a person who picks up an encyclopedia to look something up: If I were to look up, say "automotive software", I would expect to find information about the software itself that is used in the automotive industry. I would not expect to find a listing of websites selling automobiles or discussion groups for fans of specific automobiles, etc., even if such websites made extensive use of software specialized for automotive needs. (Other than in sidenotes and footnotes, that is.)

By the same token, I can understand things like IM's, IRC, etc., all of which are software apps aimed primarily at social settings. Yet, listing specific IRC networks, user-made groups on Yahoo!, etc., would not be appropriate. Those are the end-results provided as part of the functionality of the social software. IE, I'm making the distinction between the social software itself, and how it's used--in relation to the article title, which implies the former but not the latter.

I do agree about maybe turning it into a cat.. But even then, the title still doesn't seem to fit properly. -- Casteele 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not think it should be a cat, and i think the title reflects the category as defined. 'social software' is the set of things, it is not currently a neologism that someone created for wikipedia. you might disagree with it conceptually and critique it even, but nonetheless 'social software' is this set of things and your current critique seems to propose that we can take the words apart and say no no, it isn't those things. thus i suggest a google search be performed to see what is generally known to be social software and what is common usage. I do not think that the argument put forth above has any merit when compared with common usage.--Buridan 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I thought long and hard, and wrote several replies. But ultimately, it all comes down to a few key points:

  • I have continued to do more research on the topic, Googled for more information, consulted other Wiki articles, etc. My findings are that there is a lot of debate and differing opinions regarding the proper definition and usage of the term, even amongst the "experts"/"authorities" on the subject. There is no "common usage" I have seen, as each side claims it's own views are "common usage" (and if supporting citations are given at all, simply cite others who claim "common usage"). But if they are all common.. Well, you get the point.. I hope. If someone can provide a proper supporting citation to the contrary, please do.
  • I'm not really even debating or questioning whether or not the term is proper in and of itself. That is a debate for another forum. I am questioning if it is proper and correct to use it as this article's title. The debate on the definition and proper use of the term is only material in-so-far as the question of whether the term is ambiguous or not. So long as it remains debated, it remains ambiguous.
  • The article is titled simply "Social software," but then the first line of the article goes on to expand that with: "This is a list of notable social software: selected examples of social software products and services that facilitate a variety of forms of social human contact." Why condense it then expand/qualify it at all, creating ambiguity? "Social software products and services" would make a suitable title, both encompassing it's content and avoid any question or debate on the usage or ambiguity of the term at all.

I also want to point out that my points of searching, what "software" means to me, what I expected to find, etc, were not meant to be assertions of my singular opinion on the subject, nor "taking apart the words." Rather, I was trying to point out that the name is ambiguous and does not stand out as what a normal person would reasonably expect when doing a search for the term. I am somewhat experienced in the digital technology fields, and I am not totally ignorant of the terms commonly used. Yet I still stumbled across this article while searching for, and expecting, something entirely different.

I asked myself, "what would my client search for if he decided to do this himself instead of hire me? How would he cope with the confusing flood of information, much of which was not related to what he wanted?" The article would have still come up on searches, but a longer and less ambiguous title would have made it more obvious that there was content other than what was expected and allow him to choose another link to follow more suitable to his needs. Or he could have still came here, but been more prepared for the actual content instead of suddenly overwhelmed by an unexpected flood of unrelated info.

I remember the advice I heard often from my editor while writing tech manuals, articles, FAQs, etc. (not an exact quote, sadly, it's been many years): YOU may have ten years of experience, training and schooling with your subject matter. YOU may know every term, phrase, and meaning you need. YOU may know the right words to use and the right places to look for the information you need. However, never assume your READER possesses the same knowledge as you; They are your reader because they are seeking the information you are providing. Casteele 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)