Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 81

Just because wikipedia isn't a social networking site doesn't mean that its mission couldn't be advanced by allowing people to more easily share WP articles on social networking sites. I mean, the New York Times' website isn't a social networking site either, and they allow you to share their articles on social setworking sites. I can see how maybe there would be concerns about whether or not the "share" button constitutes an advertisement, but overall I think this is a pretty good idea. Nobody's trying to force you to link your facebook profile on your user page. This request is about making it more easy for people to share articles they find interesting. AgnosticAphid talk 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I view a Share button as a distraction - otherwise it would be perfectly acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a publisher of reliably sourced knowledge. The "Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version" buttons are publishing tools, and are not distractions. A Share button (as implemented at SignPost) is no different. It could be next to "Create a book", or next to "Read/Edit" (whichever is less distracting. It merely allows publishing to other venues and people. WP is an advertiser, as we radically internally link our articles. We also "advertise" our sources, in the References and External links sections. The Share button advertises nothing but other venues for our content, for the purpose of bringing in prequalified readers to specific articles, with the intended side benefit that those readers might become editors,which the Foundation has stated is a desirable goal. --Lexein (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - anybody can do a simple URL for a Wikipedia article now. What we would really be doing would be serving as enablers for the creators of spam and vanity articles, for the paid "editors" showing their employers that they've delivered the goods, and for the vandals (and POV pushers) who want to show off what they've done to Wikipedia articles. I can see the messages now: "o wow the lolz see what I did to show that our skool is run by zombies and principle zanexki is a jew pedofile - rotfl - wiki is so totaly pwned!!!!" --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

On a more personal note: if I wanted to play Farmville or win free jewels for my Gaia Online avatar, I'd be doing that. Instead, I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia, not show off my drawings of my imaginary flying unicorn best friends! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But, as you note, this is already possible. You just have to enter your "o wow teh lolz" post manually with a manual reference to the wikipedia article. Is there a current problem with paid editors doing this? I didn't realize vandalism was such a problem. Is there some way to address related issues (I'm not well-versed technologically, really, but maybe artificially inflated search engine rankings or something?) within WP? This proposal presents the question of how user-friendly it's going to be to share wikipedia articles on networking sites. I feel like your comment is more oriented toward banning links to wikipedia articles altogether so that they can only be found by searching google or the home page. What's the point of purposely making it kind of difficult to share links and find articles? I feel like WP's goals would be better served by making it easier to access content. AgnosticAphid talk 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is precisely that difficulty that discourages the sharing of pages by drive-by vandals/spammers/ego boosters -- the additional time and effort to figure out you can do this and to copy and paste the URL over isn't worth it. MER-C 05:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. We want to drive traffic to the site. Anything that gets us more readers and more editors is a good thing. Virtually every modern web site has Share buttons, from the BBC News[1] to Harvard University.[2] Quite honestly, Wikipedia is out of step with world.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has an Alexa rank of 5. Is more traffic really needed? →Στc. 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia isn't a social networking site, and this would just distract from the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to edit and improve it.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  The main purpose of Wikipedia is to read it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: (edit conflict) Here is a previous discussion on this topic, in case it would be helpful: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 74#Link to Facebook.

Please tell me exactly how a Facebook "Like" button and "Like" counter will do good for Wikipedia? I have little doubt that the Facebook article would get zillions of "Likes" if we added a "Like" button and "Like" counter to Wikipedia articles, because obviously our obsessed-with-Facebook-and-Twitter world really, really likes Facebook. We already have "Rate this Page" boxes at the bottoms of articles that allow readers and users to rate how Trustworthy, Objective, Complete, and Well-written articles are, so please tell me how the Facebook "Like" rubbish will do good for Wikipedia.

Regards,

—{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

I don't want to speak for the OP, but they are suggesting a Share button, not a Like button (which I agree, would be dumb). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You could say that I was directing that comment at Erimjp's comment above. As for the "Share" button, I have no opinion except a request that, if the "Share" button is implemented, it be made as maybe a gadget that can be turned on and off in Special:Preferences. I do not want to have the Facebook and Twitter icons/links staring at me on Wikipedia. I am just going to sit back and watch the community slug this out. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 21:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have a de facto "Like" button; it's the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. –MuZemike 18:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The purpose of Wikipedia is not to edit it (stated above). The purpose is for readers to learn stuff. If readers learn something and want to share it, I think that's a great thing. I'm not opposed to sharing in any fashion but find "share this" buttons unpleasant due to my personal dislike of most social networking sites (I like real friends and prefer to not be collected) and would prefer to not be so frequently reminded of them. Not opposing or supporting. -- fg^TC 21:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• See User:TheDJ/Sharebox. If anyone wants to propose it as a gadget, then do so. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a social network, and it shouldn't give the appearance of one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Well, behind the scenes, WP really is a single-purpose, single-output closed social network of editors, closed in the sense of not interacting outside Wikipedia. But simplifying distribution of content to external social networks, as a user option, and/or a login checkbox option, does not devalue WP or distract from WP's goal. I see it as a publishing tool similar in value to "Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version". --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support as a Preferences Gadget which simplifies publishing Wiki content (URL, Article title, highlighted text), out to social tools. I do not support any non-native gadgets like Facebook "Like" buttons which track IP addresses or place cookies. I expect this would a very popular gadget anyways. It would also accelerate bringing in new editors, a very desirable thing, according to the Foundation. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia which is wide open to dynamic improvement and expansion. The more people share out (publish) WP content, with WP URLs, the more likely more editors will come in and correct and expand. On a personal note, I've been impressed by the increased number of quality IP edits in my watchlist lately. Hopefully that's not a temporary thing. I would also support offering this as a checkbox option at both signup and login. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now on the aesthetic grounds that it looks non-serious. Other than that I really don't mind; there have been times that I've sort of wished for such a button myself. But I think it's important for Wikipedia not to go too populist, image-wise. There may come a point when such buttons are so routine that no one would think of them that way, and then I would withdraw my objection. (By the way we should also get rid of Wikilove and the "ratings" bars at the bottom of articles, for similar reasons). Now you kids get off my lawn. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: Can you please take a look at this article, UCLA Neurosurgery gets $2M donation to establish endowed chair in epilepsy research? I don't think that the Share button makes that site look non-serious. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The users of that site only read. The users of Wikipedia also edit. No unnecessary distractions like "Share" buttons please.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, that's a public-relations-slash-news-release. It's not an encyclopedia article. PR people and journalists will have "share" buttons and this is expected. But we don't do PR and we don't do journalism. We're expected to be just a bit stodgier than that, and if we're not, it reflects negatively on our seriousness. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: Well, how about Nature (journal), the world's most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal according to the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports?[3] I think that is stodgy enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a journal. It's not an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you want an encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a Share button for their articles.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

They also have tons of ads. Presumably the only way they can pay for it, but sorry, looks unprofessional. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: Adding a Share button doesn't mean we also have to have ads. In your opinion, which sites do look professional to you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Other sites are not particularly relevant. This is my opinion of what is best for the image of Wikipedia. Yours is obviously different. You have the right to a different opinion, but I have expressed mine, and others will agree or disagree based on their own intuitions. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that I think people are not talking about a large, glaring, separate button, but an (optional) same-color addition to the Read/Edit/star/ row with a dropdown menu. I think. --Lexein (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose(edit conflict × 2) I really feel that a share button would be counter-productive to our mission. People (especially younger editors) would use it like a Facebook page. And I feel it would clutter the workspace.

Also, one of the things that would need to be discussed would be how the system would work. Would it be visible to anonymous editors? Which buttons would be available? (we'd have to be careful with our selections. People might view it as "endorsing" a certain site.) I feel like this is an area that is a huge can o' worms. Just my 2¢. ~

^{Say hi!}

23:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In my vision, it would live next to the Read/Edit buttons, like the Twinkle button with a dropdown menu. For IP editors, it would be On by default, because though we don't know, and don't want to know, their identifying information, only the destination website wants it. Sharing could be Off by default, but controllable by registered users: enabled by a checkbox at login time, or permanently in Preferences/Gadgets. In Preferences, a long list of checkboxes for destinations is presented, this controls the length of the dropdown list. I'm looking for good examples of Share buttons which preserve privacy until the user is at the destination site. http://AddToThis.com is a good visual example, though ours would be handrolled. There may already be an open-source example. --Lexein (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment A possible issue: Many vandals add to their contributions little notes that seem to indicate that they will share their work with others. Making it quicker and simpler could encourage greater vandalism. I think the possibility is not so great that we should panic unduly but, I think it is a possibility. However, if employed "share buttons" could have their use stats monitored so that admin could quickly decide if (on regularly vandalised pages) the button is being used often immediately after a vandal has contributed and follow it up with a (perhaps limited term) disablement.

Further Lets not forget that Wikipedia is all about sharing knowledge. This idea should be considered an extension of that goal. -- fg^TC 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Decided to support Even though I vehemently dislike most social networking sites, they are popular and Wikipedia has a lot to offer. I would like to see people reference it more easily and often. -- fg^TC 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Question: What does a "share" button do exactly? What things would change here if implemented? Does the button changes something here when pressed, or does it change something in facebook? (I don't want to interrupt the discussion, just point me an article or page with this info, and I will formulate an opinion later). Cambalachero (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A share button would not change Wikipedia articles at all. It would add a (possibly formatted) link to the wall of the user at the social site being shared with. It's a simple way to say "Hey guys! Look what I found." -- fg^TC 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a huge distraction to the editors of Wikipedia, though, and an unnecessary use of Wikimedia's resources.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Jasper: You have said repeatedly that it would be a huge distraction to the editors. I'm an editor and it wouldn't be a distraction to me. Please speak for yourself. I fail to see how it would be distracting to anyone. As mentioned in the discussion it would probably be no more than a tab atop the articles that would only be enabled by choice. As for the resources: It would use few of them compared with everything else that's going on here. I sincerely doubt it would be more than a drop in the ocean as far as measurable server strain would be concerned. -- fg^TC 04:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a social network. A "share" button encourages

WP:NOTHERE (in a different way than usual) by encouraging new users to simply use Wikipedia as a "hey, look at this" medium, instead of useful editing, which is what we want. Server resources would be wasted answering all of that.Jasper Deng (talk)

04:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have offered no evidence that a share button (implemented either as seen at Sign post, or as a discreet bar button next to "read/edit") would encourage

WP:NOTHERE. A test of the feature would measure the frequency of this occurrence (if any). I advocate testing, anyways. --Lexein (talk

) 06:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Facebook is known to use those buttons to track what people are doing, and I presume the other "share" sites do the same. I don't know about you, but I'm opposed to letting anybody track my Wikipedia reading habits. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then don't share.
  Qwertyus
  01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, it's not that simple; it appears that Facebook (and probably others) record reading pages with those buttons in, even without them being used. If we can find a way to prevent this, it wouldn't have to be not a game-killer, but the standard implementation currently in use is problematic.
  talk
  | 12:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Is there record of Facebook ever using this information for purposes other than advertising?
  Qwertyus
  17:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support Not willing to share? Now we see who are the real information hoarders! Jidanni (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not willing to share? I assure you, if you search up anything in Google, the relevant Wikipedia article will be within the top 10 search results. We have our information available, and all the readers must do is find it. →Στc. 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• • See my next comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Sharing is good.
  Qwertyus
  01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not if it distracts editors from actually improving Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I have yet to be distracted by the new "Wikilove" icon. If it makes Wikipedia more fun then edits and productivity will go up.
      Qwertyus
      04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Wikilove is actually related to editing, as a simple tool for our awards system. A "share" button is not the same.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, nor supported by ads. If newpspaper and magazines want to have blogs for each article and share/like/follow/tweet buttons, that's their decision. It shouldn't be ours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and it's already in danger of becoming one. Sharing it would agtract the wrong kind of dialogue to talk pages, and worst of all, it would attract more vandalis and more unwanted new pages. Wikipedia is doing fine as it is, but new page patroll, vandalism patrol, and AfC are already overburdoned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. There's no danger of WP becoming a "social" social network - several wide-ranging and highly social initiatives have already come and gone - I can't remember their names. You've offered no evidence to support the claim that a Share button would add to "the wrong kind of dialogue." Testing, of course, would prove or disprove your thesis. --Lexein (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Adding to other "support" points mentioned above:
  • This feature would be for our readers, not our editors. Readers might find a quirky tidbit that they want to share with their Facebook friends, for example. Wikipedis was hailed as one of the most significant Web 2.0 sites, and we should embrace "social browsing" such as Share buttons.
  • Many editors would not care about this sort of thing, and I can imagine that many would disable a "Share" tool, just as many editors turn off the Article Feedback tool and the Vector skin. (I'm not one of them.) But we shouldn't let that hold us back.
  • I find the argument that "it would distract from the purpose of building an encyclopedia" a bizarre argument, since this would be a reader-facing tool: virtually no readers are here to
    WP:BUILD
    - they are here to partake in the "sum of all human knowledge", or whatever Jimbo said.
  • I also find the argument about
    WP:NOTMYSPACE
    hard to comprehend - BBC is not a social networking site either, yet it offers this feature.
  • Could it encourage vandalism? Possibly. But it's unlikely to attract the attention of vandals, since sharing features are commonplace across the Web.
  • The only opposing argument I buy is the one about tracking and privacy - this doesn't bother me personally, but it bothers others.
• — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree mostly with your comment, except, what do we do with IP editors?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The BBC, NYT and Nature aren't editable and hence it is not possible to share a link to a vanity/spam/vandalism page using those sites. MER-C 04:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I agree very much with Kudpung and OrangeMike -- this will attract the kind of (l)users we don't want. There is also a real danger of the WMF's Privacy Policy being violated here, especially if the tool is opt-out. MER-C 04:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, no evidence offered that articles sent to friends will engender "(l)users we don't want." Anyways, I'd !vote to make sure it's opt-in. Nobody is required to use it. It's just a publishing tool like "Create a book/ Download as PDF/ Printable version". Most readers will likely use it rarely/never, some occasionally, and only a few, frequently. Oh, and because it's a publishing button, it won't be visible on Talk pages, or while editing/viewing history/watchlist/etc., just like the above publishing buttons. --Lexein (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks like
  emijrp (talk
  ) 08:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support wow, the amount of people who simply have NO clue about these share icons, yet strong opinions. First of all, a share button doesn't automatically let Facebook track you, only if you use THEIR share buttons. There are ways to share articles using plain links, that have no privacy problems at all. The signpost uses those, as do many other websites. Also, sharing articles != Wikipedia being a social network and people saying that have 0 clue whatsoever about what that guideline means. It's like saying we shouldn't allow uploading of foto's because 'we are not Flickr". It's the most dense argument in this discussion and noise like this from people who clearly have no idea what our guidelines entail is what stifles many developments within our community. We are about spreading knowledge in a fun and engaging way. If we add PROPER support for sharing articles, then there that can only help our mission. Also the idea that we could attract the 'wrong kind of users' .. sigh, how far the community has fallen into protectionism of 'our knowledge'. You know, WP:OWN in spirit goes beyond a single article. As much as you don't own an article, you don't own the encyclopedia either... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think your tone about the "denseness" of people and all those rants are warranted. If we're all idiots, then what is your Highness doing here? The fact is that buttons like this give the impression — in terms of style/layout/look — of a social-networking site. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Tone issues aside, TheDJ makes a good point. The
    Wikipedia Signpost has used sharing buttons for quite some time, without relying on third-party inline frames or scripts - i.e. no privacy concerns at all, unless and until one chooses to click "share". — This, that, and the other (talk)
    09:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. And the

emijrp (talk

) 09:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's as plain and simple as it can get. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have to say, I've been sceptical. But I asked myself: why? There seems to be no good reason to withhold such a feature. It may even help to strengthen Wikipedia's position at a time when it is facing teh editor retention problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sharing articles that we are reading on to facebook, like buttons on Youtube? Ridiculous and this would become a conflict of interest and
  WP:NPOV violation fiasco.Curb Chain (talk
  ) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I can see problems but Wikipedia needs to fit into and try and educate the world as it is. If millions of our potential targets persist in walking in the front of traffic whilst twiddling their thumbs on a smartphone then yeah that's what outreach is.
  Dmcq (talk
  ) 11:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. --cc 12:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I do not want facebook tracking what pages I view/edit. It's bad enough the "like" links are already everywhere (I have AdBlock to deal with them). We don't need them on Wikipeida. All they will do is provide information about pages we access. We might as well grant the facebook employees Checkuser, as that is effectively what they would have. The only difference being, instead of being restricted by a set of guidelines, we have no control of when and how they access this information. I don't mind sharing my knowledge, but I have a big problem with the idea of sharing my personal information with facebook and their non-existent privacy policy. If someone wants to "share" a Wikipedia article, they can copy/paste the URL, or they could use facebook's mirror copy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Adding a set of spam buttons will hinder our attempts at building a neutral encyclopedia. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not wasting time "sharing" edits I've made. We already have such a feature, it's called Special:Contributions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This concern has been addressed. There's no way a "Like" button will ever be used - it's a "Share" button which does nothing but navigate to the selected website when clicked. If you don't click on the Facebook link, then Facebook will never know you were here. --Lexein (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but mostly I wanted to decry the ridiculous amount of misinformation in this discussion. I don't see any way in which a share button allows Facebook to track what pages you're viewing -- on the off chance that it does, coding our own share button would be an easy way around it. I also don't see any way that this feature would "distract" editors; it's a feature for readers, a segment of our audience that seems to get forgotten an awful lot around here. No one who would vandalize an article would be deterred by the absence of a share button. But ultimately -- aren't we supposed to be all about sharing knowledge? Shouldn't we encourage readers to promulgate our articles as far and as widely as possible? Powers ^T 15:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See Facebook 'Like' button draws privacy scrutiny, and it really is a stinker that way. However there's absolutely no earthly reason why it should do anything more than the obvious on Wikipedia so there's no privacy concers for us in providing such facility.

Dmcq (talk

) 18:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the "Like" button, not a Sharing facility. No one has suggested putting the Like button on any Wikipedia page. Powers ^T 19:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Case in point, https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?t=Main_Page&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page is just a URL. All Facebook would get is the

referer. --Cybercobra (talk)

08:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Only as a gadget which should be plainly obvious. And definitely no tracking by any third parties. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support Per
  WP:NOTMYSPACE since there will be no integration with Wikipedia/Wikimedia user accounts, and all sharing, commenting, etc. will be happening off-wiki. --Cybercobra (talk)
  20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose  Maybe a third party app could be developed for readers that want a share button.  Then it is someone else's support problem, not ours.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Don't care, but if implemented, than there should be a way to opt out. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia needs additional editors and active readers dipping a toes into the oceans of social networking may help. It is certainly worth testing. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We are not facebook, nor should we be following in facebook's steps. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support in mainspace only with an opt-out and in the method the Signpost does it. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion To possibly alleviate some concerns of the opposition, making this feature opt-in rather than having to opt-out might be advisable. -- fg^TC 00:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose First note, Wikipedia does not *need* a share button. We aren't broken without it. (Even though most of the time I take the opposite side of that argument). Now my main problem with that is 1)
  (t) (e)
  01:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • All of those are already possible and happen currently without an integrated sharing feature. We'd be saving submitters one copy-paste; that doesn't seem a huge enough difference to unleash the torrent of badness you seem to be envisioning. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That that ugly rant was posted by a Wikipedia admin is something far more fearful than a new way to share knowledge. -- fg^TC 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

With a whopping 3 deleted edits, you cannot properly comprehend the "ugly rant". →Στc. 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perhaps you can explain why you think my ability to comprehend "ugliness" and "ranting" is so deficient due to 3 deleted edits. What exactly have they got to do with this discussion? I assume they have something to do with this? Perhaps you could tell us what edits were deleted and how they are relevant to this discussion. Don't forget to tell us here. Once one starts doing laundry in public I believe it best to carry on regardless. -- fg^TC 08:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Unscintillating. This can all be done browser-side via plug-ins. No need for the project to get its hands dirty if there truly is a need for "sharing".VictorianMutant^(Talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Suggestion - Obviously there has been a mild amount of interest in adding share functionality for a while now. This kind of voting is helpful in-that we can voice some concerns and show the amount of support, but nobody in their right minds thinks we're going to launch social-network features of any kind without testing first, and we don't even have a tool to test. So instead of proposing it, and then debating until we are lukewarm (again and again), why not make a simple gadget? If someone is tech-minded enough, why not make a simple JS tool that adds (locally-hosted) icons to article, portal and file pages (no user, talk or project pages), only visible for users who add the script. We can then refine that tool until it is ready for a proposal. We do not need a consensus for users to write JS, or to use it, and it will only be used by editors knowledgeable enough to know that it exists. So instead of arguing about the problems that might occur based on possible functionality, why don't we hammer together a lowest-common-denominator tool and work from there? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Because it would not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest.... What's the point of knowledge if not shared? Why would it not be good for Wikipedia to actively encourage sharing it? -- fg^TC 06:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As one of the top five most visited websites, we don't have the problem of trying to get our content out. Yours is a false argument.

Wha?

07:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Making it easier to "get our content out" (I prefer to think of it as the content) is what this feature would offer. Wikipedia's success is due in part to it being a radical idea. Knowledge changes all the time and so does the content of Wikipedia. The tools we use must change too or we may find ourselves petting a dinosaur. This is not to say that a "share button" is strictly necessary, it is just to say that we must adapt to survive and as with genetic evolution, some changes (however crazy) may just be the very thing that lifts us. I realise that Wikipedia is already popular but it's present popularity is no good reason to curb it gaining more. -- fg^TC 18:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support everyone else has a share button - you aren't required to use it. And browser plugins aren't an acceptable solution to the 99% of non-geek users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Everyone else has it" argument is pretty weak... "Everyone else" has ads on their website. So because "everyone else does" we should too? I don't think so. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't have ads on their website. People only have ads on their websites if they are commercial websites that need to make money. Even Sourceforge, that well known commercial software website, has a like button. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't mind "sharing knowledge" in principle and I can see how this might attract beneficial editing, but what exactly needs to be shared/linked/plussed/digged/etc.? WP is already top search for most topics and I don't quite see how copying the URL is so hard? I also don't want to link my Wikipedia account to any social bookmarking websites I happen to be logged into unless Mediawiki does its own implementation. Additionally, I don't think an open source project should link to arbitrarily selected commercial websites. WMF has already previously rejected non-open source projects and I believe that's the way to go. —  
  TALK
  10:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Copying the URL is hard because people aren't generally technologically savvy. You could make the same argument about the BBC etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • If that is really such an advanced concept, then have a "copy link" button. —  
      TALK
      10:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • A copy link function doesn't add it straight to the social network of your choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Which is exactly why my argument was more than just "copy URL is enough". —  
          TALK
          12:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody is supporting linking WP and Facebook accounts, check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost to see how the buttons work. They do not send user info to any of the sharing sites, only the link to be shared. The only info Facebook can glean from that is that you did another thing on your Facebook account, no WP user data is compromised. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Which is exactly why I added "unless Mediawiki does its own implementation". —  
      TALK
      15:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

TheDJ/Sharebox has been available for quite some time. It allows you to share an article with Facebook and over 50 other sites. The script uses the third-party AddThis and does not use cookies or flash that allows tracking. Privacy concerns are addressed on the doc page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, and as an editor with 20000 edits I'd never heard of it before. It is completely unreasonable to expect our average reader to have heard of that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't see why we really need this. Facebook and Wikipedia are two very different entities. As I understand it, it is already possible to share links to any website on Facebook anyway. Cloudbound (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It isnt currently possible. And facebook and the economist are very different and they have a "like button". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, you just copy the URL into a status or wall post. Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Everyone needs to realize that this isn't a referendum on social media. A share button helps drive more traffic, which gives more pageviews, which nets more editors, which ensures the continued survival of the project.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)P
• Strong Don't Care as long as privacy issues are addressed and it is easy to opt out of. Anomie⚔ 15:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This RfC asks if we need a "share" button. Intuitively we do not "need" this feature! It is not inherently a bad thing, and no one would be forced to press the button; but it would appear as an imitated feature and infer that Wikipedia desires in some way to emulate facebook. To my impression, Wikipedia is the foremost example of functionally productive networking with lasting social value, (in website terms) and we need to continuously develop our own unique niche. Our "like" button, or "share" button is here called an "edit" button; and more importantly, a "save" button. Pressing those are where we measure success, and by doing so, as I once did when creating the Chemical weapon article, starts the share option we are most committed to. One measure of success is the many sites which mirror our content, like this facebook example; which you are welcome to like and/or share, according to their manner.

I would favor a feature that was site specific, like a real time notification system if and when your watchlisted parameters are met. Currently, if someone edits my talkpage, I will not be alerted until my next refresh. There are times when periods pass, or I exit directly from a read, and miss a message until much later than perhaps necessary; or I refresh far more often than otherwise necessary, if I am anticipating some particular edit. Such an ability to share things internally would be a better direction, and use of resources. IMO -- My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I get email notifications already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support As a long-time Wikipedian and Facebook user, I don't see how sharing links to interesting articles with one's FB network will turn WP into a "social networking site." I think it's just one more great way to build traffic and awareness. Of course, I share the concerns of others that such a functionality not lead to online tracking issues.
  talk
  ) 20:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion...

-The argument that we'd be selling reader info is properly countered by pointing out that it's circumventable on our end.

-The argument that we're not a social network ignores the fact that Facebook is.

-The argument that the site would turn into a social network because "kids" stinks of fuddy-duddy-ism.

But:

-It's easy enough to just copy a Wikipedia URL into a status or wall post on Facebook (or any other site). Noone capable of using either site needs a like button.

-There's been no explanation on how a share button would help us acquire good editors. "It couldn't hurt" is not a good reason, and anyone who knows what facebook is knows about Wikipedia already. The only people who would discover Wikipedia because of a like button would be the sort of techno-throwbacks who believe checking email requires IT training (*glares at grandfather*). The idea that people on Facebook don't know about Wikipedia is honestly damn stupid. What helps acquire new editors is letting (the right people) know that anyone can edit (within the guidelines), and a like button won't help with that. Only talking with your friends will help with that, and that allows us to let stupid friends continue to think we had to go through proper job applications, get circumcised, and join the Masons to "work" here.

-Several years ago, this discussion would have been about Myspace (anyone remember that?), so who knows what social network's feature we'll be discussing in the next decade? By saying that we'll give a feature to Facebook but not Myspace or anyone else's site is showing a preference to and support for Facebook, which is not neutral.

So: Oppose, on grounds that it is unnecessary for either site's users, and for

Nice argument. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but its a fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• (I wish it hadn't been full left-justified, interrupting the !vote bullets).

  It was asked how a share button would help bring in good editors": A shared link to an article (and only mainspace articles, btw) will bring in a new and interested reader, who has been invited/alerted by a friend of similar interests, to a specific article. This newcomer is a prequalified interested person, who won't click on the link if they aren't interested, who likely had not previously considered Wikipedia or that topic at Wikipedia as something of interest to read. Now, because a friend alerted them, they might visit. These people (lots of them) won't visit a particular article unless and until they are aware of its presence. I believe that such alerted people will be more likely to take an interest in editing, than if they had not been invited or alerted. Testing will show. This is a two-step "take the plunge" for a newcomer: the first is to read a particular article here (lots of people don't, don't laugh), the second is to edit here. It's a numbers game. IMHO invited readers (whom we don't

  scare off

  ) are more likely to become editors because the effort to get to an article is less (no searching). This is a class of Internet users who did not know of a specific article at WP, or who didn't think editing Wikipedia is easy or allowed. This tool isn't for the people who already avidly read and edit, it's for readers to invite readers. It's a numbers game of small percentages: it's about conversion, in the parlance of SEO: converting readers to editors, by bringing in prequals. IMHO the quality of edits performed by these newcomers will match the spectrum of all newcomer edits: some good, some poor but good faith, some bad, some vandalism. Thr ratios don't vary, and should be no deterrent to allowing readers to invite new readers (who might happen to become editors). There's a new editor born every minute, they just don't know it. It's our task to make them good editors once they start editing here.

  Waiting for searchers to land here is insular, cloistered, arrogant. It presumes there is infinite time: there is not. WP:There is a deadline - against linkrot and source rot. Simplifying/reducing the complexity of/ sharing pages with people of similar interest is a valid way to get more readers who-might-become editors in here to help with building the encyclopedia against the tide of destruction of knowledge, and the maintenance and improvement of those 3500000 articles which are not GA yet.

  Necessary/unnecessary should never have been the pivot of this RfC. The claim of "Unnecessary" isn't the main argument on the table. The Print/export: Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version buttons are not de facto necessary, but they are excellent tools for publishing articles in mainspace (only!). Adding to that list a Share dropdown menu would simply be another excellent publishing tool. Yes, saving clicks and keystrokes is of interest - those publishing links do that too: they offer uniform shortcuts to publishing, rather than having to puzzle out whatever the native OS&Browser provides. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• oppose I'm failing to see why we need to provide adverts for third party companies and use up valuable screen real estate to address the issue of what I suspect is a relatively small number of people who can't copy and paste a URL.©Geni 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• whatever - probably a good thing, as in the day someone adds this feature I'll immediately stop wasting some of my time in here. - Nabla (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as long as privacy issues are avoided. Moving into the modern age to net more readers and editors is what Wikipedia should be doing. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• We're in the top 5 websites. We have readers. Anyone who knows enough about the net to have a Facebook account knows about this site and uses it. It won't help at all. In 10 years, we'll be out of date for having a Facebook like button, just as we'd be out of date for having a "share on Myspace" feature today. A "like" button won't let readers know that they can edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Generic traffic to Wikipedia is not the issue. The "Share" button (not like) will allow a reader to invite another specific person to read a specific article. This "prequalified" visitor is selected based on presumed interest, by a trusted friend. This new visitor to that article may have higher interest in it, and may therefore be more likely to edit that article to improve it. I consider the Share button as a publishing and topic editor recruitment tool. --Lexein (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Lexein summed it up nicely. This will help recruiting specialized knowledge as well as general editorship (including specialized editors who become more generalized). Also, not everyone who uses Facebook as well as Facebook is technologically competent to paste URLs, so this would be helpful. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• oppose we have no issues with lack of traffic or SEO. If someone wants to share something cut and paste works perfectly well. Ridernyc (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Generic traffic to Wikipedia is not the issue at all. See above. We cannot presume to know all the reasons people will "Share", but should not preemptively prohibit it. I consider the Share button as a topic editor recruitment tool. --Lexein (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Join the 21st Century Express my friends. We're a publisher. We have a business model. That model includes includes seeking broad readership (as opposed to acquiring cachet through exclusivity, for instance). That we're both free and nonprofit is germane but peripheral: we need broad readership to thrive just as Time magazine does. Getting many more links into Facebook or whatever is an excellent way to advertise our wares. A way to make it easier to make this happen is good marketing. "He not busy being born / Is busy dying" -- Bob Dylan. Herostratus (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We're in the top 5 most viewed sites on the net. We have readers. Can you honestly find anyone on your Facebook friends list who has never used Wikipedia? If you do, I'll find someone on your friends list who is a liar. There's no point in burning more fuel when you're well beyond the finish line and it's not going to catch up to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Successful organizations don't rest on their laurels. Unsuccessful ones do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
• Wikipedia is not a for-profit business. Wikipedia's good qualities include being free of ads and other "dirty" Internet traits, let's keep it that way. I agree wholly with Ian.thomson.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC):
• Oppose –
  automated processes to help alleviate the resulting NPP super-backlog, like we have for regular vandalism edits. In any case, how hard is it to type http://enwp.org/PAGENAME? →Στc
  . 07:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

'Oppose The reason was given above, of driving traffic into our site. That's not our purpose:. Our purpose is providing an encyclopedia. The traffic comes to our site from people who want to use a free comprehensive web encyclopedia, and as long as we're the best available, we'll get the traffic. It's not as if we needed to build awareness of our existence. What we need to attract is prospective good editors, and if anyone can show that this might do so, there might be an argument. My own view is it would drive them away, just as advertisements would. What it will much more likely attract is spam and vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's not risk diluting the message that encyclopedic knowledge is Wikipedia's core. Keep it free of sitewide links to a commercial enterprise. Keep it visibly, unambiguously neutral and independent: a project with a serious purpose. Don't blur boundaries with websites with different values. Also - for every straightforward "look at this article" Facebook share there might well be two look-at-this-joke-or-propaganda-edit shares.Lelijg (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This despite the fact we prominently link to other commercial sites - in references, in ISBN's etc. Your last sentence seems speculative and without evidence to support the hypothesis it is uncompelling. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I like to think each article-based link to a commercial site is individually considered, in its particular context, to be relevant to a particular topic. A "social" link on every page seems quite different. And I'm sorry you find my speculation uncompelling! I was trying to express a genuine sense of how things could go wrong, based partly on my observations of countless unhelpful edits. In some situations you can't muster hard evidence and have to rely on experience, thinking things through etc. Lelijg (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      • As far as I am aware we have no link consideration relating to sites being commercial or not - other than the obvious "no sales links". Most websites can be construed as commercial to some degree or another... and we link to them without concern (news articles, for example, which directly make money from our link via ad impressions!). As to the latter; the issue is that your taking something that happens already (i.e. vandalism) and implying (if I understand) that people will do more of it because they can easily share it with Facebook. I don't really follow that train of thought; either by logic or by instinct :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support; this is primarily a reader tool, and making it easier to share and enjoy Wikipedia material is a great thing - it being our primary purpose. Opposition to that on the grounds: ** that we are not Facebook (great, an external share button does not make a social network... as you may notice social networks don't do such things)

• that copy/pasting a link is easy (yes, easy for you - standard computer literate egotism at work there), that we don't need to "advertise" (why not? we should always attempt to increase the sharing of information)
• that it will lead to an influx of not-very-good editors (how anyone connected up those dots I have no idea :P certainly they have no concept of causality and apparently a very disillusioned view of the people using social networks)
• concerns of encouraged vanity use (which is amusing listed after an argument that it is already easy to share without a link...)

Aren't particularly compelling. Privacy concerns are important, of course, but that can be accounted for by using pure links. Certainly links to the bookmarking sites would be really handy for me, Facebook less so, but Twitter I might end up using. As editors we do an astonishingly poor job of empathising with the average reader - and consider Wikipedia a tool for us, not a tool for them. The second this becomes about us we have lost a serious battle. Readers first! --Errant ^(chat!) 09:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Is it really that hard to paste a Wikipedia URL? Furthermore I still don't see what Wikipedia would get in reward of providing that functionality. Anybody who knows how to use Facebook can paste the url to Facebook and publish it on their wall. Only because other websites include that functionality is not a reason for Wikipedia to do that too. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't hard to paste an URL but why oppose an alternative? Does Wikipedia need a reward? Should it sit up and beg for treats? Some have argued that other sites use share buttons whilst pointing out how it has not detrimentally effected them. No one is suggesting that because other sites use share buttons, we should. What exactly is your strong opposition? -- fg^TC 11:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why, exactly, are you pushing it so hard. Is a button that saves you a half second of time really so important to you that you're willing to combat a great deal of a) legitimate privacy concerns, b) concerns about Wikipedia's direction, and c) dislike for social networking sites? You're fighting pretty damned hard for a half second of time. Your edit summary "So many strong opinions and nothing to hang them on." implies that you, in fact, have something to hang your opinion on (something so clearly and universally good that it allows you to snub the opinions of others, it appears). So, what is it?

Wha?

11:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem in that paragraph is the word "you" :) Because this is not about us; the idea is that this would be a reader tool. Remember; the readers should always be our primary focus because the aim is to provide a repository of knowledge to as many people as possible. Once it becomes about "us" then we have lost sight of that (and this happens way too often). To try and respond to your points, though.. The privacy matter can be addressed - and if you are clicking a link to push to a third party site there is implicit intention to publish on that site. I struggle to follow concerns that this could link editors to their RL accounts - given that it requires a specific action, and even then a shared link contains no user data. I've never quite "got" the "we are not a social network argument" in this context - given that a share button is not by any means a feature of social networks (instead a social network tries to get people to share to it). I'm struggling to understand why a share button makes us into a social network rather than actually moving us away from the social stuff by pushing that sort of interaction to other sites. And, finally, dislike of social networking sites is a poor reason to oppose links to them! (i.e. IDONTLIKEIT). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I almost certainly won't be using the button if we get it. I don't use the sites that most of the share options lead to. If I find a site on the list that I do use I would be surprised but pleased to share my discoveries by using a share button. So, I am not concerned by how many half seconds I can save. Also, I am not pushing any harder for the button than you are pushing against it. I don't consider my taking part here combat or a fight. Privacy concerns have been repeatedly calmed. Wikipedia's direction is hardly going to be detrimentally altered by a share button if all it does is "saves you a half second of time" (a flimsy weasel). My edit summary was the summary for one response to one other edit. That edit (as you can see above) made a few strong statements against having this feature. I failed to see the strength in the statements or any rationale for them being considered strong. We are all entitled to share our views here. That includes me (if you don't mind). -- fg^TC 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a dozen posts, have made snide comments, and used equally snide edit summaries. You're not trying to particpate in a discussion, you're trying to force an issue. There's a difference, and I, at least, can see it. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to an opinion, but I am saying that you don't have the right to jam it down other people's throats.

Wha?

12:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

O.o -- fg^TC 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I snapped at you and I apologize for it. Since it is clear that we have both apparently come to the conclusion that any further debate between the two of use would not be productive, I think it best if I take my leave from this discussion.

Wha?

14:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The strength in my opposition is based on the fact that (and some of this might just be my personal opinion):

• I still don't see ANY STRONG argument for having this functionality
• we should not spend efforts on things that are not supported by such arguments

So you still have to show me what exactly the benefit of this functionality would be (apart from saving those who want to share articles that way the sec copy-pasting a url into a field at facebook). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Share buttons would actively encourage readers to share Wikipedia content. Elsewhere on the net, users are used to seeing and using these buttons. Their popularity is evidence of their appeal/usage. Their familiarity could add a spontaneity to readers choice to share. This is something they may not have done without a quick-fire option to do so. Nothing Wikipedia is was supported by strong argument for it before it began. It was developed against a tide of ridicule^{[citation needed]} (As I see it) and look how well that turned out! Sometimes good ideas don't need to have strong arguments in favour; they just need space to grow. -- fg^TC 13:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Elsewhere on the net, users are used to seeing and using these buttons."

That might be true, but is in my opinion still not a reason to implement this functionality. Furthermore again people can share Wikipedia content by pasting the url into the field at facebook. As far as I am aware, you have to be logged in to facebook anyway to share content like that, so you can also simply just paste the article url. And even if we provided share buttons, what exactly would Wikipedia gain through this functionality? Do you have any measures proving this would bring Wikipedia more active contributors or increase donations or something similar? What exactly would Wikipedia achieve through this? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

An increase in traffic and (over all else) the benefit is ease of use for readers and an encouraged sharing of knowledge. -- fg^TC 15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

An increase in traffic! What more traffic do we need, seeing as Wikipedia currently has a site rank of 5? I still fail to see how difficult it is to type http://enwp.org/PAGENAME or copy/paste http://en.wikipedia.org/PAGENAME, and why we need to cater to the unskilled who still can't format bold text without a visual editor. →Στc. 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the last sentiment there are many skilled professional people who are not very computer literate and the unfriendly interface is a big put off for them. Any idea why a site that is read by hundreds of millions is only edited by a few thousand people?

(talk)_(contribs

) 16:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not cater for the unskilled? They could then become the slightly skilled and then maybe the almost capable. After a while they might very nearly be useful. Although, perhaps instead of only serving those who return the service maybe we could do what we can to help everyone without judging them on merit or worse, worth. -- fg^TC 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - users already "share" our articles by copying and pasting URLs. Why not make this easier for them and allow sharing via all the usual means (Facebook, Redit, e-mail, etc)? They're doing it already but with more effort. Rklawton (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Adding a share button doesn't magically turn Wikipedia into a social networking site. Times are changing, there is no need to stay in the dark ages of the internet. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, why make it easier to
  WP:CANVASS? --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
  14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion Re:
  WP:CANVASS. I've searched the discussion and found no specific indication that this feature should or would be added to talk pages. If only added to article pages I (personally) doubt that a rise in canvassing would occur. Those who wish to rally support for their cause could and can do it with or without this feature. An increase in traffic (by any means) would bring an increase in ALL forms of traffic. We already deal with taking the rough with the smooth. Lets assume good faith. -- fg^TC
  15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. Just like the Print/export: Create a book/Download as PDF/Printable version buttons, they would only work in main article space, not Talk pages. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sharing knowledge is the whole point of Wikipedia, and it should be as easy as possible for readers to share what they have found in Wikipedia with their friends. The NYT isn't a social network just because it has this button (and I've never understood the anti-social-network hysteria here anyways). It is a Good Thing if people who love Wikipedia share Wikipedia with their friends, and we need to get out of the stone age in terms of technology and usability. Why make people copy-paste URLs if a button would do the same thing, but in a more accessible way? I know my grandma uses Facebook and reads Wikipedia, but I doubt she could paste a URL between the two. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Calliopejen1. Would make the site more usable for our readers.
  •
  ] 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe it is not in line with Wikipedia's purposes. An article can already be shared with the simple copy-paste of a link, why waste time and resources implementing such a trivial feature? Zidanie5 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  It's already implemented in one form: Signpost uses it. No waste involved. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that the Wikipedia software already supports this feature, and that all we have to do is just turn it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sven Manguard, DGG, and others. We are not a social networking site; we do not need to use social networking to drive traffic into our website; these share buttons are creepy. Users can already share Wikipedia articles on Facebook by pasting the URL into their current status. Solve this non-problem with Greasemonkey if you have to. causa sui (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Re "creepy" - a simple Share link (a la SignPost's version) to an outside webpage does nothing and is not creepy. "Like" buttons are hella automated and are creepy, I agree. But we, again, are not at all talking about "Like". Just Share. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia content on any topic of interest is easily found using search engines. There's no reason to push specific articles onto Facebook. Being "liked" is not a useful measurement of article quality, and we already know that popularity does not equal importance. I don't see any net benefit to the project.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  This is a publishing button, on a person-to-person basis. It's not about driving traffic, it's about literally sharing interest. Not everyone is "on" Facebook - saying no to this feature is saying no to everyone who would use it for non-Facebook purposes. Simplifying publishing for email - is that bad? Try thinking of it as just another link under Print/export: Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version . --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps I've misunderstood the proposal. Are you saying it has nothing to do with Facebook? Is this another name for an "Email this article" link? In other words, a registered user could use it to easily email a link to an article to someone outside of Wikipedia? If that's the case and if there was a mechanism to prevent spam or mass mailings, then I'd support that.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• If it will truly benefit the readers without damaging the content, let's do it, but I have my doubts. My main concerns regard privacy and entanglement. If we do this, I'd much rather we do it in a way that completely avoids any means by which third parties can track our readers in any fashion; I'm confident that we can avoid that, but I'd strongly prefer a solution on our end that's within our control. Beyond that, we've historically made a point of avoiding advertising and other propositions that might benefit funding and readership in the short term, for fear that they will damage our long-term goals of providing a neutral, comprehensive, quality encyclopedia. Will adding this feature compromise that in any way? Just as important, will it look like we've compromised it? Is this something our readers actually want? How will it affect their opinion of the site? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Revoking unconditional support. Conditional support only Re: Neutrality concerns expressed in sub-section below. The condition is that if the feature were supported NO buttons would be supplied or specified by default but that Wikipedia simply adds support for a list of user-added buttons to be created. Wikipedia would then not be supporting or stifling any third-party social-network. I would like to see the feature but only if it does not compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. -- fg^TC 02:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; it allows readers and editors to tailor their WP experience to their own desires about whether to have a share button and if so where they'd like to share to. If the process of actually creating the button was complicated for some reason, you'd think that a reasonably perceptive business would have a staff member spend an afternoon writing some free wikipedia-compatible code for its users. AgnosticAphid talk 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you *Support or *Oppose? Please indicate so at the beginning of your comment. --Lexein (talk)

This isn't a vote. Editors are neither obligated, nor even expected, to have to boil their comments down to one bold word for the sake of people who can't take the time to read and comprehend their arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. DQ and Sarek have raised a very important concern. An automated way of telling people off-site to "look at this" will easily become an automated way of
  canvassing on an unprecedented scale. Just imagine an influx of fans, unconcerned about our policies, into RfCs and AfDs. Yes, I know that people can do this already. But this proposal would automate the process in a new way, and the opening it creates will be filled. Wikipedia already comes up near the top of search engine results for a given topic. Any increased readership will be offset by disruption by people who come here not because they are interested in reading an article, but because someone told them to follow a link. --Tryptofish (talk
  ) 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FUD

alert: Invalid concern. The Share link/button would be displayed on mainspace pages in read mode only. Nowhere else! The Print/export| Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version links don't appear on Talk pages, so there's no reason for Share to go on Talk pages.

It's not automated. It's a manual click/hold/scroll/release, then enter your credentials on the target site. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WTF alert: I have no idea what "FUD" means. I can just see it: an AfD notice at the top of a page, accompanied in read view by a share button. In your opinion, click/release is not automated: good for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

FUD is

Fear, uncertainty and doubt: a tactic to exploit emotional triggers, rather than reason, to steer a discussion. The word "automated" triggers fears of "bots", or lack of control by users, and fear of "canvassing"; none of these has been shown to occur. The Share tool, like the Print/export: Create a book / Download as PDF / Printable version publishing tool would not exist on Talk pages. So, the AfD or RfC concerns you "imagine" are unproven and assume bad faith. The mere existence of a Share button on articles will not automate anything, and will not necessarily increase traffic to Talk pages unless people manually edit the pasted URL (and we're back to copy/paste/editing, which people won't bother to do). This is merely a publishing tool for articles, not Talk pages. --Lexein (talk

) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support if you can turn it off in Preferences (just like you can turn off WikiLove and Article Ratings). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I advocate this, but also an opt-in checkbox at login - that's how useful I think this tool would be. --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't consider that this feature is appropriate on the Encyclopaedia.  Chzz  ►  09:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There's a lot of FUD here about "Wikipedia isn't Facebook" and bogus NPoV concerns, but this is a proposal to add a tool to help our readers promote us to people in their social circles. When added, such facility probably belongs in or under the "toolbox".. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely - right above or below the Print links. --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. This proposal would bring Wikipedia up to date with other sites, and make it easier for people to link to and reuse our content. Yes, it's possible people could use it to draw attention to their own vandalism, or to canvass for AFDs, but it's far more likely they'll use it to promote interesting and high-quality articles, which is what we want. The worries about privacy are entirely spurious. There is no good reason not to do this. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially if implemented as on-by-default, as was the
  Article Feedback Tool. 98.228.54.208 (talk
  ) 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, well, the "Like" buttons are nothing more but current fashion. Personally, I find them to be rather useless; I'm still one of the old-fashioned folk who meets "friends" in person, even though I theoretically have a Facebook account. But I see no reason why I should thus force this lifestyle ono other people; rather, I could at least understand it it were the other way around. It seems that there's a high interest in those "Like" buttons, and I'm sure that it's possible to deal with the mentioned issues, i.e. opt-out (either via preferences or CSS), possible canvassing (I mean, why should one like a talk page anyway?) and privacy issues (by simply using links instead of Facebook's social plugin). --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If this is implemented properly, there won't be any concerns about privacy - it will just be the same as copying and pasting a URL, only easier. I think this has great possibility for introducing new editors to the project because of the personalized nature of the links being sent. I am seeing a lot of negative comments here about new users, so I thought I'd share some wise words by Peteforsyth which I found on Rjanag's user page:

  It's my belief that most productive Wikipedians first arrive at the site wanting to do something that is against WP policy -- advance a point of view, cover something that doesn't meet the notability guideline, etc. We also often bring baggage from other Internet sites where the social norms or policies permit different kinds of behavior -- social networking activity, attacks, canvassing, what have you. None of this makes us bad people, just people who have not yet fully absorbed the Wikipedia ethos. (diff)

  As you can probably guess, I see getting more new editors on Wikipedia as a very good thing. With time and guidance, the vast majority of users will come to understand how this place works. About which social networks to include - I agree with TheDJ's suggestion below of including all of them via a clever interface. There is every possibility here for us to do this without promoting some social networks over others. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose for a number of reasons. Firstly, these types of share button encourage the dumbing down of the Web. Wikipedia aspires to not be dumb. These things are dumb. We have a duty to avoid dumb things. If we put these things on the site, we might as well start offering free lobotomies to readers.

  The reason these things are stupid and unnecessary (and therefore ugly, because of their being unnecessary) is that there already is a universal way of sharing content on the web, namely copying and pasting URLs. This method absolutely guarantees that the user doesn't get infected with tracking cookies or does things they don't necessarily understand. Even though I'm an active user of Twitter, I never use "tweet this" links because I don't know ahead of time what kind of craziness they are going to get up to. Some send a pre-written (read: spammy) message to followers, others simply subscribe me to a Twitter feed associated with an account, while others send me down the OAuth garden path to authenticate and potentially provide access to my personal information, granting that application read-write access to my account. This kind of thing fails on the grounds of the principle of least astonishment.

  Secondly, it is impossible to be vendor neutral on this. You either pick the top three or four (

  WP:BIAS

  ! We better not be introducing a US-centric, white male view of what's popular.

  Please, don't do this. These things are stupid, ghastly and commercial: everything that is loathsome about the commercialisation of the Internet is summed up by these stupid little buttons. I know that other Wikimedia sites including English Wikinews have them: I don't like them there either. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh. "Please don't even test this" - wow. We don't work scared. It's not an app. It's not "Like". It's not "AddThis". It's not mandatory. It's a publishing tool, just like Print. We don't fear print, why fear publishing? The invocation of Least Astonishment is telling: you are conflating the invasive Like functions with this benign link forwarder. The included vendors can be selected by logged in users in their Prefs. It's not on Talk pages, it's for articles. --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest possible, utterly interminable oppose - completely unnecessary, will clutter the website no matter how discreet these are, will do little to cement our "free" image (given that Facebook's "f" is a trademark, after all), and most importantly completely useless. We may need more writers, but this sure as hell isn't how to get them. — Joseph Fox 09:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite all the dire fears, this is merely a publishing tool, like the Print links. Print isn't "clutter". Is it? Really? "Share" is optional, and only appears on mainspace pages, not Talk. This has a potential positive side effect of bringing in interested readers to articles (not Talk pages), who might become editors. You have, like all the other opposers, offered no evidence that "this isn't how to get them." Only testing could show any such evidence, so you should really be advocating testing, to prove me wrong. --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose- per Fox and others. Anyone can copy paste the url. Drorzm (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"per Fox and others?" With their easily disproven arguments? Really? --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I see no harm here. Let the children play their games. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Canvass potential, clutter of one more unnecessary button which users can anyway add on their own if they desire to do so, issues with pointing to one specific service rather than multiple, issues with the image being all but free on a free encyclopedia and honestly, I don't see how it would improve the Encyclopedia at all. You want to share a link on X website? Go on X website and share it, nobody's stopping you from doing so. But expecting Wikipedia to provide you with a button to share you on website Y or X rather than R, only drags us into problems about which website we should include, for a plus side that I still fail to see. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I think it will add traffic and help people communicate well. It is possible to make a very inconspicuous interface for those sorts of things. Greg Bard (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of users are reading articles in order to find something out. It is (I feel) fair to assume that they may have friends who share their interests both online and out there ^shivers. The purpose of a share button would be simply accessibility.

Scenario: Mr. or Ms. Visitor wants to know why the stars are all twinkly. They use a search engine and are offered a link to Wikipedia. They follow it and read a fascinating article about astronomy and follow a couple of internal links to other articles (all of which are equally fascinating). Later that day they are chatting with their friends on some dreadful social networking site or other and mention that they were "reading erm... a erm... Wikipedia erm... Well it was really interesting anyway. I'll see if I can find it again. How do I find my browsing history?" And so on.

Alternative scenario: Mr. or Ms. Visitor wants to know why the stars are all twinkly. They use a search engine and are offered a link to Wikipedia. They follow it and read a fascinating article about astronomy. At the side of the page they see a familiar looking icon. "Oooh! I can share this with Barbara. Cool". They follow a couple of internal links to other articles (all of which are equally fascinating) and similarly share those with Babs. Later that day Babs and our visitor have a lovely chat about the articles they have both now read.

This comment was brought to you with its tongue firmly embedded in its cheek. fredgandt 09:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Share with which services?

Parallel question, and one that doesn't seem to be getting much attention here: supposing that we do add a "share" button, who is it going to share with? Which social media services would be included or excluded from this feature? On what basis? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I sort of mentioned that earlier. Several years ago, we'd be sharing on Myspace, and if you asked my friends earlier this year where we'd be sharing ten years from now, most of them would say Google+. There's tons of

Social networking websites, many rise and fall all the time, and while Facebook is currently popular, it's still just the "in-thing" and not something universal or unending (which this site is gonna do it's damndest to do). Choosing that one site over the others is playing favorites and is not neutral, and it kinda smacks of buzzword-ism, "Hey, Facebook is popular right now, so we gotta use it too because future." Facebook is only one facet of social networking, and we cannot determine whether it will succeed or fail, but we will be giving it non-neutral support if we provide it a feature that we do not provide other sites. Ian.thomson (talk

) 00:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument (seems a valid concern). Ian, are you suggesting that either all or none should be supported? Or do you oppose any support? Genuine interest here. I'm not pulling your chain. -- fg^TC 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ian, agreed, adding a social networking feature could have the same effect on Wikipedia as if we were to put banner ads on the site. (Arguably, the share "feature" would be an ad.) Adding a "share" button would be a breach of our

neutral point of view policy. That should also be taken into account before such a "feature" is added. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk)

00:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the same ones Wikipedia Signpost does?[5] We already have a precedent for this. Let's just follow Signpost's example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be impossible to support all of them, and it'd be too much of a hassle to go with

only the notable ones. As for the Signpost suggestion, I'd agree except "The Signpost is an independent publication which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation." I'm not sure that really sets a precedent any more than a user essay. Ian.thomson (talk

) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing unconditional support re neutrality concerns. -- fg^TC 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the signpost isn't affiliated with the Foundation. But that doesn't mean that it's not a useful starting point for which social networking sites we could include. I agree that including support for all, or even all notable, social networking websites would be a futile and vexatious exercise. But there's got to be some way to include enough different websites to be universally useful while not trying to have support for 500 websites. Could we take a poll every 6 months to see what users' favorite networks are? Or maybe we could base inclusion on the network's number of users (if this can be readily determined)? Just throwing some ideas out there, I know there are some issues with these suggestions. AgnosticAphid talk 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about coding to make some of these statements. TheDJ makes it sound like it'd be easy enough to make something with support for 500 websites. So maybe this isn't an issue. AgnosticAphid talk 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't using Facebook/Google+/whatever logos also breach the
  policy on non-free content? MER-C
  04:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they would be applicably licensed for use. -- fg^TC 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we followed the Signpost example, there wouldn't need to be a logo. I don't think that merely having the plain text "Facebook" or whatever would raise advertising concerns. But I'm no expert. AgnosticAphid talk 17:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong, the Signpost does indeed have logos. But if this is a sticking point they hardly seem necessary. AgnosticAphid talk 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that is rather new... They used to be text only. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• • How, specifically? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible to explicitly license a logo for use on Wikipedia. Content used on Wikipedia must have been released under a free license which grants anyone the permission to use it for any purpose (including commercial use; see Resolution:Licensing policy). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Those policies are all related to content. this would be site-specific UI, not content, which has never been a question before. Specifically, these icons would not appear in database dumps, so all existing policies and arguments for/against are irrelevant. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see wholly no reason why we can't support all 300+ services that exist in the world. Just requires a bit of smart programming. If addthis can build it, then we can build it too. The most popular 4 would be easy accessible, the rest reachable via an 'other' option + ajax search dialog. If you use one of the 'other' options, you get a cookie, that ups the priority of that server next time you visit. Easy peasy. Seems fair enough to me, no neutrality issues there. We could even make it a seperate service for other OSS/Free/NGO projects. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Moderate Support - not really that bothered, but see no reason why not, and it may be useful for non-editor readers who want to share something interesting they've found. I see nothing that would suggest that it would track people (if it's just a share, not an integrated 'like'), except in the way that any share, whether or not integrated, would do. SamBC(talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Normally an RFC has a specific proposal at the top that clearly defines what is being proposed and what its purpose is. Given that this discussion is now extemely long to the point where we can't expect a person to read the whole tjhing just to figure out where they stand on it, such a statement would seem to be in order so that we are sure we are all talking about the same thing.
  talk
  ) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Sharebox user script uses the AddThis bookmarking service to add e-mail and share buttons to the Wikipedia toolbar. As of October 2011, AddThis supports 345 services. A few highlights:
  • Blogging platforms—
    TypePad and WordPress
  • Bookmarking sites— including the reference management sites CiteULike and Connotea
  • Email— generic,
    Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail
  • Social news— Digg, Fark and Slashdot
  • Social networks— Facebook, Google+, Myspace, orkut, LinkedIn and Plaxo
  • Shopping—
    Amazon.com
    and Kaboodle
  • Tools—
    Whois

We can either use AddThis, or marshal the resources to create our own tool do do the same job. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is really great, thanks for putting it together. Wish it was better publicized as it seems at least some editors would find it useful. AgnosticAphid talk 23:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to those suggesting an opt-in implementation or a gadget. Remember that those functions would only be available to registered users, not the general readership. In order to have this encourage readership or whatnot, it would have to be opt-out. Danger ^{High voltage!} 01:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Who would decide which 'share' buttons to add? Facebook? Google+? Reddit? How many of these annoying little things would we need to add to remain neutral and independant? I don't see much upside in this - and the implicit suggestion that we support these commercial groups seems to be a bad thing. SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The proposal is ill-defined. I have spent the last half hour looking for an explanation of exactly what the proposed "share" button would do, without success. I have seen an mind-boggling variety of comments, objections, whinges, denials, claims, counterclaims etc, but no specification of the actual function of the proposed item. Out of general principle I am inclined to oppose such a poorly explained proposal on the grounds that it is not possible to make an informed decision. One particular point is glaringly unobvious. Who would the share button share with? Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The reasoning of: "Adding a share button will bring more internet traffic to the site. This will increase the amount of editors and users".... That makes no sense. Out of the millions of websites on the internet, Wikipedia is rated #5 as far as popularity and how much internet traffic visits the site.

• How would adding a share button help the site? Whats the point? Why would someone want to share an article on Wikipedia, when you can just provide a link to it? I just don't see any point. Dusty777 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to be some confusion regarding the implications of this proposal. "Share" with what? As has been pointed out, there's a neutrality issue here: I don't think we should pick certain services and leave out others, and I don't think I've seen a feasible solution to that problem, at least not for non-registered readers. I do understand the supporting arguments, but I don't think what we win here is worth it. /Julle (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.