4 ms·

But don't wikis commonly have a "Talk" section or similar? The pages that are posted and edited would surely fall under author-generated content.

• scarecrowbob 5y ago
  I believe a lot of the internet has social aspects. Is it possible that the "social" aspects of this media operate on a sliding scale? I understand the point that literally any website could be thought of as "user generated"... I've personally made quite a few websites. But the level of interaction and the modalities of how I and a lot of folks use things isn't as interactive as, say, twitter. So, perhaps for some user populations a Wiki is a social experience, especially for the folks who edit them. Though from my perspective, it feels entirely possible to use it without engaging in that social aspect. I don't feel the same about Hackernews and/or reddit in general.
  • Minor49er 5y ago
    The social aspects absolutely work on a sliding scale. I completely agree. But I don't think that the amount or variety of social engagement is what really contributes to something being classified as "social media".
    • scarecrowbob 5y ago
      Well, how are you defining social media? I feel like "user generated content conducted between specific users, tied to specific accounts, where users have one-to-one public conversations and those conversations are foregrounded as the site's content" is reasonable. So, if that's my definition Wikis aren't social media and HN would be. But I also feel like HN is just a flavor of Reddit, and I feel that most people understand Reddit to be "social media". I could be worng about those feelings.