• This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 27027 ***

Got a problem with how WP organizes content? Fix it yourself or spark up a discussion on Wikipedia. It's irrelevant to the bug tracker. Besides what would even be on a "Share" article, the relevant topics and articles are Social Media, Facebook features, Google Search, etc...

As for any sort of extension which inserts 3rd party scripts or resources into Wikipedia as sharing features require, as well as other reasons we don't have them:
http://www.quora.com/How-would-social-sharing-features-impact-site-traffic-to-Wikipedia
http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-wikipedia-use-Google-Analytics

For any comment on how people don't care about WMF's privacy policy. Take a look at bug 19161 to see how high a standard people hold WMF to that policy.

And as for a user preference. That's of little worth, sharing buttons that aren't even visible to 90% of the people who will actually use them are worthless.

Now for the relevant topic:
[[strategy:Product Whitepaper#Red link: Post to social media feeds]]

As for this bug report; We already have a relevant bug (bug 27027). WMF has a relevant white paper topic. This topic has been discussed on various Wikipedias and WM projects. It's also a topic to tread softly on because there ARE editors of the opinion they will leave Wikipedia if we add something like this. Implementing safe, vendor neutral, social sharing would also be a fairly large research and development project. And we've also had wikitech-l discussions on the topic.
So posting this bug report here with your pattern of patronizing the other side bordering on trolling instead of looking at existing topics and offering suggestions, absolutely worthless.

OK, but where's the share button? -- that's what users will still wonder.
I would make a dummy one anyway, linked to an explanation of why it is bad. OK, bye.

(In reply to comment #3)

OK, but where's the share button? -- that's what users will still wonder.
I would make a dummy one anyway, linked to an explanation of why it is bad. OK,
bye.

A share button pointing to a page saying why WP won't have a share feature?

That's completely unintuitive. :/ usability devs would kill you for that.

All I know is all the other Net Children are willing to share, except for Wikimedia Inc., who keeps its toys to itself -- that's what it looks like to the average user. That in fact it is really the other way around is not a concept that can be explained to the average user -- who wants to "share" the Bowie article with his mom, but cannot find the share button.

In YouTube the Share button gives one various Link, email, embed, and only
upon a further click only does one get the fearsome Facebook, etc.

However all one can find in Wikipedia is Toolbox->Permanent Link,
which is not what we want.

Just the plain link one might think 'is so obvious', so doesn't need
'share' or 'link' markings... all though most sites would at least
have a link logo... looking at http://picasaweb.google.com/ ...
Link to this album
Paste link in email or IM
Paste HTML to embed in website
Embed Slideshow

Anyway, we see that even at the MediaWiki level, and even without any
mention of external websites, ways to make it clear how to link to the
current article could be added.

One might say that 'just let them copy it out of the URL bar in their
browser'... well that is often a haphazard way on many websites, that
is why websites proactively provide ways the user can get the
recommended link, instead of leaving things up to chance, even if it
does happen to work for Wikipedia and Mediawiki.

Looking in a text browser,

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=438528682"

Namespaces

• Article ...
• Discussion

Views

• Read ...

Toolbox

• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

We see there are in fact several items that are indeed the plain link
we want, just they are not marked 'link to this article'... which
would probably belong in "Print/export"... OK, never mind. Bye.