> The Wikipedia definition isn't complete, otherwise Wikipedia itself is social media too.

Actually, that's a decent point; it should probably add something about being primarily focused on the user interactions. That is, Wikipedia isn't social media, but I'd hesitate to say that the talk pages aren't.

> Basically nobody outside of HN would consider HN social media if they saw it.

And on that point we definitely disagree, though I suppose I could ask around. What do you think makes it not?

Social media was originally all about connecting with people you know in real life. Nowadays some of them are about followers you don't always know, but one way or another you're repeatedly interacting with a select pool of people based on who they are.

Forums have been around longer than the WWW and are more about interacting with topics than with particular members. Some let you follow or PM someone, but that's not the primary function, and HN doesn't even have that. Some social sites have expanded to cover forum-like roles too, like Facebook (Pages).

But most people won't think that far. They'll see HN and say nah, this isn't social media.

Anecdata, but I have heard people in my life refer to Hacker News as "social media", which is why I brought this up in the first place.

No “social graph” whatsoever. Instantly disqualifying. News-aggregator-with-comments isn’t social media.

Yeah this is a good succinct way to put it.