[Foundation-l] "antisocial production"

[David Moran]

While not exactly science, having gone to more than one Wikipedia picnic to
break bread with my fellow contributors ... the conclusions seem pretty
accurate to me.

DM



On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com>wrote:

> I concur with Phil. That thing is more press stunt than it is a conclusive
> scientific study. The key thing that makes me discount it is, just like in
> a
> survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and
> diverse.
> The motivation and character of the long tail of contributors who steadily
> make a few edits a month is obviously vastly different than the top hundred
> editors by number of edits. I've yet to see a serious sociologist break
> down
> and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there
> are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective).
>
> Steven
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk
> >wrote:
>
> > Eddie Tejeda wrote:
> > >> 'Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online
> > >> social production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of
> > >> the character traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of
> > >> Israeli research psychologists gave personality tests to 69
> > >> Wikipedians and 70 non-Wikipedians. They discovered that, as New
> > >> Scientist puts
> > >> it<
> >
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html
> > >,
> > >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
> > >> new ideas."'
> > >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
> > >>
> > >> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
> >
> > 1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess
> > 2. Selected sample, meaning likewise - did the Wikipedians contribute to
> > en:wiki or other wikis?
> > 2a. Sample selection for non-Wikipedia editors? How and from where?
> > 3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent
> > analysis for bias in the questions asked
> > 4. Peer-reviewed research by whom?
> >
> > and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot,
> > because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Steven Walling | @StevenWalling
> mobile: 360.606.2930
> skype: stevenwalling
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>