I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme
On 1/9/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
There's a goodly amount of ego involved, I think. Being able to say "I wrote that, it's on Wikipedia" is pretty cool, to me, and I imagine other people feel much the same way. Add into that a desire to feel "smart," and the need to feel right and accepted among these other "smart" people is at least a bit explained.
Something along these lines, perhaps: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AttentionSeeker
Or, there's always Penny Arcade's take: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
But yeah, a more serious study of some sort would probably have some nifty results. I'd be interested, at least.
-Luna
Oh honies, don't get me started...
Nina
On 1/9/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/9/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some
people
have when approaching the subject of editing.
There's a goodly amount of ego involved, I think. Being able to say "I wrote that, it's on Wikipedia" is pretty cool, to me, and I imagine other people feel much the same way. Add into that a desire to feel "smart," and the need to feel right and accepted among these other "smart" people is at least a bit explained.
Something along these lines, perhaps: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AttentionSeeker
Or, there's always Penny Arcade's take: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
But yeah, a more serious study of some sort would probably have some nifty results. I'd be interested, at least.
-Luna _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "Christopher Thieme" cdthieme@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme
An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting idea, though.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
From: "Christopher Thieme" cdthieme@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme
An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting idea, though.
Marc Riddell
Not necessarily. All pages on Wikipedia are viewable by anyone, with or without an account; same goes for the public mailing lists and IRC channels. Creating an account would be a good idea if someone wanted to conduct a survey of some kind (this has been done before), but if they don't actually involve themselves in any project work they're hardly "part of the community". So there's nothing to stop an "outsider" having a good look at things, except that the policies and processes would be unfamiliar to them, and might need a little explanation.
-Gurch
From: Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:19:18 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
Marc Riddell wrote:
From: "Christopher Thieme" cdthieme@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme
An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting idea, though.
Marc Riddell
Not necessarily. All pages on Wikipedia are viewable by anyone, with or without an account; same goes for the public mailing lists and IRC channels. Creating an account would be a good idea if someone wanted to conduct a survey of some kind (this has been done before), but if they don't actually involve themselves in any project work they're hardly "part of the community". So there's nothing to stop an "outsider" having a good look at things, except that the policies and processes would be unfamiliar to them, and might need a little explanation.
-Gurch
OK. I¹m, learning. If such a study were to be considered, my first question would be:
What is its purpose?
Curiosity? I wonder what, who, why, ? Perfectly valid reasons. Or,
Diagnosis? To diagnose existing symptoms of problems that are presenting. Also perfectly valid.
For such a diagnostic study to be done successfully there would need to be a consensus of the Community that such problems do exist. Without this consensus, it would be like a therapist trying to convince a patient that they have a problem!
Or, it could be merely an intellectual exercise (also perfectly valid) :-).
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively. Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
I was given 'CyberSelfish' by Paulina Borsook (written 2000) for Christmas. Just finished reading it. It was about annoying dot-com technolibertarians, but it explained AFD for me perfectly.
- d.
Christopher Thieme wrote:
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
<Will Smith voice>You think?</>
Just last night I was writing about one (less than psychotic) aspect of this; see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#Not-so- Outside Comment by Steve Summit]], and search down for "Wikipedia (like any open, on-line forum) attracts some fiercely stubborn and independent people".
It's really more of a topic for Sociology than Psychology, although both are interesting. Wikipedia (and really, almost all Wikis) is a grand experiment in an informal sort of Consensus Process, which has been around in some form for over 40 years. It's also been the staple of various peace and justice movements in terms of direct action and protest.
It's also, historically, one the foundations of classic Anarchism. I find this hilarious, since the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Anarchism is one of the most toxic and contentious bits of trollery I've ever laid eyes on here. That's beside the point, but funny to me nonetheless.
What's more interesting to me is how Wikipedia pretty much "works", rather than the bits that don't work. For the most part, the Wikipedia community is friendly, harmonious and productive. It's just that the working part of it doesn't get as much attention from within the community because it's not a problem to be fixed.
I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought up, but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon now. Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that celebrities are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone wanting their "one minute of fame".
I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's the folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are the real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there is definitely some Psychology working there.
Nina
On 1/10/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Christopher Thieme wrote:
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some
people
have when approaching the subject of editing.
<Will Smith voice>You think?</>
Just last night I was writing about one (less than psychotic) aspect of this; see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#Not-so- Outside Comment by Steve Summit]], and search down for "Wikipedia (like any open, on-line forum) attracts some fiercely stubborn and independent people".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/10/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought up, but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon now. Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that celebrities are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone wanting their "one minute of fame".
Plenty of productive ways of getting low level fame on wikipedia. While the multiple author thing means that featured articles are not that good a way of getting it featured pictures are.
I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's the folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are the real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there is definitely some Psychology working there.
The Herostratus approach? I feel that this one only applies to a limited number of our more persistent Vandals.
On 1/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought
up,
but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon
now.
Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that
celebrities
are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone
wanting
their "one minute of fame".
Plenty of productive ways of getting low level fame on wikipedia. While the multiple author thing means that featured articles are not that good a way of getting it featured pictures are.
This is also true, the "one minute of fame statement" was specifically for the casual vandal. This is where it gets interesting, because many people don't just want the collective "fame" of being part of such a high-profile project, but they also want, at the very least, validation and recognition within the community itself. Look at the huge back log of editor reviews, for example.
Another example is the way a lot of folks self-nominate for RFAs. RFAs in general are kind of a thorny issue for me, because I don't really think that folks realize how much work it is (I'm not an admin, and have no wish to be one). I just wrote, for all intents and purposes, a short essay to a user who was a bit uncivil to a newbie because his RFA went so badly. I wish more folks could see that this adminship is just another "chore", and not some kind of shiny metallic cop-star (no offense intended to the fine folks in the police).
I don't know if it's healthy or not, but I tend to just assume I'm famous within the community, and leave it at that. I'm most certainly an extrovert and attention seeker, and have been all my life. I actually wanted to be a singer and musician, but wound up doing other things. I've also always had the dream of getting in on the "ground floor" of something huge (like Google, for example). I've pretty much achieved both my desire for attention and "fame", as well as my desire to be a pioneer in a grand-scale project. I'm pretty content.:)
I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's
the
folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are
the
real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there
is
definitely some Psychology working there.
The Herostratus approach? I feel that this one only applies to a limited number of our more persistent Vandals.
True, but it also applies to a lot of trolls . See GNAA.
--
geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
Another example is the way a lot of folks self-nominate for RFAs. RFAs in general are kind of a thorny issue for me, because I don't really think that folks realize how much work it is (I'm not an admin, and have no wish to be one). I just wrote, for all intents and purposes, a short essay to a user who was a bit uncivil to a newbie because his RFA went so badly. I wish more folks could see that this adminship is just another "chore", and not some kind of shiny metallic cop-star (no offense intended to the fine folks in the police).
The harsh realities of using the mop and the expectations of one's admin peers straighten people out pretty quickly as far as I can see. I worry a lot less about RFAs because most of the ones I'm not sure about actually work out pretty well. A few explode a bit messily, but the community are getting good at spotting them and cleaning up the mess and the AC is understandably reluctant but quite willing to deadmin the sufficiently deserving.
I don't know if it's healthy or not, but I tend to just assume I'm famous within the community, and leave it at that. I'm most certainly an extrovert and attention seeker, and have been all my life. I actually wanted to be a singer and musician, but wound up doing other things. I've also always had the dream of getting in on the "ground floor" of something huge (like Google, for example). I've pretty much achieved both my desire for attention and "fame", as well as my desire to be a pioneer in a grand-scale project. I'm pretty content.:)
Charles Matthews pointed me out to people as "the famous David Gerard" at the wikimeet last night. I'd probably prefer "notorious." OTOH, before Wikipedia I'd never been in a position to have to apologise to the people of an entire country before ...
The Herostratus approach? I feel that this one only applies to a limited number of our more persistent Vandals.
True, but it also applies to a lot of trolls . See *&"&*!"£^%&!"^(*"!*&(*@@@@@@@@@@@@@_________
NO CARRIER
What's more interesting to me is how Wikipedia pretty much "works", rather than the bits that don't work.
Absolutely. The slightest bit of common sense will tell you that you cannot create a good encyclopedia by letting everyone and anyone edit it... Wikipedia is an excellent proof of the fact that common sense is a myth.
On 10/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
There's an interesting article on the BBC website about "psychopathic traits" in the workplace, that seems to have jumped up their most e-mailed list today despite being from 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3579402.stm
From: "the wub" thewub.wiki@googlemail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:08:21 +0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
On 10/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards. Why do I ask? Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.
Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness, control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people have when approaching the subject of editing.
There's an interesting article on the BBC website about "psychopathic traits" in the workplace, that seems to have jumped up their most e-mailed list today despite being from 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3579402.stm
-- the wub
Yes! These types of studies, and this type of clinical work has been going on for some years now.
Helping companies and other organizations recognize and manage pathologies in their organizational culture has been the bulk of my own work for several years now.
And the problems aren¹t confined just to the workplace. All of it goes home. The last hour of work is the first hour of home; and the last hour of home is the first hour of work.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Christopher Thieme wrote:
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
We had a conversation on IRC about this once (which has been preserved for antiquity at [[m:Bash]]) which went downhill rather quickly... search for "how many Wikipedians have Asperger's syndrome" :)