Oh honies, don't get me started... Nina On 1/9/07, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Marc Riddell wrote: 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

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(a)eskimo.com> wrote:

On 1/10/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.:) True, but it also applies to a lot of trolls . See GNAA. --

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.

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