-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 20/06/2010 04:33, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
Attracting consumers is a much more complicated issue
editors. Editors seem to find their niche or go away.
Attracting readers takes a constant vigilance over how Wikimedia projects
are portrayed in media, pop culture, and casual conversations. There is a
fine balance there. The readers part dabbles with the interaction of
editors. We want readers to fix typos, clean up things, and monkey about.
To make them into editors, they have to have A) the interest B) a positive
experience and C) the desire. Desire is different from interest, because
that is the compulsion to stick around and I consider this to be the most
However, if we can gain at least interest, that is half of the battle even
though there are three parts. It is important that we, as the ones with
desire, foster the environment to invite the casual reader into at least
understanding what we're doing. We all know about the popular
misconceptions are about Wikimedia projects, and we are bound to educate and
relate to the reader if we want to cause the tipping point of creating an
environment that is open, welcoming, but also importantly goal-oriented.
This ties into the congruant thread, but I'm avoiding cross-posting.
for these deep thoughts.
In other words, editors find their own interests and
where they fit in. If
we are going to encourage *reader* participation, that requires active
encouragement from the community to develop a sense of trust. It's true
that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
Oh, by the way, I see
how that weakness can be a strength: you are
allowed to doubt and thus, correct.
"It's true that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. It's
true that you can correct the mistakes."
"It's true that Politicians and Religious have manipulated their own
It's true that they ultimately failed."
"It's true that we know less than the paper Encyclopaedia, it's true
that we're learning faster."
Also, I think there is a kind of academicians that could help us:
epistemologists? What are they saying about the Wikipedian knowledge? I
think they would be interested to study the way knowledge is collected,
built, organized, checked, debated, trusted. This is currently mostly
popular culture but maybe the same mechanisms could be applied to
science. Anyway, I think I have a way to reach Mario Bunge  and ask
him for his opinion. Would it be worth the effort?
One question that seems important to me: how can wp can help the science
and can the epistemology help wp?
On 20/06/2010 01:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
As well as dopamine works during the work, not when
the prize has been
But, it is just about money and goods, as well as that part of
psychology is at the very beginning. Social rewards are much more
powerful. (Note that there are many social stigmas because people
won't do something for money or goods.) I believe that we would have
an editor boom just with "like" button for edits, talk comments and
comments [on Wikinews].
Insightful links. "If/then rewards narrow our focus".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----