[Foundation-l] "antisocial production"

[Foundation-l] "antisocial...

Eddie Tejeda

28 Jun 2009 28 Jun '09

6:57 a.m.

'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-wikipe…ml>, 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....

Show replies by date

Fred Bauder

28 Jun 28 Jun

7:07 a.m.

...

Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy, Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new ideas, which we call original research. Fred Bauder

Marc Riddell

7:27 a.m.

...

> '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-wikipe… > -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.... >

on 6/27/09 6:07 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net wrote:

...

C'mon, Fred; it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"? And as for "closed to new ideas"; that may be appropriate to the body of the encyclopedia itself, but it applies very much in the various Mailing Lists & Talk Pages. Take a good look. Marc Riddell

Fred Bauder

9:14 a.m.

...

> '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-wikipe… > -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.... >

on 6/27/09 6:07 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net wrote:

OK, an error, it is not policy to be disagreeable, policy is to be civil, and on the mailing lists and irc too, but I'll stand by the observation that Wikipedia is a dull place, "Just the facts, Ma'am", and intended to be. Fred

Ray Saintonge

29 Jun 29 Jun

3:40 p.m.

Fred Bauder wrote:

...

The flaw in the latter part of your comments is that I don't believe that they were talking about content. Had it been about content you would certainly be right. Biting newbies, aggressive insistence on established procedures and guidelines across a wide range of article types, or general impatience are all part of the more disagreeable qualities to be found. As a community grows in size and self-importance it becomes easier to ignore new ideas by reacting to them with silence. By quietly disposing of new ideas the community's immune system is at its bacteriophagic best; it is just not smart enough to distinguish between cancers and cures. Ec

Phil Nash

28 Jun 28 Jun

7:16 a.m.

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-wikipe…ml>, > 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.

Steven Walling

7:29 a.m.

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(a)blueyonder.co.uk>wrote;wrote:

...

Eddie Tejeda wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-…

, > 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....

-- Steven Walling | @StevenWalling mobile: 360.606.2930 skype: stevenwalling

David Moran

7:35 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

wrote:

Eddie Tejeda wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-…

, > 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....

-- Steven Walling | @StevenWalling mobile: 360.606.2930 skype: stevenwalling _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Marc Riddell

7:51 a.m.

on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

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

And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in depth. Marc Riddell

...

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

wrote:

Eddie Tejeda wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-… umpy-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....

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Phil Nash

8:27 a.m.

Marc Riddell wrote:

...

> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> 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 > > And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not > in depth. > > Marc Riddell

I wonder how much of that is due to cultural differences, taking the Pokemon vs Medieval Philosophy difference as one example? Editors have multifarious interests, and IMO, the worst of them tend to discount outside interests, particularly when it comes to "popular culture", as irrelevant. I'd suggest that NPOV suggests that within a historical perspective, it is not for us now to judge such issues, after all, it's not as if we are short of disk space for our articles. I'm reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Cultures but these days, we have many more than two cultures represented in en:wiki, so diversity should not only be expected, but encouraged; this, to me, means that editors should occasionally step outside their comfort zone and see what is going on elsewhere. Perhaps, since I watchlist about 1600 articles of various types, I get an overview denied to, or rejected by, others, but then also, perhaps I have too much time on my hands. Ho hum.

Marc Riddell

29 Jun 29 Jun

12:35 a.m.

...

Marc Riddell wrote: >> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not >> in depth. >> >> Marc Riddell

on 6/27/09 7:27 PM, Phil Nash at pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

...

Phil, I'm not talking about Article v. Article, or Subject Area v. Subject Area. I am presenting to an overall, cohesive cultural standard that would clearly define the entire Project. As it is now, what culture there is is very cult-like in that its members religiously protect what is, and are very resistant to what could be, i.e., change. For the Project to truly grow in depth, and get itself out of the box it has placed itself in, this resistance to change must be confronted. The Wikipedia Project has been virtually without competition for its entire existence. That may very well soon change. Marc Riddell

Fred Bauder

28 Jun 28 Jun

9:10 a.m.

...

on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com wrote:

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

And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in depth. Marc Riddell

Overly pessimistic, one of the things I have done in my life is ferry NBA teams around. If they couldn't play on the court considerably better than than they get along, any high school team could beat them. Elites have a great deal of trouble with social interaction, but they nevertheless can perform. Fred

geni

10:40 a.m.

2009/6/27 Phil Nash <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk>uk>:

...

1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess

It's big enough to get some results. The ones across gender lines are more questionable.

...

3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent analysis for bias in the questions asked

It probably is published but not circulated among the general public.

...

4. Peer-reviewed research by whom?

Whoever does the peer review for CyberPsychology & Behavior I supose.

...

and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot, because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions.

The results are hardly earth shattering as it basically adds up to "wikipedia is written but people with weak social skills aka nerds" -- geni

Bence Damokos

9:16 p.m.

You can find the original study at: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/cpb.2007.0225?cookieSet=1 <http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/cpb.2007.0225?cookieSet=1>apparently they used a pre-existing questionairre called the BFI Questionnaire (probably stands for Big Five Inventory; the closest article in Wikipedia on the subject might be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits) Best regards, Bence Damokos 2009/6/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>

...

2009/6/27 Phil Nash <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk>uk>:

1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess

It's big enough to get some results. The ones across gender lines are more questionable.

3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent analysis for bias in the questions asked

It probably is published but not circulated among the general public.

4. Peer-reviewed research by whom?

Whoever does the peer review for CyberPsychology & Behavior I supose.

and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot, because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions.

The results are hardly earth shattering as it basically adds up to "wikipedia is written but people with weak social skills aka nerds" -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Milos Rancic

8:55 a.m.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Eddie Tejeda<eddie(a)visudo.com> wrote:

...

Generally, my experiences are close to that conclusion. The problem is that even it is a close approximation of Wikipedian community, Wikipedian community is the best which humanity has. Scientific communities all over the world are much worse: openness is low, flexibility is low, vanity is high, scientific sincerity is low... -- besides the characteristics of Wikipedians, which are, also, characteristics of scientists. Not to talk about artists, businesspersons, bankers, politicians...

Fred Bauder

9:06 a.m.

...

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Eddie Tejeda<eddie(a)visudo.com> wrote:

Yes, that perspective is correct. We do fairly well, comparatively. Fred

Tisza Gergő

29 Jun 29 Jun

3:52 a.m.

Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes:

...

it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipe…ml>,

...

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....

This is old news, the Signpost covered the research sometime January. Methodologically it is not much worth: it was based on an online questionnaire, so there is no way to tell which segment (if any) of the he.wiki community it is representative of.

Ray Saintonge

1:53 p.m.

Tisza Gergő wrote:

...

Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes: it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipe…ml>,

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....

The New Scientist article was indeed dated January 3, and this suggests that people on the Foundation mailing list don't pay a lot of attention to the Signpost either. Ec

Gerard Meijssen

6 p.m.

Hoi, The signpost is something of the English Wikipedia. I do not frequent there. Also you are wrong on principles when you expect people of this list to give the English Wikipedia all their attention. This is after all the foundation list. Thanks. GerardMM 2009/6/29 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>

...

Tisza Gergő wrote:

Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes: it<

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-…

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....

This is old news, the Signpost covered the research sometime January. Methodologically it is not much worth: it was based on an online

questionnaire,

so there is no way to tell which segment (if any) of the he.wiki

community it is

representative of.

The New Scientist article was indeed dated January 3, and this suggests that people on the Foundation mailing list don't pay a lot of attention to the Signpost either. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

phoebe ayers

30 Jun 30 Jun

3:20 a.m.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Don't be grumpy :) This seems like a good time to plug the Signpost (again): We have a blog: http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/ with an RSS feed of new issues, so you never have to go near the English Wikipedia if you don't want to. Though if you do, you can sign up for talk page delivery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist and as a special bonus Sage is keeping a twitter account with interesting WP news: http://twitter.com/wikisignpost And we're trying hard to include project-wide and Foundation news, including research etc., as well as happenings on en:wp. (don't forget to add your tips to the tipline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggesti…). -- Phoebe

Gerard Meijssen

6:56 a.m.

Hoi, Is this blog syndicated on either of the two ? That would be the obvious thing to get it read :) Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/29 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>

...

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, The signpost is something of the English Wikipedia. I do not frequent

there.

Also you are wrong on principles when you expect people of this list to

give

the English Wikipedia all their attention. This is after all the

foundation

list. Thanks. GerardMM

Sage Ross

10:03 a.m.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hoi, Is this blog syndicated on either of the two ? That would be the obvious thing to get it read :) Thanks, GerardM

Yes, the blog is syndicated on both open.wikiblogplanet.com and en.planet.wikimedia.org. The blog basically serves as a notification service of the contents of each new issue; in order not to fragment discussion venues and to accommodate the need to copy-edit and correct articles post-publication, the actual full articles are on-wiki. Incidentally, the June 29 issue just came out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/2009-06-… I'll be updating the blog shortly. -Sage (User:Ragesoss)

5416

days inactive

5419

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Bence Damokos
David Moran
Eddie Tejeda
Fred Bauder
geni
Gerard Meijssen
Marc Riddell
Milos Rancic
Phil Nash
phoebe ayers
Ray Saintonge
Sage Ross
Steven Walling
Tisza Gergő