Obviously getting way off topic, but if you want a detailed analysis of the motivations and surprising findings of these games, they are the four classics of game theory: the dictator game, the ultimatum game, the public (goods) game, and the trust game.
The researchers know what they're doing here, the question really is whether we want to support fairly random pieces of research in this obvious a manner.
-- Harry (User:Jarry1250)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 12 December 2011 21:52, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
It is, but the type of Wikimedians who would go in for this are likely to be more familiar with game theory than the average bear.
Yes, I'm curious what they actually want to learn. I'm guessing its something to do with alturism, but I'm not sure it will work.
It seems obvious to me that the optimal strategy is to completely screw over your associates (it's not the optimal group strategy, but you can't control what the group does), so that's what I did (the researchers then screwed me over by randomly choosing the game with the least win as the one I actually got - they said it was random, but they never said they had equal probabilties!). I'm obviously an alturistic person (I wouldn't volunteer here otherwise), but my alturism doesn't extend to giving random people on the internet that I don't know and that don't know me money that I have no idea what they'll do with. It's just not a realistic scenario.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org