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.com> wrote:
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