Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge
saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
general population. 8-)
Ec
NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or
moths to a flame). ;)
-- mav
Hmmmmmm. Well, I hope more people will add themselves so we improve statistics.
But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT, who think of
* why are those predominant ? What is the positive feedback given to them and not given to others ?
* Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are they quickly leaving because they can't meet their needs ?
* is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to attract them and *keep* them ?
* who are the groups more embarassed with trolls ? Who could better help best with wikistress attacks ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Anthere wrote:
But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT, who think of
- why are those predominant ? What is the positive
feedback given to them and not given to others ?
- Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are
they quickly leaving because they can't meet their needs ?
To put it simply, airline pilots are not encyclopedists. The personality traits that make for a good pilot, for instance split-second assessment and decision, are more likely to generate conflicts in WP than to resolve them.
- is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT
are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to attract them and *keep* them ?
To take a different angle, you want people who are introspective, because they're the ones who will want to think about why they organizing information in a particular way. You've already run into the non-introspectors; they loudly declare that their way is the only way, and would rather fight than figure out a compromise.
In general, we want people who are well-suited for the task of building the information base. It doesn't do us any good to bring in people who are ill-suited; they won't like it, won't last long, and you probably won't like the results of their work.
Stan
Anthere wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge
saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
general population. 8-)
Ec
NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or
moths to a flame). ;)
-- mav
Hmmmmmm. Well, I hope more people will add themselves so we improve statistics.
But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT, who think of
- why are those predominant ? What is the positive
feedback given to them and not given to others ?
- Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are
they quickly leaving because they can't meet their needs ?
- is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT
are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to attract them and *keep* them ?
- who are the groups more embarassed with trolls ? Who
could better help best with wikistress attacks ?
I'm neither surprised nor worried about the skewed results. I can easily understand how some of these other types would not be given to spending long hours banging on the keyboard to write encyclopedia article. Some of them are like spouses who complain when we never come to the dinner table or to bed. Some we would all find unbearable.
Ec
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org