Dear all,
This idea appeared in my mind when I was in bathroom this morning . And hope I am using the right words and sentences to express my idea because English is not my mother tongue. :-)
Proposal:
* We ***MUST*** find fair,effective, and free ways to reward, either spiritually or financially, those volunteers who are diligently, consistently creating and editing high-quality articles in wikipedia site family.
* And We also **MUST** extend this reward method to any person who directly or indirectly contributed or are contributing to wikipeida site family by any means.
== Do we really need this? Absolutely! ==
By fairly and effectively rewarding those page creating and editing volunteers, we can encourage and enable current volunteers to do even better work and attract more new voluteers to participate in this magnificent, world-wide cooperation which will definitely benefit to our planet in the future .
Actually, a positive feedback cycle could be established in this way and WikiPedia would have a model to grow rapidly and healthily:
volunteers write/edit good articles--> more people are willing to read them, find they are useful and reward the volunteers --> volunteers get rewarding, either spiritually or financially -->voluteers are encouraged and be able to write more good articles --> ...
I am not treating volunteers as experimental white mice here(Remeber I am one of them). But this cycle simply works! Doesn't it? Of course, there are some people don't need any kind of reward to do excellent work, just let them be and provide an option to turn off the rewarding faucet to them :-)
== Mission Impossible? Fair, Effective, and Free? ==
=== How to be Fair? === *let all readers/visiters have an equally chance to participate in grading any volunteer and any article (or even any section) in terms of quality and quantiy.
* A convenient way for readers to grade current article or section.
* A convenient way for readers to grade each volunteer
* Or we can just focus the quality of the article, let computer derive the grading of the volunteers from the articles ? No, I don't like this way. Computers are not smart enough to identify real work or junk work currently. And somebody could abuse it if he/she knows the deriving algorithms.
===How to be Effective?=== Simply and easy: Give them Fame! && Give them money!
Needless to say, all volunteers deserve fame and money via their excellent work. Again turn off the rewarding faucet to people who don't want those two :-)
==== Fame ==== * Showing their names (even nicknames work well enough for encouraging purpose)explicitly under the title of each article(or even each section if it is peice of enough work), sorted by grading numbers provided by readers/visiters which can be used to identify the quality and quantity of their work
* Better organization of the contribution information for individual volunteers. I don't want talk too much about it this time, but the current page for this is a mess.
* A centralized monument(a php page actually) carved in the important names and their pictures(if they don't mind) who contributed a lot to wikipedia in history (though it is a short history)
* A centralized room to showing current star volunteers with highest grading number along with their pictures if they don't mind.
==== Money ==== * Let readers/visitors have changes to directly donate money flawlessly(1 cent, 1 dollar or one house if they really want) to the volunteers at their own will.
* Or let them donate all to WikiPedia and let WikiPida distribute them? NO!NO!NO! Some bureaucrats could abuse their power and ruin the whole direct and fair reward mechanism. We already have the option for visitors to donate to WikiMedia Foundation directly.Don't mess them up.
===How to be free? === It is actually care-free enough for WikiPedia Site family if we use the methods I mentioned above.
===Is it feasible? === I cannot see any technical obstacles to prevent us from realizing this grading-rewarding system. However, we need consult experts for the non-technical issues, I am not a lawyer.
And more over, it is not a new idea at all. I saw something similar happening in sourceforge.net.
== Its impact on the future== Finally, what is the impact of this open, direct,and discrete working-rewarding model on our world in the future?
I would say: A revolution has began! Why? This model can facilitate people to do what they really have interested in while get the reward they deserve if their interests can actually benefit a large group of people in some way. The direct feature of this model also eliminates most of the intermediate costs or overhead which is not unusual in current world.
By contrast, traditionally, we have to be employeed by some organizations for a relatively longer time to contribute our wisdom, knowledge, and efforts to end-users indirectly. However, our interests are usually changing and sometimes we are feeling be forced to do something we no longer like to do. The worse thing is that the reward from the end-user are so indirect that sometimes the people between us and the users grab a large portion from it in an amount of we think they do not deserve. The result is quite obvious: we get really frustrated and therefore work ineffectively.
Hey! I am not saying this model can completely phase off the traditional work model. The people between the workers and users are indeed necessary for many big products, the presure imposed by employers serves as stimulant for us to secrete more adrenalin to become more powerful and energic than usual, and there is no detour to gain real achievement without loyal to your original faith and interest.
What I am really going to emphasize is that some real requirements in our world can be fulfilled better in simpler, directer, and even discrete way. And, We already have paid enough attention to the free spirit of software sharing,knowlege sharing and so on and so forth. It is time for us to see another unadulterated side of this coin: the sharing is also joyfull, profitable, and thus sustainable and scalable.
In conclusion, please seriously consider my above proposal and the meaning behind it. Let's put it in roll as soon as possible! I bet it will make a big difference to wikipedia site family, the whole free resource community(no matter it is a idea, a software, a valuable experience,an encyclopedia article, a piece of knowledge or anything else useful to our world), and most important, it may make a big difference to you, my lovely, respectable friends combating in this money? world for the noble ideal of sharing knowlege among the world for free.
I am also puting this initial, unmature proposal into page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_Fair%2C_Effective_and_Free_Rewarding_System...
Please refine it (English is a pain for me) and add your ideas or comments if you are interested.
I am waiting for your response......
Best Regards,
kissall
I find your insistance on *MUST* a bit strange. Wikipedia already is a great success by any definition without any artificial rewards system so there's a proof in the pudding that artificial rewards system is not crucial to Wikipedia success therefore is not a *must*.
The problem with your proposition is that it radically alters how the system works. While you're of course convinced that the new system will work so much better, I personally don't see it that way.
First there's a very flawed assumption that just giving people ability to donate will create enough dontations to support the system. Historically we can say that this is not the case. Despite constant fund-rising efforts by Wikipedia foundation, donations barely cover the cost of hardware necessary to keep up with Wikipedia's growth. So I don't see how you can make suddenly turn the trickle of donations into a stream big enough to support not only basic needs of Wikipedia but also leaving enough money for paying contributors meaningful amounts of money.
There there's also this fact that, while the issue isn't completely settled, there is psychological research saying that extrinsic rewards, contrary to naive but popular belief, not only doesn't increase performance, but actually lowers it, see e.g.: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/motivate.html http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap4/chap4q.htm
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
There there's also this fact that, while the issue isn't completely settled, there is psychological research saying that extrinsic rewards, contrary to naive but popular belief, not only doesn't increase performance, but actually lowers it, see e.g.: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/motivate.html http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap4/chap4q.htm
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
I wouldn't take this "research" too seriously. I'm not doubting the seriousness and/or competency of the researchers, but this seems like one of those "scientific conclusions" that are made once and then taken for instant truth by a large group of people (volunteer online project participants, in this case) because it simply "fits the picture". In other words, the conclusion is backed up by wishful thinking more than concrete evidence. Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
Similarly it is possible that people produce less-quality work for money not because of the money, but because of some undetermined third factor. Work for money tends to be less volunteered (i.e. you're stuck in a contract with an employer, you can't opt out at any time). Work for money tends to involve other people (colleagues or a boss) whom you might not like, but can't walk away from. Loads of possibilities.
Greetings, Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
There there's also this fact that, while the issue isn't completely settled, there is psychological research saying that extrinsic rewards, contrary to naive but popular belief, not only doesn't increase performance, but actually lowers it, see e.g.: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/motivate.html http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap4/chap4q.htm
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
I wouldn't take this "research" too seriously. I'm not doubting the seriousness and/or competency of the researchers, but this seems like one of those "scientific conclusions" that are made once and then taken for instant truth by a large group of people (volunteer online project participants, in this case) because it simply "fits the picture". In other words, the conclusion is backed up by wishful thinking more than concrete evidence. Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
I first read about this study in an issue of "Scientific American" last spring. Thank you for letting us know that the theme has also been taken up by the Free Software Foundation. I would never have thought to look there for more information.
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
This kind of analogical argument is extremely unsound. In that investigation proposing the initial hypothesis that thunderstorms caused milk to go sour was perfectly valid. It was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Subsequent experimentation showed the hypothesis to be false, and that was what science is all about. At best raising this issue is completely irrelevent.
Similarly it is possible that people produce less-quality work for money not because of the money, but because of some undetermined third factor. Work for money tends to be less volunteered (i.e. you're stuck in a contract with an employer, you can't opt out at any time). Work for money tends to involve other people (colleagues or a boss) whom you might not like, but can't walk away from. Loads of possibilities.
There are certainly undetermined factors involved. A long accepted premise among economists is that people would act rationally. Rationality in this context was defined in terms of bettering one's economic situation. This thread of rationality could be applied very conveniently at both the micro- and macroeconomic level. For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act. Where does the economist ask the question, "What motivates people when their economic goals are achieved?" Are the economics of greed a universal motivator? If my 10-year old automobile adequately gets me wherever I want to go, why would I ever want a bigger fancier one? Why work a 40-hour week when the pay for a 30-hour week is sufficient? Is it the big salary that motivates you to keep working for Wikipedia?
Ec
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:47:13AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There are certainly undetermined factors involved. A long accepted premise among economists is that people would act rationally. Rationality in this context was defined in terms of bettering one's economic situation. This thread of rationality could be applied very conveniently at both the micro- and macroeconomic level. For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act.
But of course it is rational. The benefit due to improvement in one's child's health is much greater than loss because of not working.
Even in the most diehard classical economy, the money is just a means for getting the actual goods, and in this case you can obtain much more valuable goods some other way.
I don't mean that classical economy is correct, or that people are acting rationally in some way, but this example is terribly wrong.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:47:13AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There are certainly undetermined factors involved. A long accepted premise among economists is that people would act rationally. Rationality in this context was defined in terms of bettering one's economic situation. This thread of rationality could be applied very conveniently at both the micro- and macroeconomic level. For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act.
But of course it is rational. The benefit due to improvement in one's child's health is much greater than loss because of not working.
Rationality operates from a set of premises, and a strict reasoning from those premises. Unless it can be shown that caring for the sick child has economic value (e.g. the child is a precocious film star) it is an irrational act because we are inserting a premise from outside the system. Within a strictly rational system euthenasia may be the only rational act, and one must not confuse that with the natural human emotional response to such an act.
Even in the most diehard classical economy, the money is just a means for getting the actual goods, and in this case you can obtain much more valuable goods some other way.
In that case one needs to compare the net loss from not working with the net economic effect of working while paying someone else to care for the child. The healing effect of being personally present to care for the child cannot be economically quantified.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act.
This statement betrays an almost complete ignorance of economic theory.
In any event, this discussion should be taken to a different list from wikitech-l.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act.
This statement betrays an almost complete ignorance of economic theory.
Then I must agree with your implication that economics is not scientific.
In any event, this discussion should be taken to a different list from wikitech-l.
Certainly. Removal of the context about what motivates people did allow the topic to drift a little. A reply to your offlist POV will follow.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Timwi wrote:
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
This kind of analogical argument is extremely unsound. In that investigation proposing the initial hypothesis that thunderstorms caused milk to go sour was perfectly valid. It was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Subsequent experimentation showed the hypothesis to be false, and that was what science is all about. At best raising this issue is completely irrelevent.
OK, so as long as we regard the proposed results of the study as nothing more than a hypothesis, then we agree.
Timwi
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:06:14 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
I wouldn't take this "research" too seriously. I'm not doubting the seriousness and/or competency of the researchers, but this seems like one of those "scientific conclusions" that are made once and then taken for instant truth by a large group of people (volunteer online project participants, in this case) because it simply "fits the picture". In other words, the conclusion is backed up by wishful thinking more than concrete evidence.
Well, I have a research to back up my "wishful thinking". You have only wishful thinking to back up your "wishful thinking". I still think that research carries more weight.
Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
Which is most likely due to your limited exposure. As far as I know, those results were confirmed in multiple experiments spanning multiple years. Hit the google and the library and then start proclaiming that "you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities." One of the driving reasons for the research is to determine how to improve people's (student's, employee's) productivity and well-being and therefore has very broad applications and is non-neglible field of study in psychology.
The fact that *you* didn't hear about it outside free-software communites prooves only that you're not exactly qualified to comment on quality of the research and its conclusions.
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
You're arguing that "some people made inccorect conclusions in the past (example) therefore researches in question (that have nothing to do whatsoever with those people) made incorrect conclusions as well". Faulty logic if I ever saw one.
If you want to debate the merits of a very specific research, provide links to research that counters the result.
Similarly it is possible that people produce less-quality work for money not because of the money, but because of some undetermined third factor. Work for money tends to be less volunteered (i.e. you're stuck in a contract with an employer, you can't opt out at any time). Work for money tends to involve other people (colleagues or a boss) whom you might not like, but can't walk away from. Loads of possibilities.
Of course it's possible that they're wrong for multiple reasons. Researches could be really stupid. They could have suffered from temporary insanity. Maybe they were sponsored by evil goverment agency so secret, that they don't even have 3-letter acronym and created wrong results on purpose.
However, just pointing the fact that its possible that the research migh be wrong is not an argument. You can apply this silly reasoning to any research ever done, especially in psychology, given that isolating primary factors isn't easy in psychological studies.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
However, just pointing the fact that its possible that the research migh be wrong is not an argument. You can apply this silly reasoning to any research ever done, especially in psychology, given that isolating primary factors isn't easy in psychological studies.
Indeed, that in itself is probably enough to take the research with the very large grain of salt. Only occasionally do strong claims in psychological studies end up actually being accurate ones. Even correlations in psychology are very error-prone, given how difficult it is to design an unbiased experiment, and causational claims are doubly so.
(Just recently I read an article in a refereed journal giving good reason to believe that _all_ studies done to date on antidepressants are invalid. And that's an area where there's been tons of work with billions of dollars spent on very carefully trying to prove results.)
-Mark
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:17:26 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
However, just pointing the fact that its possible that the research migh be wrong is not an argument. You can apply this silly reasoning to any research ever done, especially in psychology, given that isolating primary factors isn't easy in psychological studies.
Indeed, that in itself is probably enough to take the research with the very large grain of salt. Only occasionally do strong claims in psychological studies end up actually being accurate ones. Even correlations in psychology are very error-prone, given how difficult it is to design an unbiased experiment, and causational claims are doubly so.
(Just recently I read an article in a refereed journal giving good reason to believe that _all_ studies done to date on antidepressants are invalid. And that's an area where there's been tons of work with billions of dollars spent on very carefully trying to prove results.)
You're just repeating this extremely faulty argument "some research has been found invalid therefore all research is invalid".
But more importantly, if you dismiss the value of published research, how do you propose we carry on an intelligent discussion? What arguments can I possibly use that you'll accept as valid?
Also, how do you stack up layman's personal opinion (e.g. Timwi's) against published research? Is it of the same value/importance to you? More? Less?
And finally, as quoted by http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html and http://www.uwo.ca/uwofa/ft/6.2/#ph1 :
"... at least two dozen studies over the last three decades have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all."
Kohn, A. 1993. Why incentive plans cannot work! Harvard Educational Review nos. 9/10: 45-63.
Note the word "conclusively".
If you proceed to invalidate pretty strong evidence with mere hand-waving, then there's really little point in having a discussion on this subject.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info
On Sun, 2004-12-09 at 14:32 -0700, Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
And finally, as quoted by http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html and http://www.uwo.ca/uwofa/ft/6.2/#ph1 :
"... at least two dozen studies over the last three decades have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all."
To jump in here, the key word is "expect". I haven't read the studies, nor am I a student of psych, but it seems to me that there is a significant difference between work directly leading to a reward, and work possibly leading to a reward. I don't think that any of these studies are relevant to the conversation.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
You're just repeating this extremely faulty argument "some research has been found invalid therefore all research is invalid".
No, it's a probabilistic argument: "research in this field, even research previously considered rock solid, has on numerous occasions later been found to be completely invalid, therefore it is inadvisable to place a large degree of confidence in research results in the field."
I don't think many people will argue that psychology has a very good track record. Up until just 30 years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists nearly uniformly agreed that homosexuality was, scientifically speaking, a mental illness, a finding they finally retracted only after people _outside_ the field attacked them continuously over a period of many years. Anti-depressant studies have a similarly suspicious history. In general, I'd be wary of any study coming out of that area, unless it's been rigorously vetted by people outside the field.
But more importantly, if you dismiss the value of published research, how do you propose we carry on an intelligent discussion? What arguments can I possibly use that you'll accept as valid?
Oh, some published research is more reliable and relevant. I'd still take it with a grain of salt, but I'd be more interested in the large body of economics literature on how incentive payments (such as bonuses) impact employee performance. As far as I know, it's currently a disputed topic, with some studies claiming to show positive impact, some studies claiming to show negative impact, and some studies claiming to show no measurable impact. There's also some relevant literature on the effects of paid labor on the availability and quality of volunteer labor.
-Mark
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:57:40 -0400 Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't think many people will argue that psychology has a very good track record. Up until just 30 years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists nearly uniformly agreed that homosexuality was, scientifically speaking, a mental illness, a finding they finally retracted only after people _outside_ the field attacked them continuously over a period of many years.
I think that that's a very bad thing to compare with, since the question whether homosexuality is an illness is a matter of definition more than something one could expect to get from research in the best of circumstances. It is not that there used to be research concluding that homosexuality is an illness and that now that research has been invalidated. It is that one used to define homosexuality as an illness and now one doesn't.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:57:40 -0400 Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't think many people will argue that psychology has a very good track record. Up until just 30 years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists nearly uniformly agreed that homosexuality was, scientifically speaking, a mental illness, a finding they finally retracted only after people _outside_ the field attacked them continuously over a period of many years.
I think that that's a very bad thing to compare with, since the question whether homosexuality is an illness is a matter of definition more than something one could expect to get from research in the best of circumstances. It is not that there used to be research concluding that homosexuality is an illness and that now that research has been invalidated. It is that one used to define homosexuality as an illness and now one doesn't.
The reason homosexuality was considered an "illness" is because psychologists believed they could cure it.
Today there is conclusive evidence to show that it is not something you can "cure". You can only force these people to fit into society by denying their own identity.
Timwi
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Timwi wrote:
homosexuality is an illness and that now that research has been invalidated. It is that one used to define homosexuality as an illness and now one doesn't.
The reason homosexuality was considered an "illness" is because psychologists believed they could cure it.
Today there is conclusive evidence to show that it is not something you can "cure". You can only force these people to fit into society by denying their own identity.
Now this is going very offtopic. Wheter homosexuality is a normal condition, an illness, a genetic feature or a genetic defect does not really influence mediawiki development.
Alfio
Wow! You guys are really talkative! I cannot see any connection between homosexuality and my proposal :-)
So, finally, May I ask: what are your opinions about setting up a page/volunteer grading system in WikiPedia?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:35:53 +0200 (MEST), Alfio Puglisi puglisi@arcetri.astro.it wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Timwi wrote:
homosexuality is an illness and that now that research has been invalidated. It is that one used to define homosexuality as an illness and now one doesn't.
The reason homosexuality was considered an "illness" is because psychologists believed they could cure it.
Today there is conclusive evidence to show that it is not something you can "cure". You can only force these people to fit into society by denying their own identity.
Now this is going very offtopic. Wheter homosexuality is a normal condition, an illness, a genetic feature or a genetic defect does not really influence mediawiki development.
Alfio
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:22:29 +0100 Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The reason homosexuality was considered an "illness" is because psychologists believed they could cure it.
Today there is conclusive evidence to show that it is not something you can "cure". You can only force these people to fit into society by denying their own identity.
I disagree. None of the proposed "cures" for homosexuality seems to have been very effective, but that does not mean that there might not be other means that do work. Not to mention that there are some researchers who claimed at least some success. Also, very similar "illnesses" such as sado-masochism and pedophilia are still considered so by the psychiatric community, even though there's just as little proof that they can be "cured".
Rather than whether we can cure it, I think the main question is: If we _could_ cure it, would we _want_ to do so. 30 years ago the answer was yes, now it is no. That's what has differed.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:22:29 +0100 Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The reason homosexuality was considered an "illness" is because psychologists believed they could cure it.
Today there is conclusive evidence to show that it is not something you can "cure". You can only force these people to fit into society by denying their own identity.
I disagree. None of the proposed "cures" for homosexuality seems to have been very effective, but that does not mean that there might not be other means that do work. Not to mention that there are some researchers who claimed at least some success. Also, very similar "illnesses" such as sado-masochism and pedophilia are still considered so by the psychiatric community, even though there's just as little proof that they can be "cured".
Rather than whether we can cure it, I think the main question is: If we _could_ cure it, would we _want_ to do so. 30 years ago the answer was yes, now it is no. That's what has differed.
There's always the historical perspective. Considering homosexuality an illness was a step forward from considering it a criminal act.
Ec
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:17:26 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
You're just repeating this extremely faulty argument "some research has been found invalid therefore all research is invalid".
You're just repeating your faulty assumption that anyone is trying to declare the research as "invalid".
If all you know is "valid" and "invalid", then I'm afraid your thinking is a bit too black and white.
Timwi
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:06:14 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
Which is most likely due to your limited exposure.
[etc. Additional polemics snipped.]
Your emotional response shows, in my mind, two things:
* You are subject to the same sort of wishful thinking. You are so convinced of the validity of the supposed result that you will not hesitate to resort to personal attacks to defend it.
* You didn't really understand what I was trying to say. (I might not have been clear enough, in which case I apologise, but personally it seems more likely to me that you just overreacted because you read my message as a challenge to the scientific result.)
To make this absolutely clear: I am not challenging the validity of any of the researchers' work. Nor am I suggesting that the study was in any way flawed or that any important factors had been overlooked or ignored.
What I *am* saying is that people in general are over-interpreting the result. I don't think any of the researchers involved in the study seriously think that they have dug up rock-solid evidence that proves, as a hard fact, that people will definitely produce less-quality work for money. It's the sort of people who would just *love* for that to be true who tend to put more interpretation into the results than the people who produced them.
Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org