[Foundation-l] "antisocial production"
michaeldavid86 at comcast.net
Sat Jun 27 22:51:32 UTC 2009
on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud at 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.
And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling
> <steven.walling at gmail.com>wrote:
>> 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
>> survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and
>> 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
>> and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there
>> are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective).
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk
>>> 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
>>>>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
>>>>> new ideas."'
>>>>> 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.
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> Steven Walling | @StevenWalling
>> mobile: 360.606.2930
>> skype: stevenwalling
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l