[Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation

[Noein]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/06/2010 04:33, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> Attracting consumers is a much more complicated issue than attracting
> editors.  Editors seem to find their niche or go away.
> 
> Attracting readers takes a constant vigilance over how Wikimedia projects
> are portrayed in media, pop culture, and casual conversations.  There is a
> fine balance there.  The readers part dabbles with the interaction of
> editors.  We want readers to fix typos, clean up things, and monkey about.
> To make them into editors, they have to have A) the interest B) a positive
> experience and C) the desire.  Desire is different from interest, because
> that is the compulsion to stick around and I consider this to be the most
> important part.
> 
> However, if we can gain at least interest, that is half of the battle even
> though there are three parts.  It is important that we, as the ones with
> desire, foster the environment to invite the casual reader into at least
> understanding what we're doing.  We all know about the popular
> misconceptions are about Wikimedia projects, and we are bound to educate and
> relate to the reader if we want to cause the tipping point of creating an
> environment that is open, welcoming, but also importantly goal-oriented.
> This ties into the congruant thread, but I'm avoiding cross-posting.
Thank you for these deep thoughts.


> In other words, editors find their own interests and where they fit in.  If
> we are going to encourage *reader* participation, that requires active
> encouragement from the community to develop a sense of trust.  It's true
> that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
Oh, by the way, I see how that weakness can be a strength: you are
allowed to doubt and thus, correct.
"It's true that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. It's
true that you can correct the mistakes."
"It's true that Politicians and Religious have manipulated their own
articles.
It's true that they ultimately failed."
"It's true that we know less than the paper Encyclopaedia, it's true
that we're learning faster."
Etc.



Also, I think there is a kind of academicians that could help us:
epistemologists? What are they saying about the Wikipedian knowledge? I
think they would be interested to study the way knowledge is collected,
built, organized, checked, debated, trusted. This is currently mostly
popular culture but maybe the same mechanisms could be applied to
science. Anyway, I think I have a way to reach Mario Bunge [1] and ask
him for his opinion. Would it be worth the effort?

One question that seems important to me: how can wp can help the science
and can the epistemology help wp?


[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Bunge


On 20/06/2010 01:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
> As well as dopamine works during the work, not when the prize has been
> get: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrCVu25wQ5s
>
> But, it is just about money and goods, as well as that part of
> psychology is at the very beginning. Social rewards are much more
> powerful. (Note that there are many social stigmas because people
> won't do something for money or goods.) I believe that we would have
> an editor boom just with "like" button for edits, talk comments and
> comments [on Wikinews].

Insightful links. "If/then rewards narrow our focus".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHlWDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LumUIAKDLvUqMHu5le3fmnNvivfC1
ITySQLMfLhsuEVMwE3LPTbXBPj2jbvpBJyvsB8jmTr170zp2cucSXnqXw4ulw5+n
Z1DKfFO86KJ+Ly0HX9s0fSV6F9M/Og63zpuo+a05PDys/+0F+bv0Kp1jhly4Q6H/
ui5UOCLKapoaBUdmtCVPsXneBXOxuDt3FDkcrWO230gERWRh/V6oqo9SdC/fU5EF
89jOC0nY5Pm8fUYrF6mqEnmKrRoIvFKZ+CCcg1903kv0GnVNIeBRdEt1wwNvBoAK
lKSBGOZ0vxPaGJsRIXsJn2GEjfax+BZItkHKFQ+EULyulo2i8LamYn2Yv2Z4oeo=
=Q+fN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----