Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

"antisocial production"

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

eddie at visudo

Jun 27, 2009, 2:57 PM

Post #1 of 22 (1629 views)
Permalink

"antisocial production"

'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
it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
ideas."'
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php

I wonder how the mailing list will react....
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

Jun 27, 2009, 3:07 PM

Post #2 of 22 (1592 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

> '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
> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
> ideas."'
> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>
> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>

Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low
interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self
expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy,
Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new
ideas, which we call original research.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pn007a2145 at blueyonder

Jun 27, 2009, 3:16 PM

Post #3 of 22 (1593 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

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
>> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
>> new ideas."'
>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>
>> 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Jun 27, 2009, 3:27 PM

Post #4 of 22 (1601 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

>> '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
>> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians
>> -grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
>> ideas."'
>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>
>> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>>
on 6/27/09 6:07 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud [at] fairpoint wrote:

>
> Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low
> interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self
> expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy,
> Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new
> ideas, which we call original research.
>
C'mon, Fred; it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"? And as for "closed to new
ideas"; that may be appropriate to the body of the encyclopedia itself, but
it applies very much in the various Mailing Lists & Talk Pages. Take a good
look.

Marc Riddell

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

steven.walling at gmail

Jun 27, 2009, 3:29 PM

Post #5 of 22 (1602 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

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 a
survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and diverse.
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 down
and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there
are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective).

Steven

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder>wrote:

> 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
> >> it<
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html
> >,
> >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
> >> new ideas."'
> >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
> >>
> >> 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
> 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fordmadoxfraud at gmail

Jun 27, 2009, 3:35 PM

Post #6 of 22 (1597 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

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.

DM

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>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
> a
> survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and
> diverse.
> 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
> down
> and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there
> are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective).
>
> Steven
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder
> >wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >> it<
> >
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html
> > >,
> > >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
> > >> new ideas."'
> > >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Jun 27, 2009, 3:51 PM

Post #7 of 22 (1589 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail 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.
>
> DM

And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in
depth.

Marc Riddell

>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling
> <steven.walling [at] gmail>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
>> a
>> survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and
>> diverse.
>> 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
>> down
>> and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there
>> are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective).
>>
>> Steven
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>> it<
>>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-gr
>> umpy-and-closedminded.html
>>>> ,
>>>>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to
>>>>> new ideas."'
>>>>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pn007a2145 at blueyonder

Jun 27, 2009, 4:27 PM

Post #8 of 22 (1591 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Marc Riddell wrote:
>> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail 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.
>>>
>>> DM
>>
>> And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not
>> in depth.
>>
>> Marc Riddell

I wonder how much of that is due to cultural differences, taking the Pokemon
vs Medieval Philosophy difference as one example?
Editors have multifarious interests, and IMO, the worst of them tend to
discount outside interests, particularly when it comes to "popular culture",
as irrelevant. I'd suggest that NPOV suggests that within a historical
perspective, it is not for us now to judge such issues, after all, it's not
as if we are short of disk space for our articles. I'm reminded of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Cultures but these days, we have many more
than two cultures represented in en:wiki, so diversity should not only be
expected, but encouraged; this, to me, means that editors should
occasionally step outside their comfort zone and see what is going on
elsewhere. Perhaps, since I watchlist about 1600 articles of various types,
I get an overview denied to, or rejected by, others, but then also, perhaps
I have too much time on my hands. Ho hum.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 27, 2009, 4:55 PM

Post #9 of 22 (1595 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Eddie Tejeda<eddie [at] visudo> 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
> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
> ideas."'
> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>
> I wonder how the mailing list will react....

Generally, my experiences are close to that conclusion.

The problem is that even it is a close approximation of Wikipedian
community, Wikipedian community is the best which humanity has.
Scientific communities all over the world are much worse: openness is
low, flexibility is low, vanity is high, scientific sincerity is
low... -- besides the characteristics of Wikipedians, which are, also,
characteristics of scientists. Not to talk about artists,
businesspersons, bankers, politicians...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

Jun 27, 2009, 5:06 PM

Post #10 of 22 (1593 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Eddie Tejeda<eddie [at] visudo> 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
>> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
>> ideas."'
>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>
>> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>
> Generally, my experiences are close to that conclusion.
>
> The problem is that even it is a close approximation of Wikipedian
> community, Wikipedian community is the best which humanity has.
> Scientific communities all over the world are much worse: openness is
> low, flexibility is low, vanity is high, scientific sincerity is
> low... -- besides the characteristics of Wikipedians, which are, also,
> characteristics of scientists. Not to talk about artists,
> businesspersons, bankers, politicians...
>

Yes, that perspective is correct. We do fairly well, comparatively.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

Jun 27, 2009, 5:10 PM

Post #11 of 22 (1601 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail 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.
>>
>> DM
>
> And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in
> depth.
>
> Marc Riddell
>

Overly pessimistic, one of the things I have done in my life is ferry NBA
teams around. If they couldn't play on the court considerably better than
than they get along, any high school team could beat them. Elites have a
great deal of trouble with social interaction, but they nevertheless can
perform.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

Jun 27, 2009, 5:14 PM

Post #12 of 22 (1591 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

>
>>> '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
>>> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians
>>> -grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
>>> ideas."'
>>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>>
>>> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>>>
> on 6/27/09 6:07 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud [at] fairpoint wrote:
>
>>
>> Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have
>> low
>> interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self
>> expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is
>> policy,
>> Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new
>> ideas, which we call original research.
>>
> C'mon, Fred; it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"? And as for "closed to
> new
> ideas"; that may be appropriate to the body of the encyclopedia itself,
> but
> it applies very much in the various Mailing Lists & Talk Pages. Take a
> good
> look.
>
> Marc Riddell
>

OK, an error, it is not policy to be disagreeable, policy is to be civil,
and on the mailing lists and irc too, but I'll stand by the observation
that Wikipedia is a dull place, "Just the facts, Ma'am", and intended to
be.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geniice at gmail

Jun 27, 2009, 6:40 PM

Post #13 of 22 (1593 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

2009/6/27 Phil Nash <pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder>:
> 1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess

It's big enough to get some results. The ones across gender lines are
more questionable.

> 3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent
> analysis for bias in the questions asked

It probably is published but not circulated among the general public.

> 4. Peer-reviewed research by whom?

Whoever does the peer review for CyberPsychology & Behavior I supose.

> and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot,
> because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions.

The results are hardly earth shattering as it basically adds up to
"wikipedia is written but people with weak social skills aka nerds"

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bdamokos at gmail

Jun 28, 2009, 5:16 AM

Post #14 of 22 (1560 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

You can find the original study at:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/cpb.2007.0225?cookieSet=1
<http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/cpb.2007.0225?cookieSet=1>apparently
they used a pre-existing questionairre called the
BFI Questionnaire (probably stands for Big Five Inventory; the closest
article in Wikipedia on the subject might be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

Best regards,
Bence Damokos

2009/6/28 geni <geniice [at] gmail>

> 2009/6/27 Phil Nash <pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder>:
> > 1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess
>
> It's big enough to get some results. The ones across gender lines are
> more questionable.
>
>
> > 3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent
> > analysis for bias in the questions asked
>
> It probably is published but not circulated among the general public.
>
> > 4. Peer-reviewed research by whom?
>
> Whoever does the peer review for CyberPsychology & Behavior I supose.
>
> > and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot,
> > because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions.
>
>
> The results are hardly earth shattering as it basically adds up to
> "wikipedia is written but people with weak social skills aka nerds"
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Jun 28, 2009, 8:35 AM

Post #15 of 22 (1551 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail 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.
>>>>
>>>> DM
>>>
>>> And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not
>>> in depth.
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell

on 6/27/09 7:27 PM, Phil Nash at pn007a2145 [at] blueyonder wrote:
>
> I wonder how much of that is due to cultural differences, taking the Pokemon
> vs Medieval Philosophy difference as one example?
> Editors have multifarious interests, and IMO, the worst of them tend to
> discount outside interests, particularly when it comes to "popular culture",
> as irrelevant. I'd suggest that NPOV suggests that within a historical
> perspective, it is not for us now to judge such issues, after all, it's not
> as if we are short of disk space for our articles. I'm reminded of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Cultures but these days, we have many more
> than two cultures represented in en:wiki, so diversity should not only be
> expected, but encouraged; this, to me, means that editors should
> occasionally step outside their comfort zone and see what is going on
> elsewhere. Perhaps, since I watchlist about 1600 articles of various types,
> I get an overview denied to, or rejected by, others, but then also, perhaps
> I have too much time on my hands. Ho hum.
>
Phil, I'm not talking about Article v. Article, or Subject Area v. Subject
Area. I am presenting to an overall, cohesive cultural standard that would
clearly define the entire Project.

As it is now, what culture there is is very cult-like in that its members
religiously protect what is, and are very resistant to what could be, i.e.,
change. For the Project to truly grow in depth, and get itself out of the
box it has placed itself in, this resistance to change must be confronted.

The Wikipedia Project has been virtually without competition for its entire
existence. That may very well soon change.

Marc Riddell

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gtisza at gmail

Jun 28, 2009, 11:52 AM

Post #16 of 22 (1554 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes:

> '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
>
it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
> ideas."'
> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>
> I wonder how the mailing list will react....

This is old news, the Signpost covered the research sometime January.
Methodologically it is not much worth: it was based on an online questionnaire,
so there is no way to tell which segment (if any) of the he.wiki community it is
representative of.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Jun 28, 2009, 9:53 PM

Post #17 of 22 (1538 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes:
>
> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>
>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
>> ideas."'
>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>
>> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>>
> This is old news, the Signpost covered the research sometime January.
> Methodologically it is not much worth: it was based on an online questionnaire,
> so there is no way to tell which segment (if any) of the he.wiki community it is
> representative of.
The New Scientist article was indeed dated January 3, and this suggests
that people on the Foundation mailing list don't pay a lot of attention
to the Signpost either.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Jun 28, 2009, 11:40 PM

Post #18 of 22 (1539 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Fred Bauder 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
>> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html>,
>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
>> ideas."'
>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
>>
>> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
>>
> Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low
> interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self
> expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy,
> Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new
> ideas, which we call original research.
The flaw in the latter part of your comments is that I don't believe
that they were talking about content. Had it been about content you
would certainly be right. Biting newbies, aggressive insistence on
established procedures and guidelines across a wide range of article
types, or general impatience are all part of the more disagreeable
qualities to be found. As a community grows in size and self-importance
it becomes easier to ignore new ideas by reacting to them with silence.
By quietly disposing of new ideas the community's immune system is at
its bacteriophagic best; it is just not smart enough to distinguish
between cancers and cures.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 29, 2009, 2:00 AM

Post #19 of 22 (1523 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Hoi,
The signpost is something of the English Wikipedia. I do not frequent there.
Also you are wrong on principles when you expect people of this list to give
the English Wikipedia all their attention. This is after all the foundation
list.
Thanks.
GerardMM

2009/6/29 Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus>

> Tisza Gergő wrote:
> > Eddie Tejeda <eddie@...> writes:
> >
> > it<
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html
> >,
> >
> >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new
> >> ideas."'
> >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php
> >>
> >> I wonder how the mailing list will react....
> >>
> > This is old news, the Signpost covered the research sometime January.
> > Methodologically it is not much worth: it was based on an online
> questionnaire,
> > so there is no way to tell which segment (if any) of the he.wiki
> community it is
> > representative of.
> The New Scientist article was indeed dated January 3, and this suggests
> that people on the Foundation mailing list don't pay a lot of attention
> to the Signpost either.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

phoebe.wiki at gmail

Jun 29, 2009, 11:20 AM

Post #20 of 22 (1505 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Gerard
Meijssen<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The signpost is something of the English Wikipedia. I do not frequent there.
> Also you are wrong on principles when you expect people of this list to give
> the English Wikipedia all their attention. This is after all the foundation
> list.
> Thanks.
> � � GerardMM

Don't be grumpy :) This seems like a good time to plug the Signpost (again):

We have a blog: http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/
with an RSS feed of new issues, so you never have to go near the
English Wikipedia if you don't want to.

Though if you do, you can sign up for talk page delivery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist
and as a special bonus Sage is keeping a twitter account with
interesting WP news: http://twitter.com/wikisignpost

And we're trying hard to include project-wide and Foundation news,
including research etc., as well as happenings on en:wp. (don't forget
to add your tips to the tipline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions).

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 29, 2009, 2:56 PM

Post #21 of 22 (1500 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

Hoi,
Is this blog syndicated on either of the two ? That would be the obvious
thing to get it read :)
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/29 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Gerard
> Meijssen<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The signpost is something of the English Wikipedia. I do not frequent
> there.
> > Also you are wrong on principles when you expect people of this list to
> give
> > the English Wikipedia all their attention. This is after all the
> foundation
> > list.
> > Thanks.
> > GerardMM
>
> Don't be grumpy :) This seems like a good time to plug the Signpost
> (again):
>
> We have a blog: http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/
> with an RSS feed of new issues, so you never have to go near the
> English Wikipedia if you don't want to.
>
> Though if you do, you can sign up for talk page delivery:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist
> and as a special bonus Sage is keeping a twitter account with
> interesting WP news: http://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>
> And we're trying hard to include project-wide and Foundation news,
> including research etc., as well as happenings on en:wp. (don't forget
> to add your tips to the tipline:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions
> ).
>
> -- Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail

Jun 29, 2009, 6:03 PM

Post #22 of 22 (1498 views)
Permalink

Re: "antisocial production" [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Gerard
Meijssen<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Is this blog syndicated on either of the two ? That would be the obvious
> thing to get it read :)
> Thanks,
> � � GerardM

Yes, the blog is syndicated on both open.wikiblogplanet.com and
en.planet.wikimedia.org. The blog basically serves as a notification
service of the contents of each new issue; in order not to fragment
discussion venues and to accommodate the need to copy-edit and correct
articles post-publication, the actual full articles are on-wiki.

Incidentally, the June 29 issue just came out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/2009-06-29

I'll be updating the blog shortly.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads