on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfr...@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. > > 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.wall...@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 >> 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 <pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk >>> 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l