Hi, I saw that J and I don’t think (luckily) it ever finished.
Your comment about it taking “a certain mindset” is very true and the reason behind this post. Joe, If you can help us bring any data to “good use” allowing a “more emergent understanding” then please feel free to fire out suggestions. Thanks! On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:11, Joe Corneli <holtzerman...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if rather than trying to sort people into existing categories, it > would be useful to have a more emergent understanding of Wikimedia and the > broader open source community. Obviously we should be careful because it > could amount to playing with fire (cf. Cambridge Analytica). *However* > there may also be ways to use some of related techniques "for good". With > my colleagues at The Open University, we joked about "Milton Keynes > Analytica". Specifically, we started from the point of view thinking about > how to model 'values'. There's some overlap with psychological traits > (e.g., openness) but I think values particularly lend themselves towards > uses that support commons-creation rather than private-exploitation. If > you think about the anti-patterns that challenge values and value-based > thinking, they are things like "dogma" (which would tend to shut down > conversations rather than use them as an opportunity to explore multiple > points of view). In this sense it seems within Wikimedia's remit to > embrace values, especially the values of contributors and users. > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
