Coffee's here!!: The Wikipedians - "a bunch of egocentric introverts"?

Perish the thought. People who say such things had better roll their own party sandwiches.

Yet Asher Moses for The Age (July 8, 2009) advises,

a study by Israeli psychology researchers found "the prosocial behaviour apparent in Wikipedia is primarily connected to egocentric motives ... which are not associated with high levels of agreeableness".

The study, published in the journal CyberPsychology and Behaviour, gave personality tests to 69 active members of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and 70 non-Wikipedians, finding the former "feel more comfortable expressing themselves on the net than they do offline".

The researchers' findings that Wikipedians were introverted, disagreeable and closed to new ideas is at odds with the notion that Wikipedia was built around community and knowledge sharing.

Feather, please. I can't be expected to do my pro-gravity trick without the familiar prop.

The rest of the article goes on to provide details and to vindicate Australian Wikipedians as less messed in the head than others, and we must hope it is so.

Of course, anyone familiar with the intelligent design controversy will be well aware of the waste of time associated with trying to get reasonably neutral information posted.

To me, the scandal is not that the trolls are running the 'pedia, but that profs actually send their students there for information.

Coffee break: The Onion salutes Wikipedia!

From time to time, various ID theorists have kvetched to me about terminally stupid entries on intelligent design topics at Wikipedia, but it took The Onion to finally do something about this kind of problem - laugh at it as it deserves.

In "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence," The Onion sends up wiki-nonsense beautifully:

"On July 25, 1256, delegates gathered at Comerica Park to sign the Declaration Of Independence, which rejected the rule of the British over its 15 coastal North American colonies," reads an excerpt from the entry. "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America."

And much more. This stuff that reminds me, like totally, of the Wiki coverage of the intelligent design controversy.

Other posts here on this subject:

Competitor - Citizendium

Wikipedia seen as grudge factory

Wikipedia competitor takes dead aim at propaganda featured as information

People sick and tired of the nonsense and garbage sponsored at Wikipedia about intelligent design, take heart. According to the Times of London, there's hope. Citizendium has survived, and is serious competition:

A project has been set up with the aim of usurping Wikipedia as the web's leading reference work.
Like its rival, the Citizendium site will solicit input from the public. But in a departure from the standard "wiki" model, it will be directed by expert editors, and contributors will be expected to use their real names.
The changes are designed to stamp out the inaccuracies and mischief-making that have blighted Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that "anybody can edit".
The venture reflects a general revolt against unchecked user-generated online content, amid fears that efforts to tap the wisdom of crowds have unleashed a tyranny of the masses.

Yes, anybody can edit Wikipedia, all right, and anyone does. Your crazy ex-squeeze, the guy nobody got along with at work, the fanatic whose tracts you recycled in Fluffo's litterbox ... all can get their revenge at Wikipedia. And what normal person has the time to fight it out with them?

Yes, information wants to be free, but there has to be a better way than that. Here and here are more links. Oh, and don't miss the RationalWiki follies. More rational than a rabid raccoon.

Wikipedia seen as grudge factory?: Competitor looms

Recently, there have been some serious problems with widely consulted Wikipedia entries on major intelligent design figures that read like poison pen letters. The trouble is, anyone can edit a Wiki entry. This problem is hardly likely to be confined to the intelligent design controversy, as a recent scandal and ban on school use has spotlighted.

As Financial Times put it, Wikipedia's celebrated "openness" has

drawn charges of unreliability and left it vulnerable to disputes between people with opposing views, particularly on politically sensitive topics.

Read the rest here.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind, on behalf of the forthcoming bookThe Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist'sc ase forthe existence of the soul

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.