A group of researchers did an analysis of the personalities of Wikipedia members and apparently don't think they are all that great. By not great, I mean they fared less well on scales of agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness than people who weren't Wikipedia members.
Not surprisingly, introverted women were more likely to be Wikipedia members than non-introverted women. Basically, women who can get boyfriends instead of slamming other contributors on Wikipedia tend to do that. Not so shocking.
They did a survey of 139 people, 86 men and 54 women. 69 of those were Wikipedia members (and overwhelmingly men, thus skewing the female results harder) and they found that Wikipedia members were more likely to find their "Real Me" 'variance' on the internet; basically Wikipedia members prefer to express themselves online rather than in the real world. Their other questionnaire, "BFI", is a short form of the Big Five Questionnaire and it is supposed to measure 5 traits; openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, extroversion and agreeableness. Where they didn't do well.
All this sounds bad, but does it mean that people who do a whole lot of work for free have negative characteristics? Only if you set up a particular social standard and demand everyone match it. Sure, we make fun of Wikipedia here but only when it's used for science or politics. For things that have no controversy they are quite good. And did I mention people do this for free, just like on Reddit.com and some social media sites?
(not Digg, that sucker is owned by marketing people)
I think I am happy that there are introverted people who like to generate content and make the world smarter. Labels don't matter much. Unless you are a psychologist who makes labels your job.
They also think this is indicative of all sites that have user generated content. Obviously it's not the case here, I think our community is pretty open to new people and commenters with real questions or concerns about things we write that they don't agree with. And we're funny. I just don't think there is a science community out there funnier than ours. Some think they are, but they are just angry and laugh when they out-sanctimony each other.
What say you? Do you have higher social anxiety and poorer social skills because you write science for community outreach?
Article: Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, Tsahi Hayat. CyberPsychology&Behavior. December 1, 2008, 11(6): 679-681. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0225
Comments
In high school we had a 'science college bowl' competition (but against other high schools) and, pressed for time because I was in too many events, I had to solve a fluid problem on short notice, I had maybe 5 minutes to be at my next event. So I looked at it and guessed. And came in second.
Guessing that Wikipedia contributors might be less social than others feels like that sort of easy guess.
Hank Campbell | 01/04/09 | 03:09 AM
I am female and I am a social person in all kinds of media, including real life. :-) Who came up with the idea that you have to be introverted just because you are a geek, or perhaps simply intelligent? :-)
Oh, I know a very dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. He is a genuine geek and very social in all kinds of media, too. I guess I am tempted to conclude on my sound statistical basis that in fact, contributors to Wikipedia, both males and females, are highly sociable in all kinds of media. In fact double geekiness seems to equal double socialness in cyber space as well as in space space. That is my conclusion. And I am a scientist. :-)
Remind me why we give Wikipedia such a hard time. As with all sources of information, critical view is imperative. It is clearly not a scientific journal, but I have never gotten the impression they pretend to be either. I like Wikipedia.
Bente Lilja Bye | 01/04/09 | 09:37 AM
I am female and I am a social person in all kinds of media, including
real life. :-) Who came up with the idea that you have to be
introverted just because you are a geek, or perhaps simply intelligent?
:-)
Hear, hear!
And I'm sure if I had an avatar, she would be social too.
Becky Jungbauer | 01/04/09 | 13:47 PM
Ian Ramjohn | 01/04/09 | 11:06 AM
I think I am happy that there are introverted people who like to generate content and make the world smarter. Labels don't matter much. Unless you are a psychologist who makes labels your job.
and for Bente
Remind me why we give Wikipedia such a hard time. As with all sources of information, critical view is imperative. It is clearly not a scientific journal, but I have never gotten the impression they pretend to be either.
Like a study in a journal that is just a review of studies in journals, Wikipedia cannot be a source in itself. Obviously I like Wikpedia, I was part of Jimmy Wales' $6 million campaign this past week, but that doesn't mean someone's credibility does not drop in a science argument if they list it as their source. To me they are arguing by Google searches if they do that.
Hank Campbell | 01/04/09 | 11:19 AM
I'm actually a Wikipedia contributor myself, though I've only done much contribution to a couple articles--and those were for political purposes. (But they were political purposes that I felt I could best achieve by writing fair, level-headed content that I could back up with citations from peer-reviewed journals.)
Also, there is always the question of how generalizable the results are to Wikipedia contributors.