Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coffee’s here!!: The Wikipedians – “a bunch of egocentric introverts”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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

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.

Comments
BTW PaulBurnett, I never use Conservapedia. I use Wiki often, but for info on more benign subjects - such as music history and literature, etc. Conservapedia simply does not have the vast data base that Wiki has.CannuckianYankee
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett, "Unlike Wikipedia, the majority of Conservapedia articles appear to have been written by a high school sophomore in a hurry. Citing Conservapedia on any given topic is advocating a much lower standard of scholarship than citing Wikipedia." My intention in citing Conservapedia was to show that they got ID right, while Wikipedia is constantly revising their article on ID, and never quite getting it right. Their's appears as more of a political ideologue's impression of ID rather than what ID actually is. I'm really not in favor of any of these online encyclopedias, where pretty much anybody can insert their ideas. And as far as finding good information? Forget it. Sadly, a lot of people rely on them.CannuckianYankee
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
spark300c, did you consider looking at: a. The talk page and: b. The list of works cited ?dbthomas
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
I found pass Wikipedia articles on I.D. funny. They never seem to get quite right. the biggest question do these poeple write what they understand off an argument for I.D.. Do these editors ever go to book to get it right and then tell have ever one feels about it.spark300c
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
It's pretty clear that O'Leary's motivation in this thread is similar to Mario Lopez's motivation in his Nazi thread: to attempt to refute people's ideas with attacks on their characters. Lopez (or at least the commentators in the thread) hope that by associating Darwin with Nazism or by calling Darwin a racist you will somehow conclude that the theory that Darwin originated is therefore wrong. O'Leary is miffed that wikipedia (rightfully) calls ID what it is: the new form of creationist pseudoscience. She therefore ad homs wikipedia editors, calling them introverted, disagreeable, and closed-minded, with the hope that readers will conclude that what they say about ID must therefore somehow be wrong. It should be apparent what logical fallacies both of these threads commit. At least O'Leary, when called on the speciousness of her comments, was wily enough to have protected herself: "I was just joking!"Anthony09
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee (#3) wrote: "Now compare what Wikipedia says about ID, and what another online encyclopedia - Conservapedia says..." Unlike Wikipedia, the majority of Conservapedia articles appear to have been written by a high school sophomore in a hurry. Citing Conservapedia on any given topic is advocating a much lower standard of scholarship than citing Wikipedia. (My favorite Conservapedia articles include the utterly non-scientific "Baraminology" and the "Origins - Creation science and Creationism" section of the "Kangaroo" article. Conservapedia supports creationism far more strongly than it supports intelligent design.)PaulBurnett
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Some seem to have missed the fact that the hedder is Coffee's Here! Those are not intended as serious moments, whether or not your views are well ground.O'Leary
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Although I have no stake in Wikipedia's credibility one way or another, it is should be noted that this paper is worthless exercise that would earn a failing grade in a freshman psychology class. Its fatal methodological flaws (e.g. self-selection of subjects via the internet) render any inferences from their subjects to larger populations utterly invalid. UD contributors and sympathetic commenters often assert they are concerned with science. A good start would be the application of some discrimination regarding scientific inferences. Citing this paper as indicative of anything isn't a good start.Diffaxial
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Wikipedia's "evolution" of ID: From 2001: "A theory of evolution asserting that the appearance of new species in the fossil record are authentic. According to Intelligent Design, God created each new species right around the time they first appeared in the fossil record. "Intelligent Design should be distinguished from Sudden Creationism, the religious doctrine that God created all forms of life in an extremely short period of time. Many adherents of Sudden Creationism reject the idea that fossils provide a record of evolutionary activity." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=259782 Later the same day: "A theory of evolution asserting that God guided the process of evolution. Intelligent Design (ID) agrees with Darwinism that fossils provide scientists with a useful tool to date the appearance and extinction of new species. According to ID, God created each new species right around the time they first appeared in the fossil record. The acceptance of the fossil record distinguishes ID from other Creationist theories such as Sudden Creationism." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=259787 The next day after several other revisions: "Intelligent design is a theory of evolution which asserts that God guided and continues to guide the process of evolution, on the grounds that some differences between species are too complex to have come about without having been designed. The scientific view of evolution is based on two premises. Variations occur in the genetic makeup of organisms, and through the process of Natural selection, the most fit of those variations survive while the others die out. Intelligent Design accepts much of the scientific theory, but differs in one crucial aspect -- the role of God in causing the variations." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=259811 About a year later: "Advocates of intelligent design argue that the biological evidence presents serious problems for macroevolution. For example, all the major types of animals appeared at the same time in the fossil record, with no evidence of common ancestry--a pattern inconsistent with Darwin's theory. They also argued that complex organs that cannot function without all their parts provide evidence for a cause having intelligence. Usually, this intelligence is attributed to God. This may be considered an outgrowth of the concept that some biological developments are too complex to have come about without having been designed--this latter concept is known as Irreducible complexity, and the related argument from design." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=259949 From July, 2002: "Intelligent design (ID) is a set of beliefs which state that life is the product of an intelligent designer. ID is in direct opposition to the Darwin's theory of evolution and most modern ideas and theories or life and its evolution. Proponents of ID claim that it is different from creationism, because ID neither begins with the faith that God exists or that God did create the world and living things. Rather ID proponents argue that the various forms of life show signs of having been created. Opponents of ID tend to dismiss ID's claim of differentiation from creationism, seeing it as a way of dressing up religious claims in scientific guise. Some opponents of ID say it serves primarily as a big tent under which to rally all sorts of creationists; the godfather of the ID movement, the UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson (now emeritus), is quoted as saying that issues such as the age of the earth can be taken up once the common enemy of evolution has been done away with." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=58625 August, 2003: "Intelligent design (ID) is the name for the traditional Biblical religious belief that the universe, life and specifically man, has been created by an "intelligent designer", namely "God". Advocates of intelligent design are generally fundamentalist Christians. Advocates of intelligent design take great care never to name God as the designer. Intelligent design is a form creationism; it is vigorously opposed by the mainstream of scientific thought, which overwhelmingly accepts that biological evolution is a well-established fact. (See also natural selection.) Intelligent Design rejects the basis of of evolutionary theory, and rejects the idea of macro evolution. Advocates of ID, however, do accept that microevolution does occur." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=1242196 From September, 2004: "Intelligent design (ID) is the phrase coined for the argument that life and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent, and that therefore abiogenesis must be a false hypothesis. Specifically, the conjecture focuses on the 'what' of the origin of life on Earth, i.e. saying that it is not possible for 'non-living' matter to become 'living' matter (with the level of organization that is observed today) without intervention, and that life itself shows signs of design. The 'Who, why, when, where and how' are theoretically excluded from the debate, although the idea is more often than not identified with religious arguments, with inevitable extension into those other domains. Religious proponents of ID use the argument from design to argue for the existence of a god, usually – in the context of Christianity – God." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=6019551 From November, 2004: "Intelligent design (ID) (ID) encompasses a number of theories arguing that life shows signs of being created by an "Intelligent Designer" rather than through the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Intelligent design makes no claim as to the identity of the designer, however. As such, Intelligent Design arguments support belief in the creation of life on Earth by God, by some other intelligent agent that is not God, or by panspermia, the idea that life originated from organic molecules in space. Intelligent design remains a fringe movement among the mainstream scientific community, and the vast majority of scientists consider it to be pseudoscience, and a masked attempt to bring religion back into scientific discourse." November of 2004 seems to have been a very contentious month for ID on Wikipedia, as there are over 4 pages of links to updates of the article. I especially like the following from April, 2005: "Intelligent design (ID) describes a controversial set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates also argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Claimed by its advocates to expose the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism, the well-organized ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among Christian fundamentalists in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to and critique of orthodox science, and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside he standard scientific models in public school curricula." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=11836604 Notice: "These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to and critique of orthodox science..." Orthodox science? Really? OK, I could go on and on, but I'll stop there. Releived? The point being, that Wikipedia never does get ID right. If this is the case with most of their articles, I begin to wonder if Wikipedia is a good source of any information. I do think the current article is the least accurate of all the articles I linked above. So the evolution of articles on Wikipedia does not always lead to more accuracy. OTH, I do think that they do a fairly good job with benign subjects, such as geography and some history.CannuckianYankee
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
DBT "CY: Sure, but the research she cites, and which is the primary subject of her post, is not evidence for her argument about Wikipedia." OK, well, you have to admit that O'Leary provoked an interesting discussion - regardless of the merits of some of those conclusions. We can refine these ideas as we see fit, and according to more thorough research. I don't think O'Leary is making an argument about Wikipedia other than her observation of its biases - while trying to figure out where those biases come from. The article she cited perhaps does not provide us with a difinitive explanation for those biases, but it's at least a place to start. It warrants further investigation and discussion.CannuckianYankee
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee
Wrong again - ID started before that.
Indeed, about 6K BC, on a Monday morning.sparc
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
DATCG:
Gosh, you suddenly sound like a skeptic reading evolutionist story-telling historical research books and published records. The list of “may” “probably” Might-be” is endless, yet Darwinist and militant atheist claim that macro-evolution is a fact. Hmmmmm…
What relation does this have to misreporting the results of psych papers which can be easily found, for free, via a Google search? In fact, I'm not even entirely sure what it's supposed to mean.dbthomas
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
CY: Sure, but the research she cites, and which is the primary subject of her post, is not evidence for her argument about Wikipedia.dbthomas
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
"Notice that “may”? That means they are speculating as to potential, as opposed to confirmed, explanations, as they make quite clear:" Gosh, you suddenly sound like a skeptic reading evolutionist story-telling historical research books and published records. The list of "may" "probably" Might-be" is endless, yet Darwinist and militant atheist claim that macro-evolution is a fact. Hmmmmm...DATCG
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
BTW, For an excellent summation of the origins of ID, go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/The%20Origins%20of%20Intelligent%20Design.pdf Witt states, "By now even this brief survey has brought certain facts sharply into focus. Although its roots stretch back to Plato, the modern intelligent design movement sprang from fresh discoveries in astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. It’s older than Edwards vs. Aguillard and much bigger than current battles over science education. Some opponents of intelligent design, however, aren’t interested in debating the evidence. They prefer to pretend that the intellectual work of scientists like Dean Kenyon revolve around Edwards vs. Aguillard. The theory of intelligent design owes much to law, but the laws it concerns itself with are the laws of nature. The second half of the 20th century revealed that they are exquisitely fine-tuned for life. It also revealed that while life needs a finely tuned set of physical constants, it apparently also needs something that only intelligence can provide—information. Critics of intelligent design could do with more of it."CannuckianYankee
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
DBT, "what does this have to do with ID anyway?" O'Leary states, "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." As an example of this bias, if you look up Intelligent Design in Wikipedia, the first sentence states, "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Calling ID an assertion is hardly a neutral position. I think O'Leary's observation is therefore justified. Here are some other inaccuracies in the article: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer" ID is not a teleological argument for the existence of God. The evidence ID looks at implies the existence of God, but that does not make ID a teleological argument. "The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." Wrong again. Failure to define what is meant by "creationist" confuses the issue. The courts specifically prohibited the teaching of "scientific creationism," and as such, none of the developers of ID fit in that category. "Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations." Another misconception. ID proponents are not appealing to "supernatural" explanations, because nobody is really defining what is meant by "supernatural." "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." An article that doesn't have a particular bias against ID would not appeal to an "unequivocal consensus." "The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state." Wrong again - ID started before that. Now compare what Wikipedia says about ID, and what another online encyclopedia - Conservapedia says about ID: "The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive; see design detection. With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [1] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[2] In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection..." http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design In-short, Conservapedia right off the bat, tells us exactly what Intelligent Design actually is, rather than a misguided extrapolation of what detractors of intelligent design think it is. So, what does this thread have to do with ID? Pretty much everything. If people are being fed misconceptions about ID, how can they ever hope to understand it?CannuckianYankee
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
That should read "fully confirmed", as the second was partially confirmed.dbthomas
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Hey, Denyse: the full paper is freely available here. It's conclusions aren't quite what you (and the article you've relied upon, which also didn't bother to read the paper, apparently) think they are:
It may be that the prosocial behavior apparent in Wikipedia is primarily connected to egocentric motives, such as personal expression, raising self-confidence, and group identification, motives which are not associated with high levels of agreeableness. Another interesting result was the significant difference found between Wikipedia members and non-Wikipedia members in the openness trait. Again, this may reflect the fact that contributing to Wikpedia serves mainly egocentric motives.
Notice that "may"? That means they are speculating as to potential, as opposed to confirmed, explanations, as they make quite clear:
We suggest that future studies should address two different issues: (a) Research toward a better understanding of the personality traits of Wikipedians and their motivations; and (b) research into other virtual communities whose focus is prosocial behavior.
The study was in fact testing entirely different hypotheses:
Our first hypothesis is about the “Real Me” variance. We hypothesized that Wikipedia members are more likely to find their “Real Me” on the Internet, as compared with the other participants and will, therefore, score higher on that measure than the control group. Our second hypothesis was that Wikipedia members will score lower in the extroversion measure. Based on the connection found between introversion and Internet usage, we hypothesized that the net would produce contrary results. No hypothesis was made for the remaining Big Five dimensions.
Only the first was claimed to have been confirmed by the results. BTW, what does this have to do with ID anyway? Seems an odd place to file it. Care to elaborate?dbthomas
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply