[Wikipedia-l] Re:MBTI

Tue Jun 1 06:02:34 UTC 2004

Anthere wrote:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>  
>
>>--- Ray Saintonge
>>    
>>
><saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org>
>wrote:
>  
>
>>>Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>>>
>>>>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
>>>      
>>>
>general population. 8-)
>  
>
>>>Ec
>>>      
>>>
>>NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or
>>    
>>
>moths to a flame). ;)
>  
>
>>-- mav 
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmmmmm.
>Well, I hope more people will add themselves so we
>improve statistics.
>
>But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT,
>who think of
>
>* why are those predominant ? What is the positive
>feedback given to them and not given to others ?
>
>* Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are
>they quickly leaving because they can't meet their
>needs ? 
>
>* is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT
>are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to
>attract them and *keep* them ?
>
>* who are the groups more embarassed with trolls ? Who
>could better help best with wikistress attacks ?
>  
>
I'm neither surprised nor worried about the skewed results.  I can 
easily understand how some of these other types would not be given to 
spending long hours banging on the keyboard to write encyclopedia 
article.   Some of them are like spouses who complain when we never come 
to the dinner table or to bed.  Some we would all find unbearable.

Ec

Ec