Wikipedia research and/vs wiki research (was: Re: [wiki-research] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia Research, Quantitative Analysis, General User Survey and more

[GerardM]

Hoi,
The notion that something has to be "repeatable" in order to be considered
science is a fallacy. It would mean that everything that is historic or
everything that is done at a specific time cannot be considered science.
When you do an interview at a certain moment, the circumstances at that
moment have a direct effect on the outcome of the interview.

Another thing where you are wrong is in seeing Wikipedia as ONE project. It
is not. It is many projects because of its many languages. There are many
things that have been observed in the projects that indicate a similarity
when you consider the phase where a project had a similar size in community
or content. It is not completely the same because the bigger projects are
observed and emulated to some extend. However, this should be acceptible to
still call it "science".

Thanks,
     Gerard

On 8/11/06, Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Helmut. This is a hugely important discussion waiting to happen:
>
> Is Wikipedia research a subset, superset, or just overlaps with wiki
> research?
>
> I think it is clear that Wikipedia research is
> not a superset of wiki research given that wikis
> are prominent in corporations and other contexts
> as well. Eventually those who can't distinguish
> Wikipedia from wikis will learn that.
>
> The other question is more tricky: Is Wikipedia
> research a subset of wiki research? Conceptually
> yes, but I'm not sure it matters practically.
> Wikis are so broad that all the sociological etc.
> research that's relevant for Wikipedia in
> principle also works with wikis. However,
> Wikipedia is such a singular phenomenon that I
> doubt much of the investigations done into it can
> be transfered easily to other wikis.
>
> Because of its singularity, by some sciences
> Wikipedia research probably wouldn't even qualify
> as research as it is difficult to show repeatability of experiments etc.
>
> Dirk
>
>
> At 11.08.2006, Helmut Leitner wrote:
> >I think that "Wikipedia research" has an absurd quality.
> >It is like starting biology from studying a single species.
> >
> >This doesn't mean of course that I intend to criticise any
> >single person or activity. Everything is great.
> >
> >But seen as a whole this kind of research can not have efficiency
> >because its focus and perpective is too narrow and restricted.
> >
> >Helmut
> >
> >Dirk Riehle wrote:
> >>Here a long and interesting email by Eric
> >>Zachte regarding Wikipedia research coming out
> >>of Wikimania. Some of it is relevant for general wiki research as well.
> --Dirk
> >>
> >>>Wikimedia Research
> > > ...
> >
> >--
> >HLS SOFTWARE/WIKISERVICE   www.hls-software.com  www.wikiservice.at
> >leitner at hls.via.at    office at wikiservice.at  leitner at wikiservice.at
> >Helmut Leitner       MOBIL: +43 676 7221638     TEL: +43 316 383820
> >Rosenberggürtel 41, A-8010 Graz, Österreich     FAX: +43 316 383462
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >wiki-research mailing list, wiki-research at wikisym.org
> >http://www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research
> >
> >For the wiki-research, wiki-standards,
> >wikisym-announce mailing lists, please see:
> >http://www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> wiki-research mailing list, wiki-research at wikisym.org
> http://www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research
>
> For the wiki-research, wiki-standards, wikisym-announce mailing lists,
> please see:
> http://www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.wikisym.org/pipermail/wiki-research/attachments/20060811/bcd7bdae/attachment.htm