X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Jun 12 10:11:01 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906120052l713655efuf03caabcd39b73c6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906111624o64de1a47h1a5fa5a513ccba8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906120043v2fc915ccy32f7c8bb9e669b94@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906120052l713655efuf03caabcd39b73c6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:10:42 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906120110k165b6938o7f821ff3000c61c4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:52, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. In this case, you're eminently
	qualified to point out mistakes in my sociological rants. :-) Please, do
	so, when you get the time. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.9 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] semi-wiki-break
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4675282622861171278=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:52, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. In this case, you're eminently
	qualified to point out mistakes in my sociological rants. :-) Please, do
	so, when you get the time. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0013]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.9 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============4675282622861171278==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5abdfabb428046c223e14

--001636c5abdfabb428046c223e14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:52, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes.


In this case, you're eminently qualified to point out mistakes in my
sociological rants.  :-)  Please, do so, when you get the time.


> For the record, that bad review is for a class I've never even taught.
> We have a summer program at Cambridge so that's where I'll be
> teaching. It also includes a bunch of traveling around.


Speaking of sociological rants, I think that it's a case similar to
Wikipedia's problems.  Traditional societies have been relying on long-term
contact between participants, which means that it's socially rewarding to
behave in a civil manner.  Online societies are very often based on random
interactions between strangers (which Wikipedia often enforces, both
explicitly and implicitly) and this means that uninformed rants and trolling
can be socially more rewarding than doing Things Right, or Right Things.
 Assigning random people random scores will probably increase his
"contribution count", leading other people see this one as "active
contributor"; if he would have taken time to make sure to get the basic
facts right, he would not have earned any such points.  Thus, for social
standing, filing nonsensical report is valued more than due diligence.

There might be some similarities between online societies and frontier
societies, except that on Wikipedia, villagers will never tie obnoxious
people to a tree as a grizzly snack.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--001636c5abdfabb428046c223e14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:52, radek szulga <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Yes.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In this case, you&#39;re eminently qua=
lified to point out mistakes in my sociological rants. =C2=A0:-) =C2=A0Plea=
se, do so, when you get the time.</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin=
-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color=
: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
For the record, that bad review is for a class I&#39;ve never even taught.<=
br>We have a summer program at Cambridge so that&#39;s where I&#39;ll be<br=
>teaching. It also includes a bunch of traveling around.</blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>Speaking of sociological rants, I think that it&#39;s a case=
 similar to Wikipedia&#39;s problems. =C2=A0Traditional societies have been=
 relying on long-term contact between participants, which means that it&#39=
;s socially rewarding to behave in a civil manner. =C2=A0Online societies a=
re very often based on random interactions between strangers (which Wikiped=
ia often enforces, both explicitly and implicitly) and this means that unin=
formed rants and trolling can be socially more rewarding than doing Things =
Right, or Right Things. =C2=A0Assigning random people random scores will pr=
obably increase his &quot;contribution count&quot;, leading other people se=
e this one as &quot;active contributor&quot;; if he would have taken time t=
o make sure to get the basic facts right, he would not have earned any such=
 points. =C2=A0Thus, for social standing, filing nonsensical report is valu=
ed more than due diligence.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There might be some similarities between online societi=
es and frontier societies, except that on Wikipedia, villagers will never t=
ie obnoxious people to a tree as a grizzly snack.</div><div><br></div><div>
--=C2=A0<br></div></div></div>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636c5abdfabb428046c223e14--


--===============4675282622861171278==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============4675282622861171278==--


