A study seemed to indicate that the majority of Wikipedians, through their participation, are compensating for 'something' (the study showed negative behavior, compensation was suggested as the explanation).
THESIS: Regardless of any flaws in the study, the psychology and motivations of Wikipedians should be considered rather than assumed.
- Assumption: study only showed negative behavior and presumed unspecified compensation as explanation.
- Jobs: Most Wikipedians may contribute in their pre-established fields or in deep hobbies with nothing to prove aside from what comes necessary from the anonymity of the internet.
- Howard Hughes: better to compensate through a contribution than through taking.
Important questions include:
- How do people read into conversations they literally read?
- How do people respond to conflict?