Wikipedia:Psychology

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.
 * 1) Assumption: study only showed negative behavior and presumed unspecified compensation as explanation.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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?

Motivations
Possible positive motivations include: Possible negative motivations include: Positive or negative:
 * Anal retentiveness
 * Sociality
 * Joy in knowledge
 * Fun – enjoying the activity
 * Ideology – expressing support for what is perceived to be the underlying ideology of the activity (e.g. the belief that knowledge should be free)
 * Values – expressing values to do with altruism and helping others
 * Competitiveness
 * To gain recognition within the community
 * Addictiveness

Rewards
Wikipedia appears to offer no award aside from:
 * Joy in collaboration
 * Satisfaction in completion of activities or correction of errors
 * Occasional thanks from other contributors

Inhibitors
Inhibitors to contributions include:
 * Complexity/difficulty
 * Fighting
 * Bias and discrimination

In stone
How does it affect editors that all interactions are permanently recorded?