Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent research


 * Response to: Politically diverse editors and article quality. "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds"


 * Amen to that! I have long believed this and formulated it this way:


 * The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased, and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases  and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the Golden Rule and assume good faith in fellow editors. No one is perfect. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Old issue indeed, plenty of research is available. The Wisdom of Crowds argues that crowd is wise only as long as it's diverse, while polarization is not necessary and may be harmful. --Nemo 11:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Getting a bunch of people together who already hold the same POV doesn't create much improvement. We all need each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to Wikipedia's one-way relationships with Reddit and Stack Overflow - I wrote some thoughts about that at Stackexchange and Reddit, a while ago. Still needs input/energy from others. Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In American political topics, "right wing" editors are sanctioned or banned at a higher rate, and often lower threshold, than the "left wing" editors. According to this first article this will eventually start to have a negative effect on our article balance. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cause for thought. Those editors should be more compliant with our policies and stop pushing fringe theories and using unreliable sources. That would help the problem, because we don't want disruptive editors here. Banning them is a net plus for an accurate encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Case in point - You're assuming that those editors fall out of line with the policies more often than the left wing editors. That may or not be true. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Case in point: assertion not backed by facts. How is the term "right wing editor" defined? For example, I consider my own political views left of center in terms of US politics, yet I am very aware that they would be considered centrist or even right of center in terms of European politics. And how can you prove that editors of one particular POV are "sanctioned or banned" more often than those of any other POV? -- llywrch (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Without evidence for any biased reason why some would be banned more than others, I just assume a certain amount of good faith in our processes, ergo, there are more of one type who are misbehavin'. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I like, "Articles receiving the most attention (by editors) overall lack the depth of quality found in featured articles." EllenCT (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Great roundup! I enjoyed reading about the latest Wikipedia studies. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)