Talk:Wikipedia sociology

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Groups or tendencies seems to be more like self-descriptions of known behaviour observed. At most it can be seem has an ideal type (following M. Weber in this point). Is this model of actions common to the English Wikipedia only or it can be generalized to the rest of the Wikipedias? JorgeGG 22:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC).

Good question. I've only been using Wikipedia for a month or so, and I created this page, because it was what I was looking for when I first joined, but couldn't find. I don't speak any other languages, so I can't comment with any authority. However, most of the tendencies seem to be inevitable with respect to any Wikipedia project. I suspect however that some tendencies will only figure in certain language Wikipedias.
Calling them groups is as you point out too strong a word. I think tendency/types is more appropriate. :ChrisG 13:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this sociological analysis of wikipedia centers more on conflict theory, I think. Could we break it down into structural-functional theory as well? What statuses are within the wikipedia and the roles associated with them. The problems they have and the ways in which they could be reformed. Also, maybe even a interactionist perspective as well. I learned in class that W.I. Thomas said "Situations people define as real, are real in their consequences." Identify those situations that wikipedians define as real and how wikipedians react to them. I am a new student of sociology, if it shows! It seems as if this stuff is already here, but needs to be separated and grouped together in order to affer these diferent perspectives. 68.18.135.2 05:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


This page is wonderful but why not make it into a wikibook. It seems that there is a great deal that could be written on this subject. There is already a wikibook called wikiscience that is about wikis this page is interesting and could be a chapter in the book. Or maybe even a book by itself. It appears to me that many books about wikis should be written to help understand the present nature of the wikiverse and how it may be improved/extended etc. We need more info about wikisoftware, sociology, philosophy, reasons for sucess, historical measures, scientific analysis of growth, new ideas etc.

darwikinism[edit]

should darkinism be listed as 2 of the first 6 major concepts said to govern or describe what goes on/ how things work? yaaaaSchzzMick-izzly 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

the first one is dead 89.67.88.46 10:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]