User:OrenBochman/WGT/WikiMach test

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

intro[edit]

Derive a psych tests to personalize user engagement experience.

  1. MACH test
  2. Risk aversion (Hyperbolic v.s. Exponential Discounting Test)
  3. Stylometric
  4. Social/Game Role Compatibility
  5. Learning style

Original Mach Test[edit]

  1. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
  2. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
  3. One should take action only when sure it is morally right. [note 1]
  4. Most people are basically good and kind. [note 1]
  5. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
  6. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. [note 1]
  7. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. [note 1]
  8. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
  9. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest.[note 1]
  10. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons that carry more weight. [note 1]
  11. Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives. [note 1]
  12. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
  13. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
  14. Most men are brave. [note 1]
  15. It is wise to flatter important people.
  16. It is possible to be good in all respects.[note 1]
  17. Barnum was very wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute.[note 1]
  18. Generally speaking, men won’t work hard unless they’re forced to do so.
  19. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
  20. Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property.


Modified Mach Test[edit]

  • Refomulate the questions in the context of English Wikipedia as a conceptual viahcle for creating the self selection signature test.
  1. On talk pages it is best to avoid discclosing the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
  2. In consensus discussions, the best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
  3. Community members should take action only when sure it is sanctioned by policy. [note 1]
  4. Most contributors to Wikimedia projects are basically good and kind. [note 1]
  5. It is safest to assume that all editors have a vicious streak and it will come out in a content dispute.
  6. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. [note 1]
  7. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. [note 1]
  8. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
  9. All in all, it is better to have have humble and honest than important and dishonest.[note 1]
  10. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons that carry more weight. [note 1]
  11. Most editors who seek promotion to admin in Wikipedia are significant contributors respecting rules and guidleines. [note 1]
  12. Anyone who completely trusts other editors is asking for trouble.
  13. The biggest difference between most COI-editors and other people is that COI-editors are stupid enough to get caught.
  14. Most ediors are bold. [note 1]
  15. It is wise to flatter adminis, chapter and WMF members.
  16. It is possible to be good in all respects.[note 1]
  17. Barnum was very wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute.[note 1]
  18. Generally speaking, editors won't work hard unless they're coerced to do so.
  19. People who are incurably disruptive should be painlessly and premenetly banned.
  20. Most editors forget more easily the retirement of their mentor than the loss of their articles.

A Wiki mach test[edit]

It looks like using a behavioral signatures to test for this may be more robust and be more subtle to automation than administrating a questionnaire. ideally the test would use self-selection criteria as well as self de-selection criteria to weed in and weed out users. What may be different in the partial test is that some metrics may be stronger than others and a complex formula + correlation might be needed to validate and align the two scales.

  • testing Machiavellian tendencies of wikipedians:
  1. user uses multiple disclosed account for editing
  2. user uses multiple undisclosed account for editing
  3. user canvasing
    1. user has limited posting for an issues he voted on
    2. mass posting for an issue (spamming)
    3. user expressed positive/negative sentiment biased (campaigning )
    4. user expressed neutral sentiment (neutral )
    5. has sought out people based on view-point (non-partisan)
    6. has sought out people based on view-point (vote stacking)
    7. contacted users openly (open)
    8. contacted users off wiki = (stealth)
  4. user has been blocked
  5. user has been unblocked early
  6. user has been banned
  7. user has been unbanned early
  8. user has a fun club
  9. user has changed username more than once
  10. user has a semi protected user page
  11. user has a semi protected talk page
  12. has been subject of check user
  13. has edited controversial topics
  14. has contributed to good articles
  15. forum shopping
  16. arbitration
    1. won an arbitration
    2. lost an arbitration
    3. commended by arbitration
  17. nomination
    1. flags collection
    2. admin
    3. beaurowcrat
    4. check user
    5. oversight
    6. steward
  18. policy discussion
    1. initiated
    2. succeeded
  19. user's edits deleted
  20. reverted/rollback edits
  21. reverted/rollback edits non spam (30%+ of content eventual introduced)
  22. reversing vote in debates.


notes[edit]

  1. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Reverse coded

references[edit]