http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?titl ... servations

Just a reminder that this project exists. I've described there a bunch of couples and friendships that I know well and invite others to do the same.

What's the point of that? Why is that helpful?

*shrug* Some people apparently find them useful.

How?

Is there are way to verify the validity of those observations?

It's always nice to hear some subjective experiences, you might find new patterns that can be generalized.

You can contact the authors of the observations and ask them for the contact info of the people they are writing about, then ask them to comment on the description. Then, you can skype interview them or have them take a socionic test of your choice to check their types.

As a rule, people only post observations of this kind when they are very sure of the people's types and have had time to see how the relations have played out. If their opinion of the people's types changes over time, they tend to remove their initial comments. Contributors tend to be, on average, somewhat more careful about what they post at the wiki than what they post at forums. So, in general, the information can be trusted.

If you are of the opinion that no such information can be trusted and is thus of no value, then I don't understand why you would participate in forum discussions of socionics, seeing that the same problems are present, and to a greater degree.

sure, you can try to do all of these things. why would contributors be obligated to answer? is it because they have some inner spirit that drives them to understand the importance of providing clear and accountable information on a wiki page?




i'm sorry, this is such bullshit that i can't let it go without a response. your claim that wiki contributions are "on average" or "as a rule" careful and reliable is simply false. to refute this point i require nothing more than the recent changes page on wikisocion -- any third party can just examine the history of this page. over the course of wikisocion's history, there have been a myriad of users who made occasional contributions here and there, adjusting descriptions in arbitrary ways that if you were being reasonable you would agree are essentially wrong, posting comments that sometimes display no particular evidence of understanding and sometimes absolute lack of understanding. in one instance, there was a user who engaged in a bad faith edit war with the intent of harming wiki contributors (i agree that the latter case was atypical).\

most importantly regarding your point, a huge number of users contribute a little bit to pages like the type domains here and there, and then forget about the wiki forever. to say that most users are conscientious about their edits and remove things that they aren't sure about is absolutely irresponsible misinformation. sure, there are some users that do this; but have you looked random project pages recently?

i'm going to list some names. i encourage you to search through each of their contrib pages (this is not an idle suggestion, really do the search): brout, corymaxe, hoodrat, yellowfever765, cinquefoil, director abbie, kevash, kevin, lemons, look.to.the.sky, nwilson611, pardonm3, patriotjim, scarlettlux, kamangir.

these are the ones i happened to find. you'll note that many of them have a very small amount of contributions, often making little sense or breaking policies in one way or another. some of them have a large number of contributions none of which make any sense. several of the better known ones have posted various things on project pages and have long since changed their minds and/or typings, rendering their contributions essentially "not correct" for your purposes of evaluating self-typings.

this is just a sampling that i happened to find in navigating user histories for about ten minutes.

I agree. However, my point is that "Contributors tend to be, on average, somewhat more careful about what they post at the wiki than what they post at forums." By "forums" I am referring to the16types, not a forum with a small user base such as this.

And, I still maintain that, as a rule, the type and intertype observations are generally reliable. If you look through them, it is obvious that not all are useful or of high quality (I personally really dislike ones that are all generalities of multiple experiences with no details and are full of socionics terminology).

The project exists because it provides a platform for multiple people to record experiences of a similar nature that they might otherwise not share.

It seems that your objections are not about this project per se but about wikis in general. Seriously, are you suggesting that people not share their intertype experience with others? Or that they do so only in a forum format where the quality is generally even lower?

That's too much work. I think people should do that on their own. Provide video or audio interviews as collateral to their descriptions. Much like how when one writes a paper they list references that prove various claims and statements in the paper.



I seams to me as if authors arbitrarily under the influence of their free will and judgment and expertise come to certain conclusions which they then present. However they do not provide validation for their claims. That is left to the reader. If this is so I think this is an invalid way to present trusted information. I don't think that it should be left to the reader to obtain evidence supporting and validating the presented claims, I think the authors should do that. But I guess this might be more difficult in a wiki format since nobody would actually have to abide by these rules.



Well not all such information just information that is presented to be valid and has not been validated or cannot be validated. And it's not that I don't trust people to be able to accurately and expertly asses things, it's just that I think all conclusions by people are subjective. That is, inherently depended on their unique perspective on the world. And from experience I know that given the same evidence, the same objective situation, I tend to never reach the same conclusions as other people. So I need objective confirmation to whatever I am presented with so that I can learn to interpret it correctly and reach the right conclusions. Because otherwise I will interpret it differently, be wrong and will not be able to learn and correct myself.

not at all. i will never participate at wikisocion under the current administrative policy, but i think an open environment when people can discuss their observations is fine, whatever the format. one shortcoming of wikisocion relative to a forum environment is that it is often unclear who made a particular contribution; frequently i have gone through edit histories to find who added in a particular sentence to some description. a compounding problem with this is that wikisocion is poorly moderated -- it's very unlikely, for example, that anyone will place the {{unsigned}} tag on recent contributions so that speculative material can be traced to its author.


what i object critically to from your above post is not even the idea that "more users on wikisocion than on forums make quality contributions." i'd be unsure -- but not unwilling to accept the principle of that idea. what i do object to, and what i think is pure misinformation, is your general portrayal of wikisocion as an infallible source of information, where most people come only to offer contributions that they are sure about, removing things they are unsure about, and are generally model netizens. that, rather than anything else you had to say, is complete nonsense.

This project is what it is. Wikisocion is what it is. Like any undertaking, some practices are subject to change while others are not. Aestrivex's objections to the project have to do with core principles that are not subject to change because they are part of my leadership style. Contribute or don't contribute as you choose. That is all I have to say.

The issue of the proper wording of how accurate or inaccurate Wikisocion contributions tend to be relative to other media is not worth arguing over, IMO, as we are all in agreement that any socionics information is imperfect and that such a wiki has inherent imperfections, especially in the absence of rigorous (enthusiastic, time-consuming) moderation, which no one at present is willing to provide. Basically, you are both right about your points and I agree with you on the specifics, but not on the generalities.

true, but this is not the nature of the criticism relevant to this thread. all of my participation in this thread is not a discussion of wikisocion's core principles -- rather, it consisted of some observations about wikisocion and a response to the claim about the validity of the information there (and i felt the need to at least try to refute what i saw as ridiculous and blatant misinformation). that i disagree flatly with the statements rick made about the trustworthiness of the information has nothing to do with (and is only very slightly and indirectly related to) the reasons that i object to wikisocion's management and do not contribute there.

The criticism as I understood it was general complaining about the imperfections of wiki environments and of the lack of vigilant moderation at Wikisocion, semantic nitpicking over my choice of words, and also of the impossibility of verifying the accuracy of people's intertype observations. The latter is strange considering that it applies to absolutely everything written anywhere about socionics. My response is, "Give me a break!"

p.s. my previous post was revised with an extra paragraph added

my post was also edited. note that i do not criticize or object to you nor to your "leadership style" for what i perceive as the low quality of some of the information on wikisocion -- nonetheless, it is true, in my opinion, that these problems do exist.