Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research

„Help Write the Next Chapter of Wikimedia’s History”, hm, sounds like advertisement, too suggestive in german ears. However, the text calls for reactions on this study. Nothing against ist quantitatve methods, just I recommend to keep in mind that such results plainly misinterpreted might lead to wrong quantitative reactions. On the other hand, relying on the individual description of problems that experienced users deliver, also can lead to recipes that fail. Often it seems, we have to deal with contradictory opinions, that cannot all be true and reliable. - Though they may contain hints for qualitative solutions.

For at least one year more I am too occupied to initiate or to contribute to qualitative forms of research, which in reference to the quantitative part would deliver more creative and more precise answers. I would be able especially to do work in de:wikipedia for that purpose. Until then, or never:

As an example for events interesting for qualtative research I would like to mention one that ended in de:wp february/march 2010 with closing the Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Bildende Kunst/Qualitätssicherung. This WikiProjekt had been a flourishing, very active and succesful assurance of quality, on one hand developing articles from the ground up, on the other deleting articles that encyclopedically were a burden. Additionally the involved authors produced high quality articles. The basic argument for exclusion or inclusion of articles was manpower: If there is interest and manpower, to get reliable sources for the relevance, and to care for the article in future, lets include it! Otherwiese vote for delete. To make the decision easier and the discussions shorter, criteria for relevance had been developed. As no wonder in the artcontext, the mass of rejected articles can be characterized as being written or initiated by self-loving hobby artists, who often claimed to have invented an own direction of art, professionals advertising a wbsite for posterprints and such, professional artists who tried to revelate themselves as being substantial for arthistory, galleries trying to promote artists for profit, and such. As always without reliable sources, sometimes even with faked ones, sometimes even threatening the people active in the quality assurance, because financial interests or interest in reputation can be very motivating. As long as this were interests from the outside, they were easy to reject.

To many authors the mechanism seemed very attractive, even in the crudest form: Whether you have something to contribute really, or you want to have a good article about your art, write some lines, and throw it into the quality assurance. You don't loose with a trial, the quality assurance will sort it out. Thanks to the experience and good workrelation of people in the quality assurance it often worked as it should, while abuse had been rejected. The place even started to flourish and grow, because the treatment of newcomers was friendly. - Until a handful of inclusionist authors started to agressively insult the involved people and started a mobbing campaign. Finally the original contributors closed the shop. The description of the story told from the inclusionist perspective for shure would be different. Nevertheless, it is a story of destruction of manpower and frustration of many valuable authors. It is just one example of constantly happening events, worth to be analysed qualitatively. If someone is interested to contact involved admins, I can help.

Let me try a draft interpretation: The quantitatively oriented solutions derived from the quantitative study, that I have read until now, would not tackle the problem of the above described case. They might lead even to more frustration. I personally assume, the german wikipedia suffers of executing rules for everyone and everything the same. The difference between a rule of thumb and its friendly interpretation and a strict rule that is executed without exception, for certain authors, who terrorize and frustrate others, is not clear. Friendly creative experiments should be supported, as models for more general solutions. The longer we wait, the fewer will be to find.

One qualitative method, to find the roots of destructive processes can be, like in medicine, the diagnosis of the symptoms. It is good, therefore to have much data, but ist is a known cognitive dilemma, that data mostly automatically is understood just quantitatively. A diagnosis is much better when qualitative data, like the symptoms that the patient is showing and talking about, are understood as a valuable source, which then is related professionally to a base of quantitative data. So I suggest, to be open for people who are able to make qualitative interviews with authors in wikipedia, for example, and who then are able to analyse the received material with methods usual for that purpose, adapted to the conditions.--Fluss

Thanks for writing your experience on this in detail. It matches my experience in some areas of en.wp that I described as the "warlord encyclopedia" elsewhere in this thread. Given that your experience is from de.wp, I can only conclude that it's the very general social process rather then some country- or wiki-specific culture causing this. See also: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?