Wikipedia Searches Reveal Differing Styles of Curiosity – Slashdot
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Nickname:
Password:
Nickname:
Password:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Windows also sends to mothership “oh, only whatever you type into the OS, and all your interactions with it”But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Windows also sends to mothership “oh, only whatever you type into the OS, and all your interactions with it”But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Privacy-raping app: sells info to advertising networks and inject ads.Wikipedia: does not sell data nor injects ads; makes stats on what users typed or links they followed, then publishes research.That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.This is how scientific research is done. People have to volunteer their data or biological samples. They can include or exclude certain uses or re-uses; they have to read and sign paperwork. Some don’t want, some cannot consent (unconscious, dementia, minors of age — asking consent to family members is more delicate). Your argument would invalidate medical research as a whole; but we know medical research actually works, so somehow scientists are able to get around the selection bias.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence.Privacy-raping app: sells info to advertising networks and inject ads.Wikipedia: does not sell data nor injects ads; makes stats on what users typed or links they followed, then publishes research.That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.This is how scientific research is done. People have to volunteer their data or biological samples. They can include or exclude certain uses or re-uses; they have to read and sign paperwork. Some don’t want, some cannot consent (unconscious, dementia, minors of age — asking consent to family members is more delicate). Your argument would invalidate medical research as a whole; but we know medical research actually works, so somehow scientists are able to get around the selection bias.That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.This is how scientific research is done. People have to volunteer their data or biological samples. They can include or exclude certain uses or re-uses; they have to read and sign paperwork. Some don’t want, some cannot consent (unconscious, dementia, minors of age — asking consent to family members is more delicate). Your argument would invalidate medical research as a whole; but we know medical research actually works, so somehow scientists are able to get around the selection bias.The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Windows also sends to mothership “oh, only whatever you type into the OS, and all your interactions with it”But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.Your “epic selection bias” claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the research, and I’m being diplomatic. The study didn’t rely on a biased, self-selected group—Wikipedia’s mobile app is used globally by millions, and the dataset spans 482,000 users across 50 countries and 14 languages. That’s not some cherry-picked sample; it’s one of the largest and most diverse datasets ever analyzed for curiosity research. If you’re going to throw around terms like “selection b The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Windows also sends to mothership “oh, only whatever you type into the OS, and all your interactions with it”But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.The information collected is what you enter into the app and your interactions with it.Exactly same thing can be said about, you know, every privacy-raping app in existence. Windows also sends to mothership “oh, only whatever you type into the OS, and all your interactions with it”But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.But don’t get your panties in a twist. It is opt-in.Okay, at least there’s that. That also makes the cited results completely worthless due to the epic selection bias, but whatever.Your “epic selection bias” claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the research, and I’m being diplomatic. The study didn’t rely on a biased, self-selected group—Wikipedia’s mobile app is used globally by millions, and the dataset spans 482,000 users across 50 countries and 14 languages. That’s not some cherry-picked sample; it’s one of the largest and most diverse datasets ever analyzed for curiosity research. If you’re going to throw around terms like “selection b These kinds of blocks are not because of “overzealous checkusers” but because those networks make it impossible to block specific IPs from doing vandalism without impacting other users. The solution is simple: creating an anonymous account. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]I for one would be more interested in what other data is being collected, how it is being stored, who has access to it, and so on, more than this nonsense about “hunters” and “dancers”. busybody detected.I for one would be more interested in what other data is being collected, how it is being stored, who has access to it, and so on, more than this nonsense about “hunters” and “dancers”. busybody detected.they’re really tracking browsers or accounts, not people since they have no way to tell if it’s just an individual’s or a groups computer”The team tracked more than 482,000 people using Wikipedia’s mobile app in 50 countries or territories and 14 languages.”I for one would be more interested in what other data is being collected, how it is being stored, who has access to it, and so on, more than this nonsense about “hunters” and “dancers”.The study used anonymized data from Wikipedia’s mobile app to analyze browsing patterns, not to “track” individuals as you imply. Unlike the invasive surveillance practices of many platforms, Wikipedia operates under one of the most transparent and privacy-conscious frameworks in tech. Maybe read their privacy policy before making baseless insinuations. As for dismissing the study as “nonsense,” it’s a fascinating investigation into how humans seek knowledge—a topic with far more intellectual m “The team tracked more than 482,000 people using Wikipedia’s mobile app in 50 countries or territories and 14 languages.”I for one would be more interested in what other data is being collected, how it is being stored, who has access to it, and so on, more than this nonsense about “hunters” and “dancers”.The study used anonymized data from Wikipedia’s mobile app to analyze browsing patterns, not to “track” individuals as you imply. Unlike the invasive surveillance practices of many platforms, Wikipedia operates under one of the most transparent and privacy-conscious frameworks in tech. Maybe read their privacy policy before making baseless insinuations. As for dismissing the study as “nonsense,” it’s a fascinating investigation into how humans seek knowledge—a topic with far more intellectual m I recognize myself doing all three styles of navigation depending on topic, intention and time available.I wonder if they have crunched all their data into a single style for each user without differentiating how the same person behaves differently among distinct sessions.”I recognize myself doing all three styles of navigation depending on topic, intention and time available.”No mod points today, so me too will have to do. Skipping through English history is not the same as which isotopes when irradiated in a nuclear reactor’s pressure vessel.I recognize myself doing all three styles of navigation depending on topic, intention and time available.I wonder if they have crunched all their data into a single style for each user without differentiating how the same person behaves differently among distinct sessions.I know enough graph theory to understand how they are modeling curiosity, and like you, I have spent enough time on wikipedia in all the modes they describe to really connect with the ideas in this paper. You make a great point that people likely use different modes of curiosity depending on context, and the paper actually touches on this. While it identifies distinct curiosity styles (hunter, busybody, dancer) based on knowledge network structures, it doesn’t assume these are rigid personality traits. The researchers acknowledge that curiosity is situational and propose that styles can vary across sessions or topics. They also emphasize that their findings describe general tendencies observed across a large dataset, not fixed categorizations for individuals. More to your point, the paper explicitly mentions that a longitudinal study would be needed to track how individual behaviors shift over time or context. If you haven’t read the paper yet, it’s fascinating stuff.I recognize myself doing all three styles of navigation depending on topic, intention and time available.I wonder if they have crunched all their data into a single style for each user without differentiating how the same person behaves differently among distinct sessions.I know enough graph theory to understand how they are modeling curiosity, and like you, I have spent enough time on wikipedia in all the modes they describe to really connect with the ideas in this paper. You make a great point that people likely use different modes of curiosity depending on context, and the paper actually touches on this. While it identifies distinct curiosity styles (hunter, busybody, dancer) based on knowledge network structures, it doesn’t assume these are rigid personality traits. The researchers acknowledge that curiosity is situational and propose that styles can vary across sessions or topics. They also emphasize that their findings describe general tendencies observed across a large dataset, not fixed categorizations for individuals. More to your point, the paper explicitly mentions that a longitudinal study would be needed to track how individual behaviors shift over time or context. If you haven’t read the paper yet, it’s fascinating stuff.I wonder if they have crunched all their data into a single style for each user without differentiating how the same person behaves differently among distinct sessions.I’d presume they were tracking more by browsing session than by user. Most users would be anonymous – you don’t need to sign up for an account. Plus, I’m sure unless Wikipedia keeps track of user searches, they may not keep that data at all to prevent being legally liable for such data.So it just happens that among the people browsing Wikiped The “hunter” pattern was derived from studying a statistical distribution called a “bi-den”.Hopefully you’ll pardon me for that one… … connect it to stuff that we already know. Wood doesn’t sink in water, nor does a duck. If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood.
– Sir Bedevere, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, 1975.
No, she is obviously made of duck. Humans make the conclusion first, then make the logic proving it. … (a node in the network) is related to another. It’s time for my preferred slice-of-life cartoonist:
https://thedevilspanties.com/a… [thedevilspanties.com] … connect it to stuff that we already know.Wood doesn’t sink in water, nor does a duck. If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood.
– Sir Bedevere, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, 1975.
No, she is obviously made of duck. Humans make the conclusion first, then make the logic proving it. … (a node in the network) is related to another. It’s time for my preferred slice-of-life cartoonist:
https://thedevilspanties.com/a… [thedevilspanties.com] … (a node in the network) is related to another.It’s time for my preferred slice-of-life cartoonist:
https://thedevilspanties.com/a… [thedevilspanties.com]”Busybody” is not (for me) what you think it is. It’s not about being busy. “a meddling or prying person” is Google’s definition.They sound more “random” than meddling or prying. Or far reaching, being more diverse in their interests. Though it’s probably worth looking at the purpose/reason behind the activity you see. What are those people doing?Sometimes I pick a topic I know little about, and need to look up varied other topics to understand the poor explanation for the first. Meaning not tuned to t There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.OpenAI’s Bot Crushes Seven-Person Company’s Website ‘Like a DDoS Attack’Spacecraft Buzzes Mercury’s North Pole and Beams Back Stunning PhotosAsk five economists and you’ll get five different explanations (six if
one went to Harvard).
— Edgar R. Fiedler
