[Noisebridge-discuss] A test of Excellence
rachel lyra hospodar
rachelyra at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 22:06:21 UTC 2012
Martin,
This is an interesting thought experiment. I see a few potential snags
at building a valid statistical model this way. How are you going to
correct for different quantities of users in the various spaces? We
don't even count usage statistics but maybe there is some way to build
some data through observation and random sampling. What about
correcting for the relative value of other objects surrounding the
object in question? EG, in a space full of nicer things, the same
identical object becomes less attractive to a potential thief because
other juicier objects abound. That same principle also needs to be
related, in a more complex way, to the neighborhood surrounding the
space. Something tells me the relative crime indices of the
neighborhoods vary, from the heart of SF Mission to Santa Cruz.
Are you going to have a variable in your equation for the ineffable
benefits various differences between the spaces have in other ways,
besides perhaps influencing this single metric? I am not certain that
"whether my shiny expensive shit got stolen" is the only metric of mean
honestly level in a group. How likely you are to have to tackle a
sticky-finger sketchbomb also needs to be balanced out with how likely
you are to encounter a visiting troupe of foreign journalists who have
come all the way to noisebridge seeking to learn more about TECHNOLOGY.
from US. because we ROCK at technology and also at sharing, even when
it is inconvenient.
Not that I don't think we should be able to have nice things, but i
think this approach is so reductionist as to be incapable of producing
relevant data. If you are interested in increasing the complexity of
your model, I have suggested some variables that need to be accounted
for. I'd be happy to give feedback on the ways that you are thinking of
incorporating them.
R.
On 10/13/2012 7:08 AM, Martin Bogomolni wrote:
> Any good experiment needs a hypothesis, and a way of testing that
> hypothesis with an experiment and a control.
>
> My hypothesis is that the operating principles of Noisebridge are not
> serving to increase, but rather to decrease, the average level of
> honesty and 'Excellence' in the space. Specifically the current way
> things are set up socially inside of Noisebridge, with insufficient
> negative feedback/pressure on people to reinforce the social values
> that promote that kind of honest behavior.
>
> I have had two people leave five valuable things in Noisebridge.
> These things are useful to different people for different reasons.
>
> Five identical items have been left at the Dallas Makerspace, as a
> second social group with different rules. Also at UC Santa Cruz'
> workshop as a control, as they have a strongly reinforced discipline
> of object ownership and storage.
>
> All are items a Hacker/Maker would have.
>
> One of them contains something intrinsically valuable if disassembled.
> It will cease to work if that happens.
>
> All are clearly labeled as 'do not hack', with a name and identifying
> label for which member shelf they should be on.
>
> All have been placed in logical places, but not on a material or
> 'hack' shelf. None are in their 'correct' location.
>
> None are worth less than $50.
>
> None of those labels has my name on it.
>
> The location of the items will be checked after a day, a week, two
> weeks, a month, and two months.
>
> I will publish the results after three months.
>
> -M
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list