Top 10 Traits & Habits of Mixx Users!

The term “psychology” shows more than 73,000,000 results on Google. It is a broad term encompassing various ideas, approaches and definitions.

By psychoanalytik

By psychoanalytik

I have always desired to major in psychology, however, people always advised me otherwise because unless you continue your PHD in psychology, people don’t really take you seriously; especially those seeking to be drugged out of their depression and misery!

Though I ended up majoring in Marketing and Business Administration, I still have a soft spot for psychology which I like to use here at Thoughtpick at several occasions for Twitter use and Facebook’s popularity, combined with my marketing and social media knowledge and experience.

In the Mixx…

Since I began using Mixx, the behavior of Mixx users has always been very intriguing to me and their use of Mixx has been a topic that I wanted to analyze and write about. However, I decided to wait till I knew more and thus understood more. I guess the time is now!

Through many encounters, conversations, shares and comments, I began to finally find my way around the psychology of Mixxers. Here is what I came up with:

1. Mixxers are as proud as Redditers…

And even more! Every single Mixxer is both proud and happy to be using Mixx. Each user takes pride in delivering valuable, fresh and unique information to fellow Mixxers. Each user is excited about each submission he or she adds and shares.

Vote: Is Wikipedia credible enough for Google News?

While reading the latest ReadWriteWeb article “Google News May Add Wikipedia as a Source”, the question of news integrity crossed my mind. After conducting some research, I came up with the following rationalizations:

  1. The “too many eyes” theory: When a service is constantly being monitored by many concerned parties, excellence in performance is a must! The more the number of eyes watching, the better the content; this applies to Wikipedia.Try visiting Wikipedia, choosing any topic and editing its content to something useless like “bla, bla, bla!”, wait for a few minutes and then recheck. You will find that the useless content has been removed and replaced with the original content by one of the readers. This is a great example of data integrity on Wikipedia.

    "Too Many Eyes" By: Ken Sotrch

    "Too Many Eyes" By: Ken Sotrch

  2. The “reliable news sources” assumption: Why do we always assume that NYT is more reliable that Techcruch, for example? Is it the reputation of credibility that NYT has built throughout the years? And if so, is that enough to believe everything the NYT publishes or broadcasts? I think not. On the same grounds, why trust NYT more than Wikipedia as a news source, and so on?
  3. The “big whales make mistakes too” reality: Yes it’s a fact – very important news sources such as Britannica also have a certain percentage of errors in the content they offer and the studies they release to the public and since “no one is perfect”, Wikipedia included, that is absolutely natural.

To conclude, I believe in Wikipedia since it essentially gathers the knowledge and brain power of thousands, nay millions, of people out there into a collaborative space which could, in no way, be as biased or commercial as many other news sources. Therefore, in the debate of whether or not Wikipedia should be a source in Google News, I vote: “Yes”!

How about you, what’s your vote? Do you think Wikipedia is credible enough for Google News?

©2010 thoughtpick, copyrights reserved.