Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

Contributor’s conclusion: You are wrong, I am right, but I did a lousy job this time and don't have the time to spare at this momnet to do better; so let’s xxx it. I’ll do the honor and clean it out as best I can myself right now. I shall be back with this, but the next time I’ll get it right. Thanks for the lesson. Useful. ericbritton 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


This appears to be original research of some sort, on a topic we all know and love. The article seems to consist mostly of a long list of other wp articles, plus assorted "notes to self" and "notes to collaborators". linas 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: Another reason to delete is that the title of this article is a neologism and WP has specific policies against such things. A google search will quickly show that this and other WP pages are the only pages that use this term. Once again: WP is not the place for original research linas 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, as nonsense; possibly a candidate for speedy. linas 06:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Arbustoo 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's clearly not nonsense or speedy. But neither is wiki a web host for research groups. Dlyons493 Talk 08:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-speedy delete Unencyclopedic.--Craig Stuntz 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research and poorly written. Royboycrashfan 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree ericbritton 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (See below)

Hmm. If ever there was a concept that I should think Wikipedia should be making room for it is precisely this “ Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks”. This is not to defend the quality of the present entry/intended place holder and starting block – but I do think it argues for someone coming in and lend a helping hand at a time when I am up to my neck in survival tasks (all of which incidentally involve . . . self-organizing collaborative networks – click to http://www.ecoplan.org and its dozen or so focus programs to see how this works in the real world. . . warts and all).

I have to say that I am a bit surprised at the virulence, but above all disappointed at the stolid unanimity of this reaction. I would have anticipated in a place such as this more variety of response, more creativity So let me see if I can weigh in here with a thought or two which to my mind suggests that zapping this entry in process would be a bad move. I am incidentally pleased to have this opportunity, because I am a big believer in cognitive dissonance as a knowledge building tool. We try to use this in our own international work to welcome a purposeful, rich imbalance of views and positions within a shared forum, and then let them rip. And since we have a small example of this here, well let’s have a look.

For starters, I came to the House of Wikipedia a few months ago with both genuine curiously and real interests. As I rattled around in it over the last month or so, I been impressed by much of what I have seen and experienced, but also noted with some surprise quite a number of to my mind outstanding omissions – almost all of which in a broad area which I would characterize as “conceptual thinking about critical challenges of society and technology”. To the extent that there is not even an entry for this critical tool . . . or at least was not until earlier this afternoon in which I sat down to knock in a first cut which you will find of course at [[1]], which you may not like either ;-). (BTW, don’t you find it a bit strange that something as important as this had not been at least opened up as an entry. Of course this is not quite fair, since the Wikipedia is still very new and since it is natural that you would set out at first in more charted waters. But hey, but here we are.)

We live in an era in which change and speed of change are more than ever and faster than ever metrics of our daily lives. And while much of the world is indifferent to this, there is a growing current of thinkers and doers who understand that new concepts, new ways of organizing our societies, daily lives and actions are critical to our collective well being. I can think of two good reasons why Wikipedia of all new institutions should recognize this underling reality. First, because you yourselves are an example of this very process of adaptation. And second, if you cannot gear up to handle these new categories of emergent trends, then you will show that you are stuck in the old model. Let me see if I can be more concrete for you.

Let’s look at a traditional “transition instrument” for just one moment which has had no problem finding its ay into these pages. Say [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_College Amherst College]. There it is: grounded today in a physical and institutions structure, but in 1820 nothing more than an idea on the part of (mainly) a single person, [Noah Webster], that what was going on at [Harvard College was somehow not good enough. A concept in 1820, bricks and motor (and hopefully a bit more) in 2006. Okay? The point that I am trying to make is that at one point a simple “concept” – not mind you a ‘research project’ – can gradually advance to the point where it becomes a or at least a potential “society shaping” phenomenon which is worthy of explicit note. Including in a place like the Wikipedia. Let’s move up a couple of notches in terms of abstraction.

Consider for example that of [sustainable development], a phrase in a report in the late 1980’s and even to this day a concept which is not at all well understanding (nor, sadly, particularly effective as a policy molding or even informing device). And yet, here it is – not very profound but workmanlike and probably as good as the concept itself deserves.

Let me take this even closer to the bone and draw to your attention the new (and still very much in process ) entry on [sustainable transportation] . Neither of these two concepts have bricks and mortar to prove to the world that they do indeed exist, but there they are and at least in this latter case that are in fact actively informing public policy, if not in every administration that might come to your minds at least in enough places for them to be considered useful and usefully evolving shaping concepts.

So, if all this of this true – and I can see a number of people who might already be asleep on this one – what about the present and admittedly weak and, yes!, badly in need of work entry on Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks? Is it subject for the virtual dustbin to which the six of you are consigning it. I think you are wrong friends, because this is one of the most important operational concepts around that is as yet poorly understood but nonetheless going to take on better definition and with it increased importance in the ways in which we organize ourselves for a better world. And part of this process of definition is indeed its presence in Wikipedia which is increasingly a first- stop shop for anyone who wants to know what is up in the world we live in.

If this don’t work – and since we know the underlying concept to be as hard as steel -- we can always take solace in the words of Max Planck when it comes to how scientific truths must sometimes make their way:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Oh yeah. My vote: Keep it and help make it better. ericbritton 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Eric, Wikipedia is not a blog nor a place at which to publish vague articles on pop phenomena. There are plenty of other places for this kind of creative output: wikis such as "everything2", refereed journals such as "first monday", or personal web pages. This article is no more appropriate than it would be to have allowed Eric Raymond to first publish his "Homesteading the Noosphere" essay here. WP is not the place for original research. linas 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, after the vote is over, I suggest that this article be a redirect to Homesteading the Noosphere. linas 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If ericbritton wants to create an article he should do it completely and in one moment, not to leave it in such state for months. The article as it is now doesn't fit any Wiki criteria. My vote is about quality, not about validity of the topic. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
novel usage of the word "months".--Marvin147 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. interesting topic, although deprecate Capitalizing Every Word. -- Marvin147 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but possibly merge some of the content into Massively distributed collaboration, which pre-dates it and covers some of the same ground. It's indeed an interesting developing topic, but I agree with Pavel Vozenilek that the quality of the article is inadequate: it not only appears to breach the Wikipedia policy of no original research (which no one has explicitly mentioned but I hope ericbritton has read), but also ignores other style and content guidelines, for example by including a section signed by Eric, and even by having underscores in wiki links. -- JimR 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete (see below for reasons) - everything on the current version is unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted, but the topic is certainly encyclopedic. I see no reason to delete the article outright; why not replace everything thats there with a small stub? -Pierremenard 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why not indeed? This is Wikipedia remember :-) You are free to do this. -- JimR 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried to do this, but after reading everything thats there I see that the topic of self organizing networks is already covered in Emergence and Self organization. Changing my vote to delete. --Pierremenard 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.