Talk:Averageness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The info that references the flickr user's research will need to be removed, because (since it has not been published) it is considered original research. Recury 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't the one who contributed these images to Wikipedia, I just saw them on Rating sites and so wrote this article a few minutes ago. Second, an example of "morphed image" showing that the average is more attractive does not constitute "novel" or "original" research; it was done originally by Galton in 1883, and repeated numerous times. Talk:Bohr model is an example a debate on image uploading, where we had to explain the "methods" behind how we constructed the images, of Bohr's 1914 atom model. Hence, elaborating on how a well-known image was created for use in Wikipedia does not constitute a violation of WP:OR. Or, maybe you know of some free content morphed images in the commons that are better than these. Moreover, maybe you would like to join in here for further discussion. --Sadi Carnot 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, as second alternative, we could take out the person's name and change the name of the header, but that would seem to detract from the article. --Sadi Carnot 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean the "recent studies" section of the text, not the image. Recury 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. The images are already in the commons. To utilize them in different articles, as has already been done, someone needs to explain how the images were created. In this direction, User:Quadell found the name of the person, and I added it in for clarity. I don't see the problem here? In my opinion, these images are excellent and are used in a good way to support an historical concept. --Sadi Carnot 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's published on the web, right? On Flicker. Oh, I see, you mean the text. If the text is original interpretation of the images, then I suppose I see your point. If the text is just summarizing what is in the photos, the accompanying text (on Flicker), and the material here, then it's not OR. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. (Sadi, you might want to reference that metafilter info, and also an interesting links from it.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interesting metafilter discussion; some of the comments, though, were very un-scientific, but, nevertheless, kind of interesting. I agree that we have to summarize what is in the photos; thus if we use the photographer's statement as an outline, then we will have to reference it or else it will be considered copyright infringement or plagiarism. --Sadi Carnot 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot or not research?

Are you guys kidding me? I can't give any exact numbers as to how many people LEGITIMATELY rate what they are thinking, but I'm willing to bet it's extremely low. People very rarely (except for maybe new users) go to the site for this. They want to meet new people or just look through a bunch of photos. In that case, they "lock" onto a number like 5, since the x/y of the ratings buttons hardly move in each page. People doing rapid fire on "5" is NOT accurate research. For a page such as Wikipedia, I would count this as original research and illegitimate.

[edit] Proposed merger with article on Koinophilia

"Averageness" is synonymous with koinophilia, but is currently used almost exclusively to describe the role of koinophilia in human beauty, whereas "koinophilia" covers its broader biological importance. The two articles could therefore, theoretically, be merged, but that would tend to make the combined article almost textbook in nature. There are very many articles in Wikipedia that discuss the ingredients of human beauty and physical attraction. All of them have cross references to this article, which serves very well as a stand alone article on "Averageness/Koinophilia", containing enough information to satisfy most readers sent here via the "human beauty" route.

What I have done (as an experiment) is add a heading on koinophilia, with a brief description of why "Averageness" is an important determinant of physical attractiveness. I think it rounds the article off, as, at the moment, "Averageness" is simply "there", without any explanation of why it should be there, or why it contributes to beauty and physical attractiveness. The authors of this article might like to re-word this section to bring it into line with the style of the rest of the article.

With just this section added to the article (a complementary section already exists in the "Koinophilia" article), the potential desirability for merging the two articles falls away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)