Talk:Content analysis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Content analysis, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Misc comments
Is generalizability a real word!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukebacon (talk • contribs) 12:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I followed your link to Zipf's Law on the Content Analysis page and the law doesn't say anything about the importance of words being proportional to their frequency as the article suggests (which would have been a preposterous claim given that the most frequent words are preposiitons and such).
Should this be integrated with text analysis or text mining or natural language processing? I see a lot of redundant information here. How is this any different other than a different wording? Josh Froelich 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually quite dismayed to see my search for textual analysis shortcut straight to the content analysis page. It is not in the least a simple byword: content analysis describes a quantitative, empirical approach to texts that operates as a kind of foil to the individualised, personal reasonings required of textual analysis. The two are obviously deeply linked (and most usually used in conjunction with one another during analysis), but this does not in itself constitute justification for a merging. - Tim (not registered, just concerned) 27/3/07
[edit] Urgent Simplification Suggested
Can anyone who understands the area make this article a little simpler? I am from a science background (not humanities) and find the language very difficult to understand. 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the text needs to be simplified. I would also suggest that this can be a very powerful tool. It mentions that Public relations uses the same tools to evaluate results of campaigns. The article is one dimensional in that it does not discuss early uses of the media in the 20th century. It does not discuss the converse if you can track what is being said you also can track what isn't said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsv123456 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stustu12's external links
Because this is first an issue of spamming a number of links where the original editor has a clear WP:COI, it might be best to try to centralize the discussions at User talk:Piotrus#Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links and Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links --Ronz 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External link cleanup
The external links need cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. If editors feel a list of tools would be useful, it would need to meet WP:LIST and especially have a inclusion criteria so the list can be managed from growing uncontrollably. The normal inclusion criteria is for the list to only include items that already have their own wikipedia articles. Because none of these do, they should probably all be removed. It would be nice to find and include a link that actually lists such tools though. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simplified?
Simplified? you want to simplify the text because the language seems far more complex than it really needs to be? sorry but try reading books on researching communications in the media idustry... i had to keep checking my thesauras just to decifer what i was reading as i went along. To simplify the text would make it irrelevant (sadly) as this page on content analysis actually uses all the correct termanology..........please excuse my bad spelling, my brain is mashed from doing an assignment and reading all this unesscesary complex lingo...i've learnt a new language it seems--Liz K, not registerd either UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.101.243 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2008
- I had content analysis drilled into me in various research methods classes and it's really not that complex a method in reality: what makes it complex is the terminology you're referring to. This article should be written in simple easy to understand language that anybody can comprehend as far as I'm concerned. Articles of this nature are my pet hate, it's clearly been written primarily by someone who wants to demonstrate his/her knowledge of the subject and as a result it's become unreadable for those not acquainted with the terminology. Blankfrackis (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Terminology can be used - should be used - but should also be clearly explained. Thus a reader should take away both the understanding of the clearly explained concept, and of the terminology he will encounter when dealing with more specialized literature.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] philology, hermenutics, & semiotics
This article fails to take account of textual analysis in the humanities, as is done in the above three fields, for example.
- It's too stlanted towards science. For example, the scholarly study of the Bible, concerning its historical compilation, is omitted. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need a disambiguation page to distinguish textual analysis? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
