Talk:FDTI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear dr. Honey & Kakofonous,
I think that being busy is something we have in common... I do agree with most of what you wrote, and I am persuaded that the revised version now available may solve many things. Sorry for this very short message, i hope to know your opinion soon.
best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrieleg (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear dr. Honey,
it is true that this is an original research, but this topic is under the attention of the scientific community and more than one attempt successfully revealed the existence of a functional correlate of dti. a reference have been added, reporting a whole work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrieleg (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) my reason to think that this article should be kept is that it matches the criterion of verifiability, as the "fdti" page contains a detailed description of the method which allows full replication of the experiment and have then evidence of the phenomenon.
i noticed that giving this information around seem to dislike a certain number of neuroscientists, not really on the method, something like an "a priori".
you just declare it should be deleted instead of saying what you think may be modified in order to match your personal taste.
it would then be nice by you if you could integrate your demand including the exact reason of your attention, if it is because you don't believe it, you don't like it, you're working on it, you think my name should not be included, whatever.
[edit] Previously Proposed Deletion
Dear Dr Garbin,
I'm sorry for being so untimely in responding to your notes on the article. I've only recently joined Wikipedia, and so am not really in the habit of making regular changes. (Also, have been unusually busy these past few weeks).
The reason that I proposed the article be deleted was that it constituted original research. You agreed that it constituted original research (see your statement above: "It is true that this is an original research"), but believe that this is OK since it is verifiable. However, if I understand Wikipedia's guidelines correctly, posting original research actually is not OK, regardless of whether it is verifiable.
The first thing that could be done to make this article less like original research would be for it to be presented in a manner other than the standard academic paper layout (Summary/ Introduction / Materials and Methods / Acquisitions parameters / Data analysis / Results / Discussion / Conclusions: / Figures and Tables). The current formatting suggests that you pasted one of your research papers (as a whole) into Wikipedia and then made some formatting edits and edited some external links. I am certain that this is not an appropriate manner of Wikipedia content. (Am I wrong about this?)
I think that fDTI as a subject (to the extent that it exists as a subject, since it is still so knew and hardly well-defined) should be described in Wikipedia (perhaps as a subsection on the DTI page?) ... but the content presented here is too long and technical. Encyclopedia article are supposed to provide summaries based on primary sources and secondary sources, whereas scientific research papers should provide the information required (as you point out) to replicate and or verify a claim being made. This article, as it stands, is more of a research paper than an encyclopedia article.
Where do you think we should go from here? It seems to me that we should either substantially shorten and compact this page (so that it simply states what fDTI is and whats its potential implications are) or we should convert the fDTI information into a paragraph on the DTI page or we should delete the fDTI page ... what do you think?
ChristopherHoney (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am responding per ChristopherHoney's request to do so. In my opinion, this article would require a very substantial rewrite to become a Wikipedia article, and agree with ChristopherHoney's ideas on how to make it more accessible and less like a study from an academic, specialized, journal. As a layman with virtually no specialized knowledge in the medical field, the only portion of this article that is comprehensible to me is the very beginning, when the article plunges into medical jargon with very little explanation or links to other articles that could provide a better picture to me or any other average reader. (See also: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.)
- The second concern I have, that has been echoed above, is the fact that this is original research. (Even stated in the article itself: "This method comes from an original idea by the author, here explained at the best of his capabilities…".) Despite the fact that the idea of fDTI is a verifiable and important topic, as evidenced by the number of scholarly references, the actual content of the article is not an overview of the topic itself, but a piece of original research involving the topic. As both of the users that have posted here seem to have a good knowledge of fDTI, I suggest that a collaborative rewrite of the article, (not a deletion), would be the best course of action. If there is any useful input or assistance I can provide to further the process, just ask! Kakofonous (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
