Talk:Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Content and Wikification
There are a number of issues which need to be addressed here I think. Generally speaking, the chapter summaries need to be shorter, and more material needs to be written about the relevance of the text in a broader context. For example, not only should the books contents be summarized, but its relation to other materials in the field need to be noted.
As for Wikification, a rule of thumb to use, is probably best to wikify whatever technical terms, and significant nouns which are in the article. For example "ethnogenesis" should be wikified. So should "nomadic community". --HappyCamper 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, shorter summaries, will work on that. Relevance: How to handle this, here are the questions: 1) this article is enormously relevant to understanding the Middle East and the reactive structure of decentralizated leadership and recruitment. I think anyone can grasp the relevance but Turkish nomads are hardly at the center of a maelstorm of conflict and misunderstanding: but Americans, Britishs and our legislators and politicians desperately need ethnographic understanding about the dynamics of various Arabic types of social organization. We are woefully ignorant. 2) If I look at the Category:Anthropology Books category it is pathetic, Sociology has much better contents. All but two of the Anthropology Books are there because of contraversial book contents. The only anthropology books we seem to cover on the web under:Notability seem to be Notariety and this isnt healthy nor helpful. so: 3) perhaps you can figure out a way to say that cultural and social science knowledge of this sort is relevant information without having to draw the obvious parallels with current events.
- When you say that , for example "ethnogenesis" should be wikified. So should "nomadic community". I am enough of a neophyte not to know what this is -- to create new entries or find a subhead that can be hashed that contains an explanation of the term? This I can do but I wanted to get what the shorthand refers to. Somebody btw did a great job in straightening out the two graphics under change six. Also: if you know anyone who is good at shortening the chapter summaries, let me know, otherwise I will wait a couple of days and do it myself. Thanks for your help here.--Douglas R. White 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, figured it out and did wikify nomad community also ethnogenesis, and added at the end of Ch 3 summary a hint as to relevance. Edited one of my sentences above for clarity. Did you also mean other issues in the social sciences, in ethnography, anthropology, or just wikification of some terms to help the reader. Personally, I dont want to chase up every alleyway but you may see needed pointers to relevants that I dont. One of the things that is discussed in the book is that little is done these days with network analysis in anthropology, and this book breaks entirely new ground that wasnt there in the J Clyde Michtell John A. Barnes and plethora of work on network analysis in the 1960s. Its a huge area to open up for discussion, highly relevant, and is discussed by the reviewer Alvin Wolfe but I didnt want to get into it. Better just present the book and it speaks for itself especially through the network images. --Douglas R. White 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, lots of questions here. I'll answer the easy ones first :-)
-
-
- The verb "to wiki" and its derivatives "wikify", "wikification", et cetera, really means "write the article using Wiki syntax". And this, to a first order approximation means, "add square brackets around terms of interest in the article". This does not have to be done perfectly. Sooner or later, if something is done "wrong" another Wikipedian will come by and fix it up. For example, ethnogenesis sounds like an interesting technical term. If I see a link, I'd be tempted to learn more about it just by clicking on it. Don't worry if you produce red links. Red links will either be redirected to existing articles, or will invite another Wikipedian to write about something that does not exist on Wikipedia yet.
- The person who fixed the graphics was me :-) You can see what I did in the edit history. Just click "diff" between my edit, and the previous edit to see the changes highlighted.
- I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so I wasn't aware that there are quite so many subtle issues. Since there is so much complexity involved, one approach might be the following: "If a person new to the topic were to read this article, can I inspire them to learn more about the topic?" - this should generate some ideas for article improvement. --HappyCamper 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
