Talk:Scheme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Systems (Rated Disambig-Class) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||
| Systems rating: | Disambig Class | Mid importance | Field: Scientific modeling | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
[edit] A view
To create an entry, "scheme," just in order to give a brief definition seems unproductive to me. On my view, articles that simply give a brief, mediocre definition of a word are best left uncreated; the notion of a conceptual scheme is much-studied by philosophy. That deserves an encyclopedia entry--not a definition, but a discussion of what has been said about conceptual schemes. --LMS
Larry, what are you trying to tell me here? Try to be constructive. An entry for "Scheme" already existed, describing the programming language. I wanted to point out that the word Scheme also has a more general meaning. Anybody is free to add pointers to conceptual schemes or whatever they find relevant. Anybody arriving at the entry for "scheme" (by search, link, or otherwise) should be interested in finding a roadmap of different meanings of the word, or at least I would. -- Should we be silent about the non-programming language meaning of the word? Should I go on to write about conceptual schemes? (Sorry, I hardly have the knowledge.) Or should I simply go away? --LA2
I thought I was being constructive. No, I don't want you to go away! I'd just like you to concentrate your energies on your areas of expertise. What irritated me (I admit it, I was irritated) was that you created a link to an article, called "scheme," on a topic on which there is expert "knowledge" (i.e., what philosophers theorize about conceptual schemes), and yet what you wrote did little more than give a rather mediocre definition of a term that any reasonably well-educated person understands. I don't see what value there is in doing that, other than to create a node in a web of mediocre dictionary definitions. This inspired me to write Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Sorry for being so harsh; this is an issue that has been bubbling away in the back of my mind for a few months now, and finally various recent contributions have crystallized my distaste for these dictionary-definition type entries. --LMS
