Talk:Computer-supported cooperative work
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
|To-do list for Computer-supported cooperative work:|
|WikiProject Human Computer Interaction|
Alexandre 02:38, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that there are 47 references on this article, but only 1 fully written paragraph, and a outline of another. Would a start be to eliminate all of the references that are not acually referenced in the article?, and perhaps use the others as source material?Cander0000 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
These 47 seven papers are the result of a study published in the last CSCW conference in Banff in 2006 (this paper is cited in the article: "the chasm of CSCW")
There are the most cited papers and are in some sense the heart of CSCW. This paper list can be very usefull for a person that want to explore 20 years of CSCW...
Maybe, this has to be explained in the page ?
So i think that the banner "indiscriminately sources" is not justified at all. These 47 papers list have been already accepted by the CSCW community...
Momo54 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite of section
I rewrote the major section to this article, as the text seemed to make some erroneous claims, as well as being a bit tangential to explaining the CSCW field. I did try to incorporate the major concerns that were expressed in the text that I replaced. Drop me a line if there are concerns with the changes. It can definitely be elaborated upon a great deal. Leafman (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A confusing array of buzzword articles needs structure
I'm seeing a lot of "collaboration" and "cooperation" buzzwords appearing as articles. Those articles often refer to each other, and need some organization. (And I see from the first section above that this has been a problem for the last 6 years.)
See my list of examples at Talk:Collaborative working environment.
This article is patchy and not representative of the field
The article comes across as an arbitrary collection of terms and references. It needs editing by somebody who has an overview of this (vast) field. For instance, the key role of ethnographic studies of cooperative work practices in natural settings is not represented. In its current form, it would be more appropriate if the title was changed to “Computer-Mediated Communications” or “Groupware”.
The list of 47 “most cited papers” is misleading. The study from which it has been lifted is based on a bibliometric analysis of the ACM Digital Library only -- and does not take into account works published at ECSCW (since 1989), the CSCW Journal (since 1992), the COOP conferences series, the Springer CSCW book series, and so on.
Kjeld Schmidt, Editor-in-chief of JCSCW