Talk:Culturomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 

Thanks[edit]

Good start, thanks. This is an interesting topic I know nothing about, listing the sources seems the first best step. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Text vs information[edit]

Culturomics is more than just the study of texts, it's digital information of any type. It can look at blogs, tweets, news articles, any type of cultural output. Google Books Ngram Viewer has been the first application but not the only. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the NY Times article and responses to the Science article suggest no one is certain that "culturomics" is anything. It currently exists only as a neologism (having been first used only last December and appears not to be in common use). I am not yet convinced the term is entirely beyond WP:NEO -- it may be better suited for Wikitionary -- but I'm willing to take a wait-and-see stance for the moment. Time, and more sources independent of the coiners, can eventually decide on a definition. CactusWriter (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's ok for Wikipedia, notable sources, it's an emerging field is all. There's still the issue of focusing on just ngram's and Google Books, it's more than that. See this article for example. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Links[edit]

These externl-links were added by anon, not really sure where/how they should be added to the article, they are useful in case we have a AfD or something, I'll work on adding some as sources, holding here for now. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the American Scientist article it's pretty good. I think the other links are good for verification purposes, in case anyone questions the terms notability, but wouldn't be core to the article. Thanks for making them available, anon. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)