edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Meme: |
|
- Don't merge Memetics ⇒ Meme. Move content where appropriate. Think Gene and Genetics.
- Supply missing citations to sources, preferably (and always in the case of direct quotations or attributions) with page references where they exist.
- Remove all of the weasel words and provide sources for statements that contain "one can..." and "for example...".
- Clean up grammar and sentence structure. Isn't this one resolved by now?
- Prune the list of memes to include only salient examples of specific phenomena.
- Quote from more artistic works themselves — books, films and popular media — for more direct examples to make it more easly comprehensible or illustrative, etc.
- Incorporate scientific community criticism of the concept (ex. James Polichak's "Memes as Pseudoscience", a response to the article "Memes as Good Science". Also include input from the anthropological community such as Kuper, Sperber, Bloch.
- Explain why culture is discrete, and hence analysable in memetic terms.
- Address if intention does or does not make the development of ideas fundamentally different from random mutation.
- Provide examples of applied memetic engineering, if any can be found, such as Godwin's Law or various propaganda/advertising efforts (André the Giant Has a Posse, etc.)
- Clarify Darwin's ideas on social Darwinism; he himself was not a social Darwinist.
- There seems to be a lack of coherence between the 'Origins of the concept' section and the subsection 'Etymology'. At least, a further clarification is needed.
- Reference snowclones.
|
| Priority 1 (top) |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The reference is in:
|
|
This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The reference is in:
|
[edit] John Gray
The text recently added on John Gray (diff) is a little undue. The criticism is fine, but an article should not include two long quotes unless the work is of great significance (and noted as such in reliable sources). If someone gets around to fixing it, the correct links are: John Gray and Straw Dogs. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction doesn't mesh with the body of the article
Why is the introductory paragraph, "A meme is an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture . . ." when the body of the article discusses meme as Dawkins coined it, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ideas or beliefs?
Maybe there should be a split, such as "meme (genetics) or meme (sociology). This article is clearly about meme (biology), not ideas. 174.3.161.217 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there's a problem. It's not biology versus sociology, though, it's meme versus memetics. The former accords with the definition at the top of this article, the latter is a theory of how ideas and cultures changed inspired by Dawkins' suggestion. That is, it's a sociological theory thought up mainly by a few natural scientists. The former is noncontroversial in its usage, the latter is considered by some to be pseudoscience. I'd support a cleaner separation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] History
Only to fill a gap in utilitarians' perception, the meme was invented. How on earth is it possible for such useless art, to persist in a daily struggle for existence. Dawkins, stuck to English tradition, was of course far away from not putting bold question marks in it's many gaps, but behind the whole utilitarianism. Apart from anglo-saxon learnedness the meme theory is hard to understand, because the problems are missing for which it is trying to give answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.108.109 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're talking about Memetics more than Memes as such - and there are lots of anglo-saxons who find it problematic too. In any case, you're discussing your own opinions, whereas on Wikipedia we discuss other people's opinions. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Pseudo-scientific attempts have been made to apply the methods of science to psychology for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking of a section of the article
Please discuss the reasons for removing the sections, as "offending" is not a valid reason, Wikipedia does not censor information that may be considered "offensive". - SudoGhost 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- This article is now semi-protected for 3 weeks, since the contributions from anonymous editors in recent history has not been constructive. They are welcome to comment here. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Transmission section very problematic
This section suffers particularly from the general problem on this page of confusing memes (a well-established name for ideas that spread quickly) with memetics, which is a fringe theory of how/why ideas and ideologies spread and develop. I suggest moving a lot of it to memetics as an example of people trying to employ memetics to analyse ideological development. That page is basically history plus criticism, without any illustration of people using it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
-
- I was just thinking the exact same thing about the whole article. Parts of it are about memes and parts are about memetics, with no clear distinctions about which one is being discussed. Some of it is very confusing. I will try to work on it when I have time, but it is not my field of expertise and might be easier for someone with more interest/knowledge in the subject.
- I just edited a sentence that said "Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution" - what exactly are "advocates of the meme idea"?? I changed it to "proponents theorize", but perhaps it should actually be "proponents of memetics theorize"? There are numerous other examples like this. -MsBatfish (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Whales should be included as a creature that uses memetics
This is the citation to support whales being added as an animal that learn how to sing by imitating their parents or neighbor. I don't know how to do the citation in text though. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900291-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotman666 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
To-do list for Meme:
