Talk:Problem solving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference farm[edit]

There are a huge number of "references" that have no citation in the text. I recommend we delete them all, keeping only those directly associated with a specific citation. -DoctorW 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of them are being used as reference, they're just formatted unexpectedly. I think the first step is to reformat all the Problem_solving#Reference-(NAME) references with <ref> formatting. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of how to reference them [2]. I copied the wikicite-formatted information from the References section into ref formatting, naming the reference for future use. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only people?[edit]

I really think there should be information about problem solving as it relates to non-human species. This is supposed to be an article about "problem solving," not simply "human problem solving."

IMO there should be a summary of this current page, while the full contents should be moved to a new article named something like "Problem solving capability of humans." New sections should then be added to this article about problem solving as it relates to non-human life in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that one of the problems with problem solving is that there are too many different ways to solve the problem. How about: (1)What is the problem?, (2)What are the solutions to the problem?, (3)What is the best solution for the problem?, and (4)How do we implement the best solution? I forget where I learned that in a problem solving seminar, But I don't even know where it fits into this elaborate discussion.WFPM (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page because Finland is ranked the best worldwide in Math, Reading and Science, but only 2nd in Problem Solving. So what nation is ranked the highest in problem solving at the secondary education level?!?!?!

writting books does a great difference when using this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


analyse world problems: choose an operation

to choose an operation for a problem, think about the action taking place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

'Problem Solving Techniques' needs refinement[edit]

A lot of the 33 techniques listed are actually the same or very similar, and one of the techniques is actually another list of techniques that seems to be focused on engineering/science rather than the general principle of solving a problem. And I seriously doubt that the 'WWXXD' method is either useful or practical -- I mean seriously, when has 'What Would Chuck Norris Do' ever solved a problem, let alone a real one?

I suggest that techniques be grouped into types, e.g. general, mathematical, logical, with AI, etc. Ideally, each item should link to another article and there should be no repeated items.

--Sg gower (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong agree. All what you say. Will you do the changes? BertSeghers (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made some changes. Most notably, I've just about halved the number of items in the list... Anything that was repeated or didn't have a corresponding article is gone. I've also split the section up into 'problem-solving techniques' and 'problem-solving methodologies', as the things that I am now calling methodologies used other or combinations of techniques rather than something different. Since there are now so few things on the list, it no longer seems apt to subdivide it into general, mathematical, etc. Tomorrow, I intend to slim down the extensive 'see also' section. Some things already linked to in previous sections are also there (like TRIZ and Reduction), and I'm sure some of things in that list belong in techniques or methodologies instead. SG Gower (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made all the changes that were really bugging me (more than halved 'see also'), but this article still could use some work. SG Gower (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing heading levels[edit]

It has occurred to me that 'Europe' and ' USA and Canada' should be sub-headings of 'Overview', as really they are extensions of the overview. Before making the change, I'd like to see what others think. --SG Gower (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is done, Overview is also renamed to History of the field. --Aleksd (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is plaigarism an issue?[edit]

The second paragraph in the section 'Overview' is cut and pasted from "complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective - 10 Years After" by Funke and Frensche which is chapter 2 of D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), "Learning to solve complex scientific problems" (pp. 25-47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. In fact I suspect a large amount of the page comes from this in a pretty much unedited form. This is understandable as the chapter is one of the few English language publications by these important authors freely available on the net and is a great overview discussion.

I am not sure of where Wikipedia stands on this sort of thing. DrPutty (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a copyvio tag so the issue will be investigated further. The original version (Feb. 2002) was taken from the sections "Historical Roots" and "The European Situation" on pp. 16-17 of Complex problem solving: the European perspective by Peter A. Frensch, Joachim Funke, Psychology Press, 1995 and was added by User:JoachimFunke, possibly one of the authors of a 1995 book from which nearly all the material was taken. The material was later deleted for COPYVIO but restored again with no explanation. I don't think the unquestioned material is enough to make a viable article and I don't have the expertise to rewrite it.--RDBury (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What kind of template is that? You cannot blackout a whole issue for a paragraph, edit it if you want but what is this? --Aleksd (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the template. Please do not use it on other articles. --Aleksd (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that most of the article is under copyright and, as I understand it, it's actually illegal for it to be in Wikipedia, I'm was only trying for follow Wikipedia policy.--RDBury (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I reworked the intro and now I'm working on the copy-pasted text that possibly has some issues with authorship, however I wouldn't call it illegal if the author himself put it here. The text must be changed to fit W standards, needs addition of facts and removal of not so important details. Thence we can source it with the published book of the author rather than having something like multiple citations that has no real encyclopedic importance since sound more like a research. The article need major rework but deletion or blackout is too far as a measure. --Aleksd (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Also I would suggest for this kind of articles to be categorized in a way that people 'having the expertise' to rework them, there are W Projects in almost all areas and expert editors could help. --Aleksd (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether an author can add their own work to WP needs to be checked, generally the copyright is owned by the publisher and not the author and we have no way of knowing that the person claiming to be Joachim Funke was actually the person who added the material; WP does not ask people to verify their identity when they create an account. I agree that much of the article needs to be rewritten for style, but the result may not be sufficiently different to avoid copyright infringement.--RDBury (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you want? No article, maybe you are against Wikipedia too?
The intro is not of the author, you delete it all, the following paragraph is majorly restructured, the article will change, will you be calling it illegal still because of a historical reference? What is this? --Aleksd (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What is this? This is policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations. What RDBury did was a completely proper response to the situation he found: WP:CV101. This template you told him not to use is one of the recommended responses for this situation. Thanks to RDBury, we now have confirmed license with the contributor for the content. Comments like "maybe you are against Wikipedia too?", on the other hand, contradict policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume that you know the meaning of the word illegal, you cannot call something illegal in obviously not being such case, to say that the author confirmed after the illegal defining of the situation I rather call it an embarassing situation if not something else. --Aleksd (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The focus on the word "illegal" isn't really helpful, as what's at question here is the policy. It is illegal for Wikipedia to host substantial copyrighted content without permission beyond the allowances of fair use. It is policy when content is previously published to verify that the author is able to license the content. The template that is used (see here) says nothing about the legality of the content, nor does it even confirm that the content is an infringement of copyright. It is used for investigations and includes directions for copyright holders on how to verify ownership. The author of the content was not in any way upset with us for verifying this and in fact thanked us in his letter. It is a service to copyright holders as well as to our reusers to make sure that material is compliant with the law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it was only me who used the word "illegal" and I said it was under my (apparently limited) understanding. So I apologize if the word is causing confusion as the to reasons for WP policies and procedures. To me, the priority now is to get past this issue and go on to fix the other problems with the article. This is an important subject and the article gets a large number of views, so it would be nice if the article was of correspondingly high quality.

I come here because of a post to User talk:Moonriddengirl, a page I'm normally watching due to the amount of posting I do to it. I've restored the copyvio tag and it should not now be removed. Having taken a quick look between the very first version of the article and the current version there's way too much similarity there and so we must proceed as if this is a copyright violation. Now we are aware of the situation we would be remiss not to remove the text while it is investigated. Yes, the tag is big and ugly but that's the agreed upon process, partly because of the potential legal issues, and shouldn't be removed just because you don't like it.

In this instance it seems likely that the author uploaded the original text but we cannot take that at face value. On wikipedia there is no verification of user names is done when accounts are created so we have no way to be certain that the person is who they say they are, hence why they must follow the OTRS process. This can also be useful in verifying that the author knows what rights they are releasing (i.e. to modify as well as to copy).

As per the instructions on the tag the process if you wish to rewrite the page is to create a temporary page and leave the tag on the original page until an admin, OTRS agent or clerk comes and deals with it. In creating a temporary page you also need of be very careful of creating a derivative work as this would still be copyrighted to the original author. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that text in question may well have been added before OTRS existed but I see no sign on talk here of the (quite dubious) procedures used before that. Normally, at this stage, I'd leave a message on the contributor's talk page telling them of the situation but as they haven't edited in other four and a half years I'm not sure how much help that would be. I'll mentions this at User talk:Moonriddengirl as she may be willing to try to contact the author through OTRS. Dpmuk (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed; I've written him, and let's hope that he's able to confirm soon. At that point, we'll be able to restore the content without issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical errors in "Computer Science and alogorithmics" along with a lack of references.[edit]

There are a few grammatical errors at the end of the section entitled "Computer science and algorithmics". These petty errors should be fixed speedily. There are also no references for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)