Talk:Science in Action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

lack of content, bad discussion[edit]

this article has many problems. the actual description of the content is thin and extremely incomplete. even worse, the critique lacks any real argument. in fact it is just a polemic quote. i would either remove it or elaborate on the actual position of the reviewer. also, the response is much too long and has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. the advantages and disadvantages of ANT should be discussed in the actual article. a reference to the controversies ("science wars" and issues of the social construction of society) should be enough. no need for ideological squabble here.

best, alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.192 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia endorse original criticism on article pages?[edit]

The section "response to criticism" both seems like original research (completely no citations, written in a very partial style) and is written in a way that clearly violates NPOV, as in "illustrates how Amsterdamska crucially failed to understand Latour" (this is a clearly evaluative remark). Ilintar (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)