Talk:Brainstorming/Archives/2014

Use of published research

U3964057 undid one of my contributions, which brings up an important point. I think we as Wikipedia editors should encourage the addition of new knowledge, as it appears in published research. If there is a problem with it seeming too "vague" or not helpful, let's take the responsibility of either making it more specific, or asking for the editor to make it more specific. Let's not take the easier road of labelling it "academic spam." MicheleJackson (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I am happy to talk about your recent addition, which i still have reservations about despite the improvements in your most recent version. First, I am concerned that the content is not accessible to the likely audience. There are many phrases that are ill-defined and thus will be meaningless to those visiting this page (e.g. "computational optimization models", "non-cognitive models of brainstorming"). Second, the content itself is vague. Which of the problems? What is appropriate facilitation? How does the research come to this conclusion? I sincerely believe that the content in its current form is more likely to confuse and distract readers than add to the encyclopedic coverage of brainstorming. Hence my revision.

With regard to your broader point, I do not agree that we should encourage the addition of "new knowledge". Instead, I would argue that Wikipedia is best served by the inclusion of a) relevant, b) reliable, and c) accessible content. New knowledge is fine, but only in service of these other criteria. The content you added I think clearly fails c), and may also fail a). Finally, with regard to 'academic spam', you are right to say that wikipedia does not have an "academic spam" policy. It does, however, have a spam policy. This is because spam and self promotion are missive annoyances for wikipedia. Unfortunately academics are common culprits, often looking to increase the visibility of their own or colleagues' recent publications. As such, I am always suspicious new content citing recently published journal articles, as is the case with your edit. Quite possibly your intentions are honorable, but I feel that it is important to talk about the chance that you do not have the right goals in mind. In fact, often explicitly raising this point helps prompt an editor to review their intentions. Does this resonate with you at all? I welcome your (and other editors') comments. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, your point about the wording of my contribution is well taken, and I will edit to make the language more accessible.

However, I don't appreciate the insinuations you are making, and that you have judged my contribution based on your assumptions. I don't know the authors, if that's what you mean, although I have conducted research on brainstorming in the past. I read the spam policy, and my addition doesn't violate it. So, just curious, and to be fair, what are your intentions? As a complement to your suspicion, mine is about editors whose impulse is to reject content from editors based on their own exclusive vision of what the content should be. Given your comments here and on social identity, I have a sense that you have a bias against published research.

I think that recently published research is the way to make Wikipedia entries relevant and as accurate as possible. This is one of its major advantages over traditional encyclopedias and textbooks. Old knowledge is not intrinsically better than new knowledge. Especially in the social sciences. I notice that many of the references on this page are quite old (with an overemphasis on its origin and Osborne, in my opinion, instead of on the process of brainstorming). I encourage a comprehensive update to reflect the literature of the past decade.

And, it's Michele, not Michael.

Cheers.MicheleJackson (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi MicheleJackson. Firstly, sorry about getting your name wrong. Second, I look forward to seeing your changes.

With regard to your other comments, while I accept that old publications (lets not pretend that publication equates to knowledge) are not intrinsically better than new publications, it is also true that new publications are not intrinsically better than old publications. What matters, as i said, is simply whether the source and its content is reliable and relevant. New publications do not possess these characteristics as a function of their recency. Instead, the newest publications on any particular topic are often incredibly niche. They are, understandably, more interested in possible new knowledge rather than the established extant knowledge. So yes, looking to insert content from the latest publications might improve Wikipedia articles, but only to the extent that they contribute relevant and reliable content. Often they don't, and often there are better options. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)