Talk:Complex adaptive system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
WikiProject Evolutionary biology  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Systems science portal" Icon Clipping Image Caption[edit]

There is a "System science portal" box hovering over the caption for the second, bar-graph image. This is really annoying; I have to copy/paste, or open up the source-code to read a caption. I can't see how to immediately fix this, but I think someone should address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial link appropriate?[edit]

As it sits, the external link to the Redfish Group with no description looks like spam. Any comments or differing characterization of the link before it gets removed? --Blainster 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


The universe seems to be arranged in hierarchies. There are various levels at which you can understand it. The level we are most famililar with is the level of everyday life. Going down we run into the levels of organs, cells, molecular biology, chemistry. Each level has its own laws which work in certian "special cases" with all violations at the "extreams". Complex Adaptive Swarms exhibit similar layered behavior also, at each layer the swarm is made of smaller complex adaptive systems. This layered behavior doesn't appear in swarms made of simple systems. This all seems to imply that either there is no bottom to the layers of the universe(and no TOE) or, the bottom layer is made of smart, adaptive particles.--SurrealWarrior 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change [plural -> singular][edit]

  • JA: I had posted the reason for this change at the Requested moves page. I thought that this was pretty straightforward, but needed admin help because of the pre-existing undeveloped article with the singular title. This article was initially titled with the singular Complex adaptive system, then listed for speedy deletion due to lack of content or lack of work expanding the stub. Then it appears that a new article was created under the plural title. I think that it's standard to use singular forms for titles unless there is some overriding reason to use the plural, as this makes it easier to wiki both forms as needed, by Complex adaptive systems, and so on. There is now a complex tangle of redirects involving this article and several others on complexity that I encountered in the process of trying to reference it properly, and I can sort that out after the change is made. Jon Awbrey 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree, move: I don't have a problem with this move. It seems strange that the singular title was previously redirected to complex system instead of here. Since there was no substantive article or any discussion at the singular title, I can't see any need to try to preserve the history there. --Blainster 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes & Queries[edit]

Jon Awbrey 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions need fix[edit]

The Revision as of 13:50, 20 December 2006 Michael Hardy, (→Definitions - cquote) resulted in the deletion of the original text. But I can't figure out how to fix it. Help, anyone?Fireproeng 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.Fireproeng 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe an example or two would help?[edit]

i'm having trouble understanding these articles. i.e. complexity almost doesn't say anything specific. can we have an example of a complex adaptive system, what makes it complex, what makes it adaptive? Is a thermostat one? or is it not complex?

a quote from the article (a definition?)

What distinguishes a CAS from a pure multi-agent system (MAS) is the focus on top-level properties and features like self-similarity, complexity, emergence and self-organization. A MAS is simply defined as a system composed of multiple, interacting agents. In CASs, the agents as well as the system are adaptive: the system is self-similar. A CAS is a complex, self-similar collectivity of interacting adaptive agents. Complex Adaptive Systems are characterised by a high degree of adaptive capacity, giving them resilience in the face of perturbation.
Other important properties are adaptation

the article just keeps saying the same words over and over again: self-similarity, compexity, adaptive capacity... but it defines none of these. I have no clue what self-similarity is doing here, it usually refers to a subsystem being similar to the whole system, of course this is strictly speaking impossible for a finite system so i don't get it. i also don't see how that makes it adaptive. does it make a snowflake complex?

pick a few systems and define in what way they are self similar, define what it means for the system to be adaptive.

the section on biology only discusses a technical issue of the left hand wall in evolution of complexity. again, it doesn't describe what it means for a cell or a mouse to be a complex adaptive system (other than the obvious gut sense that of course that sounds like what they are. work your way down the scale from mouse to cell to ribosome to enzyme to amino acid to carbon atom to proton. at what point in this hierarchy is the system no longer a complex adaptive system?

I'd try writing it, but i've been trying for 20 years to no avail. the best i can come up with is a collection of 60 descriptions of interesting systems and let the reader decide on the categories if there are any. perhaps it is too early in history for such a treatment, these things are only 150 years old. I think it took longer than that to define what oxygen was.Wikiskimmer 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, an example might help. I'll muse on this for a while... also, might I suggest that the Literature and External Links be somehow worked to be in-line references with the text instead? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No random list of scientists in the external links section[edit]

I removed a list of scientists from the external links section, for the third time. Now it really looks like a random list of scientists, which shouldn't be in this section in the first place. Main articles like this in Wikipedia simply don't show a list of external links to scientists in the external links section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify this article having a further 35 external links? That is a ridiculous amount. Wikipedia is not an internet links directory. EL policy states; "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their accuracy." What information do these pages add to the subject of the article? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to toss my view into the fray as well, I agree with removing the external links as they existed in the previous versions. Wikipedia is not a repository of links nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information on all programs ever everywhere. One would not have links to every prominent biologist or biology department on the Biology page, so why then all the links on scientists, research programs, etc. here? Madcoverboy (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the external links section in this article did not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. There is no question about that. But these links in a way seems to be important. This article is the main article about the new field of "Complex adaptive system", which is a scientific paradigm developed by scientists, institutes, and in conferences and in magazines. Now I am not a real expert in this field. But it seemed to me that those 35 links gave a good representation of this scientific field. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that it doesn't. However the article subject is Complex adaptive systems, not Everyone involved in the field of complex adaptive systems. As Madcoverboy notes above; all scientific fields are a collaborative effort, and their articles don't attempt to list everyone and every organisation involved in it. The only ones listed in the External Links should be those who have contributed significantly enough to merit a mention in the article itself.
Is there not any professional or organisational web sites that collate this information that could be linked to? Wikipedia shouldn't be attempting to be a directory. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I wish there was a simple solution here? I have noticed this problem existing in more articles about new fields. It would be better if in the article had a chapter about the organization of the field based on reliable sources. Until that time this listing is an acceptable alternative to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy of removed external links[edit]

  • Complexity Digest comprehensive digest of latest CAS related news and research.
  • Complex Adaptive Systems Research website by Mark Voss with many links.
  • A description of complex adaptive systems on the Principia Cybernetica Web.
  • Quick reference single-page description of the 'world' of complexity and related ideas hosted by the Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan.
  • Analyx real-world applications of agent-based modeling drawing on Complexity science.
  • Biology-inspired techniques for self-organization in dynamic networks.

University Programs



That list of Researchers and scientists[edit]

I have removed the following list of scientists from the article several times now:

An anomynous editor keep putting this list back. Now I wonder, why he wants this list here in the first place. Maybe he can explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And about Thermodynamics?[edit]

See modern view of open systems and systems far from equilibrium: there are a "hard Science" behind Complex adaptive systems theory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


The illustration at the start of the Overview has no citation. Checking its origin it was produced by a wikipedia editor "inspired" by a couple of books. Aside from the fact that it is inaccurate it is clearly original research. If no citation is produced to support it I am removing it again. --Snowded TALK 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation about John Holland ist wrong[edit]

1) In the quoted book M. Mitchell Waldrop. (1994). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. - I have to refer to the Simon & Schuster Paperback issue - M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote a protocol of a lecture of John Holland "THE ECONOMY AS AN EVOLVING COMPLEX SYSTEM". You can not cite that as an original text of John Holland.

2) Also Waldrop´s protocol is cited wrong, what we can see in the article is a summary of what Waldrop wrote and is not marked as a summary.

3) Even in the original paper of John Holland the article citation can not be found. Santa Fe Institute: "The economy as an evolving complex system - The proceedings of the evolutionary paths of the global economy workshop, held september, 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico", Editor: Anderson, Philip W. Addison-Wesley, 1988

--Torbrax (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

all definitions were cited wrong or do not lead to existing references[edit]

As said before the John Holland citation was just wrong and the links for the references of the other two citations did not work any more.--Torbrax (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg[edit]


Recently this file was removed with the argument "unsourced picture of dubious value" (see here) however:

  • The source is clearly: Own work by Acadac
  • The image is a concept map, which pictures the relationships between some of the main concepts.

You can always question the use of such concept maps in Wikipedia. But if there are around so long, there should be a discussion and some consensus first. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The subscrip of the image has been questioned and trimmed before (again) by the User:Snowded, see here, with the argument
picture is one take only, not representative and I'm not sure its right anyway.
This argument can be questioned again. A search for "Complex adaptive system" in Google images ([1]) show multiple similar images. -- Mdd (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry its original research or synthesis. It is unsourced, the fact it is been allowed to hang around is no reason to retain it. Find a source before you restore it ----Snowded TALK 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don;t understand. This illustration is clearly own work by a Wikipedia user, and bears great resemblance with similar images in the field. What more source then "own work" do you require? Since I don't understand your argument I also have asked a question here. -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Diagrams are subject to the same rules of evidence as anything else. To allow a diagram to illustrate the field it would need to represent a secondary source which summarises the field as a whole. This one confuses systems dynamics with complexity theory and is idiosyncratic at best.----Snowded TALK 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research there is a common understanding, that it is acceptable if the diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text. This can establish by looking at the terms mentioned in the specific concept map:

Now all of these terms relate to systems theory in general and Complex adaptive system in particular, so the image should be accepted. -- Mdd (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to assume that CAS is a subset of systems theory which is not universally held. There is nothing there about systems which alter their control parameters, nothing about phase transitions/bifucations. The whole idea if strategy from the main text is omitted (and that is just for starters). The language is that of systems theory for what is a biological/chemical/anthropological concept. Neither do the terms you list dominate the article. If a concept map was built from Axelrod and Cohen then there would be little objection. It is however build from two books that make little contribution to the text. So the terms relate to systems theory, sometimes are used for CAS and are not significantly used in the article text. ----Snowded TALK 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This becomes a never ending story, when one refuses to acknowledge that a "diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text": In this particular case that a concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior" indeed relates to Complex adaptive system. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the article about Systems Theory or is the article about CAS? Oicumayberight (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@Oicumayberight, The article is about "Complex Adaptive System, the concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior", and the objections seems to keep shifting:
  1. First, "the image has no value", whatever this means, and is being removed
  2. Second, "you should find a source", while the sources of the images are given, and is being removed again
  3. Third, the claim "Sorry its original research or synthesis", and the discussion on Talk:WP:NOR gets started
  4. Forth, the fact, that this concept map represents main terms in the field is being ignored
  5. Fifth, instead new speculations, what this concept map should be about are presented... as what?
This seems like the recipe of the never ending discussion, for which I pass. -- Mdd (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It uses some terms in the field but a limited set, and the representation of how they interoperate reflects neither the text nor the articles from which the article claims to be sourced. Your summary is inaccurate and misleading ----Snowded TALK 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no hard evidence, that "...the representation of how they interoperate reflects neither the text nor the articles from which the article claims to be sourced." This is just your interpretation. -- Mdd (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Then show me how it does. I have been explicit about material in the article which is not included and no one has shown how the diagram reflects the text. You seem to think that just saying something is or is not the case is enough. It isn't. Please respond to the points raised ----Snowded TALK 20:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are missing the point here (see also here): Wikipedia article can be illustrated with images from reliable sources, such as the File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg, just like this article can be expanded by adding appropriate quotes. The only thing required is that they are about the same topic, which even you confirmed "It uses some terms in the field but a limited set...". -- Mdd (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The illustration has to reflect the text not just be about the same topic. Now try and answer one of the questions I posed. The primary definition of complexity in the article is from Axelrod and Cohen's Book as well as Cilliers. There is nothing in the illustration that in any way matches those two sources. So how can it illustrate it. Once you have handled that please explain why the two sources of the illustration (per its author's designation) and not reflected in the text of the article. ----Snowded TALK 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to explain here, that there is a difference between earlier published images and new created images. New illustration indeed need to reflect the text and not just be about the same topic. Earlier published images (just like quotes) from reliable source can add additional information. Then there doesn't have to be any exact match (if that is even possible). -- Mdd (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if a new image is created, I think, the illustration still doesn't have to reflect the article's content. For example, your HBR article (p.3) gives a listing of six characteristics of CAS, which are quite different from the listing Andrus (2004) gave (see below). If an illustration is made that reflects those six characteristics, it could also be added to the article here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You still have not answered the questions, I suspect because you can't. You also now demonstrate that different sources describe a CAS in different ways. You seem to be arguing that every theory should have its own illustration. That would be OK if there were sections for each theory. The problem is that this picture in its position in the article purports to represent the field and it very clearly does not by your own admission----Snowded TALK 07:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, every notable theory/definition about CAS can be concluded in this article, and can have its own illustration. Now in this discussion it has become clear to me, that the article mentioned just one definition and the image reflects another definition. In this situation I would have preferred, that either the article and/or the image subscript would have been improved. -- Mdd (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Then it will be a very messy article. The article mentions more than one definition, although the lede does not reflect that well. The illustration does not reflect one definition, it is a somewhat contrived interpretation of two books in the field, both early, only one notable. When I checked both books I could not derive the figure from them. The article needs to be improved, then we can look at illustrations. We really need a third party source that reviews the field however as it is a fragmented emergent field. The modelling side is reasonably well established, the question of human CAS more controversial etc. ----Snowded TALK 11:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

About the source: The Wiki and the Blog (2004)[edit]

In The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community (2004) D. Calvin Andrus explains the image as follows:

The six critical components of a complex adaptive system are:
  1. Self-organization – individuals (people, ants, chemicals) decide to act in similar ways in proximity to and in concert with each other, for their own reasons...
  2. Emergence – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
  3. Relationships – individuals look at their nearest neighbors to try and figure out what is happening so they can make decisions...
  4. Feedback – information circulates in the system, is modified by others, and then comes back to influence the behavior of the originator either as a positive (amplified) or negative (dampened) influence...
  5. Adaptability – the system is open so that information (and/or energy) flows in and out of the system...
  6. Non-Linearity – Small changes in the initial conditions or external environment have large (unpredictable) consequences in the outcomes of the system – also known as the “butterfly effect,” cited earlier...
This graphic depicts these six characteristics. From simple, self-organized personal relationships emerges complex adaptive behavior. Information from the external environment enters the system and impinges on the on these relationships as either positive or negative feedback. The personal relationships are changed and the complex behavior adapts.

Now this article itselve is according to Google Scholar currently cited by 70 sources, see here. This makes it notable enough for inclusion. -- Mdd (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So? It explains a picture that appears in Wikipedia. It doesn't reference the field as a whole. The article text uses two other mainline reputable sources (A&C and Cilliers) to explain CAS. That is the text of the article and any picture should illustrate the text ----Snowded TALK 07:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
How about if we use the image, but we qualify the figure by using the following caption: 'A greatly oversimplified depiction of complex adaptive system (CAS). Note, however, that a CAS can not be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts.' I hope that may be an acceptable compromise?
In my view, it is practically impossible to capture the enormous complexity of CAS in an image/ figure, and this image is probably as good as any - it may be as good as it gets.
Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Its not only over simplified its incomplete, out of date and inadequate. ----Snowded TALK 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Please be specific. Try to list exactly how it is incomplete, out of date and inadequate, and hopefully Mdd may be willing to update the figure to accommodate your suggested improvements. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Its not even a good starting point, more systems dynamics than complexity. Nothing there about loose or tight coupling, exaptation, constraints, boundary conditions, fitness landscapes and that is for starters. It gives the highly misleading impression that it is just about feedback so its also wrong. It is very questionable whether any attempt to diagram complexity could be successful given the diversity of the field. At a very basic level the diagram does not reflect the references (see my comment above on A&C and Cilliers). If we need a picture, then I suggest something that is a picture of a CAS in nature, or maybe swarming behaviour by way of illustration. Ironically complexity is all about non-reductive systems and the diagram is reductionist. ----Snowded TALK 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitions - section[edit]

Eight years ago in 2005 (see here) this article offered a set of three definitions:

A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focus on complex, emergent and macroscopic properties of the system. Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
  • John H. Holland

A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a dynamic network of many agents (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a CAS tends to be highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of decisions made every moment by many individual agents. (source: Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos by Michael Waldrop)

  • Kevin Dooley

A CAS behaves/evolves according to three key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined (c.f. Neural Networks), the system's history is irreversible, and the system's future is often unpredictable. The basic building blocks of the CAS are agents. Agents scan their environment and develop schema representing interpretive and action rules. These schema are subject to change and evolution. (source: K. Dooley, AZ State University)

  • Other definitions

Macroscopic collections of simple (and typically nonlinearly) interacting units that are endowed with the ability to evolve and adapt to a changing environment. (source: Complexity in Social Science glossary a research training project of the European Commission)

Now in 2013 only the following fraction is left, see (here):

A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focuses on complex, emergent and macroscopic[1][2][3] properties of the system. Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
  • John H. Holland "Cas [complex adaptive systems] are systems that have a large numbers of components, often called agents, that interact and adapt or learn."[4]

An other Wiki (see here (also created by User:JFromm)) even list five defintions by John H. Holland, Kevin Dooley, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephanie Forrest, and an rather unknown source.

Now it seems like a good idea to either integrated the section in the article, expand it, or create a Wikiquote article. Either way, the current quote must be checked and improved. -- Mdd (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We really need a third party source which reviews the various definitions an schools. For example the constraint based definition (Juarrero & others including my HBR article) is not there. The distinction between human and non-human complex systems and the disputes around that are not reflected. The field has matured, fragmented and developed. However as far as I know no one has yet summarised the field to the point where we could produce a reliable referenced summary here----Snowded TALK 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This very cautious approach requiring some external summary is not dictated by WP policy. In such a situation, primary sources can be cited to represent various views. There is no implied endorsement of any of these views, but only statements like " ‘So-and-so said such-and-such’, see [1]". The concern about such an approach based upon primary sources is that some of the views so-presented may be of minor importance. The justification of their inclusion, lacking a secondary source, is that these views are published in reputable sources, and that publication implies some vetting by either peer review, or by the referees selected by the publisher. It seems to me that WP is better served by mentioning such reliable sources than by sitting on its duff waiting for years for some outside encyclopedia to get current or to become more inclusive. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You argued something similar on a policy board and it was rejected. In fact you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for wikipedia not editors stringing together quotations from primary sources they think are appropriate. ----Snowded TALK 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe this subject did come up, but your summary of the discussion is baloney. Brews ohare (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats what you think of anyone who disagrees with you Brews. An Arbcom subject matter ban, multiple failed RfCs and more recently multiple failed attempts to change policy have not convinced you otherwise. I've run our of patience for dealing with your obduracy ----Snowded TALK 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The following may help to raise this exchange from the abysmal level where you place it: the discussion you mention is found here as a proposal to amplify the policy regarding primary sources. In contrast to your summary that "you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for Wikipedia", the conclusion was that WP:Primary already clearly supported the the proposal, and that changes in policy were not necessary. Masem's position was "If it's not broke, don't fix it", and he required that diffs be presented to show that problems with applying WP:Primary were sufficiently serious that a modification was needed. As that burden of proof seemed to me to be an invitation to prolonged and fruitless debate, I did not pursue making WP:Primary more emphatic on this point, where numerous parties felt the existing policy was already clear enough. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
And a simple reading of that exchange shows you trying to use policy to win a content argument (again). Sorry Brews but you have had so many 'prolonged and fruitless' debates with so many different editors (the latest on Dilemma of Determinism) that the pattern of disruptive (albeit probably well intentioned) behaviour is all too clear. If you can point to a single diff where other editors have supported one of your positions in any dispute I'd be interested to see it ----Snowded TALK 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
AGF hard at work, eh Snowded? Keep trying to make WP a cesspool. Brews ohare (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Facts hurt Brews, if you can answer my question I'll consider withdrawal. AGF is not required in the face of continued un-rectified intransigence, its something you need to earn ----Snowded TALK 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of criticism?[edit]

Imma doubting. I mean, you could say a social network is a "complex adaptive system", or you could say that the guy that said that should get his head out of his/her ass, and some people participating in the social network actually did some thinking. (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Holland, John H.; (2006). "Studying Complex Adaptive Systems." Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 19 (1): 1-8.