|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Memetics article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
Has anyone heard of 'particle memetics'? Eschewing the gene analogy this theory takes an approach based on particle physics. It's an interesting idea which also pulls in ideas from other areas of physics such as quantum theory. Only I've not found much information on the web about it.
Is an intelligent blog discussion an encyclopedic source?
Self-published sources authored by experts may be used as sources in WP but how about a series of comments on a blog page by knowledgeable participants? I am referring to a discussion between Jeremy Burman and Tim Tyler, Was there a misunderstanding of memes? , in which they discuss Burman's recent paper, "The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an unscientific object, 1976–1999". I suspect this source has been added (by JTBurman) to clarify points and address issues that are not addressed in the paper. The discussion is on topic and informative but it's informal and certainly not peer reviewed. Comments? Jojalozzo 03:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're right: I added it because it clarified something that seemed not to have been adequately expressed in the article. Yet the article itself, I should mention, was not self-published. It was peer-reviewed and published in Perspectives on Science by MIT Press. Because the discussion at Tyler's blog was directly about that piece, and because I have not yet written a follow-up article, I felt that its inclusion here would not be misleading. JTBurman (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The article says: 'Memetics is also notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in their success.'
Amongst many issues, NPOV and OR
Article abounds with NPOV and OR issues. Poorly sourced. There appear to be plenty of sources out there on the subject, so this page could be much more encyclopedic with a little careful attention. νημινυλι (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Criticism and Previous Developments
I recall, distinctly, running across a book in the UW Milwaukee library called Memiosis, which was a French, perhaps continental philosophical, discussion on the transformations of meaning between literature and reality, or some such topic bordering on the topic of semiotics. I'm having a hard time finding a reference to the book online at the moment, since the Net is littered with meme dominated results. But, here's my point: there was, apparently, an area of literary studies or philosophy previously labeled with this root word, PRIOR to Dawkin's meme-virus.
I would also expect this Wikipedia article addressing Dawkin's use of meme to also include some talk or reference to the area of criticism between semiotics and memetics, such as one might find in the following article:
Thanks for looking into these two points. I don't have the time to be an encyclopedist at this moment, but felt it important to tag the article for others who may be concerned with accuracy! Enshook (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)