User talk:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria is broadly described at Talk:2020 in science#Inclusion criteria and routine addition of entries (e.g. of weekly science reviews).

Exclusion criteria will be developed over time and info may then get added to the lead. So far these could/may include roughly the following or similar criteria:

• no calls for policies as minor elements or only element of the publication
• no studies only informing policies
• no studies about policies of only one or few countries
• this article is about policy studies (and related fields), not studies that only mention policies with those not being a core subject of the respective study
• no projections based on policies without any further output such as detailed action suggestions
• no studies showing only plain impact of policy X (e.g. how meat production reduction would impact agricultural land)
• no policy decisions (but only studies on them or on the decision-making etc)
• no plain pointing out of needs for policy or plain mentions/listing of possible policy actions
• no independent analyses by groups like Climate Action Tracker if it's not a peer-reviewed detailed study
• no reports by think tanks etc but only significant notable peer-reviewed studies and other events within policy studies etc
• no open letters calling for things without detailed investigations or elaborated proposals
• no plain criticism of policies or lack of policies with no or only semi-detailed proposals

---

• a WP:RS in addition to the study itself is required
  • At the AfD there is a misconception that there would be many studies that fit these criteria and "received mainstream media coverage" (this is false!) making the "list [...] balloon" and that the latter would not be preventable even if that was the case, including via the use of this talk page and like it happens for many other timeline articles whose topics are often far broader, but become "entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is".

--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Item about Twitter platform governance & Twitter as 'town square' of democracy adequate for inclusion?

Is this item sufficient for inclusion?:

• June – A professor for digital media technology clarifies that, concerning platform governance and democratic deliberation, "Twitter was not designed or intended to be a digital town square" as part of a "functioning democracy", which she suggests is a misconception. Instead, she suggests it to be a "space for millions of town criers, but not a town square for people to come together and debate".

The report was reprinted on various news-sites. The item was included in section "Research and development, organization and coordination". A user at the deletion discussion criticized the inclusion of this item so I moved it here. It's a good point as that item does not have good WP:RS, but maybe it could get added in brief form to a broader item, for example using (which also cites that researcher) etc. A problem there is that the researcher and academics in question aren't necessarily scholars of policy studies or governance studies and that this is not a study. And/or it's not clear that this aspect of this very notable event and development is significant as well. Maybe it would indeed be better to wait.

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)