Talk:Social informatics

Untitled

Not sure how this page got redirected recently to community informatics, but they are two different endeavors, so I reverted that redirection. First 13 lines of this article [1] offer one take on the relationship between the two.Katewill (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly the problem that the article was based on highly selective sources and read like an essay. It's not apparent what is notable about this topic. Also it looks like that some wikipedia editors have a vested interest in the topic. I suggest to make the existing article on community informatics broad enough to incorporate content. Mootros (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article was based on highly selective sources, SI or CI? Would it have been better if I had not provided a citation to the relationship between the two? I thought citations were desirable. ... This is my first go on either page, I work in and teach CI and to a lesser extent SI, just now trying to understand how this article redirect/deletion happens in wikipedia ... How can we improve social informatics article if it is deleted/redirected? This is a project for my students, but I need some clarity to take it forward. Thanks.Katewill (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Katewill, thanks for making contact and sorry about the confusion this redirect has caused. To clarify the SI article had multiple problems: It primarily was i) based on one view that is of Dr. Rob Kling and colleagues, ii) read like an essay, with large parts focusing on research methodology that was very generic and would be applicable to almost all fields of informatics. I reduced the content and merged the relevant parts into CI. Although I am aware there are differences, I felt the topic was broad enough to be included in one article that would sufficiently deal with both aspects. However, I think the newly merged article should be drastically reworked. I would be delighted if you could work on this.

Yet, if you feel that the topic of SI is substantially different i.e it does not fit into one and the same article with CI, than you may remove the redirect and rework the old SI article. Before you would do this, please be very clear that such an article cannot be solely based on Kling et al, plus some generic research methodology. There should be an existing community of researchers that is notably different from others (i.e. CI, possibly with different methodologies and underlying beliefs). It is important to remember Wikipedia does not promote individual scholarships or research. Nor is it tended to be used for original research or theory testing. You also mentioned a student project: while I am sure that some elements of this could filter into the writing and editing of a wikipedia article, you may also consider wikiversity as a possible platform for such a project.

Either way --whatever you will decided-- whether you would contribute by improving to the one article (CI+SI which could possibly be renamed) or by having two separate article, I would be happy to collaborate with you and give guidance where possible. I look forward to hearing from you about your decision. Again, many thanks. Yours, Mootros (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mootros, let's keep them separate and I promise to work on both. Kling was the founder of SI (he named it and built it up) but it will help to mention others. And about the students, they are library students and as major future users and teachers of wikipedia they need practice contributing to it, is my thinking. And since I am teaching them CI and SI too! I'd like to tackle this over an extended period, and collaborating sounds great. A minibarnstar to you for your friendly offer. Katewill (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there is substantial debate over merging this article with the Community Informatics article. I find it inappropriate to push a merger together without first actually discussing it. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that keeping them separate is more favorable. There are strong arguments in favor of keeping this as a separate article, yet none of them have been addressed. Could we please have this conversation before an executive decision is made? Thanks. X-Kal (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)