User talk:Biogeographist

This user might or might not have an academic degree, and considers the distinction irrelevant on Wikipedia.

"Wikipedia may be the largest collaborative initiative in history and influences what people the world over know or think they know. Its distinctive feature is the nonexpert, nonprofessional, noncertified, nonformal production of knowledge with credible content. Academics like to sneer at those characteristics, even as more and more of us acknowledge Wikipedia, support it, and use it in teaching. And why should we not warm to it? The rules of Wikipedia discourse are modeled after an ideal academy's. Arguments, not personal attacks or status, carry the day. ... Why, then, does Wikipedia work? In theory, it should not. In practice, it seems to be a new paradigm of organization, whose breezy anticredentialism tosses traditional hierarchies of knowledge production to the wind."

Allen, Barry (January 2017). "Review of Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia by Dariusz Jemielniak". Common Knowledge. 23 (1): 104. doi:10.1215/0961754X-3692492.

"Thanks to a vibrant community united by a few core principles, plus detailed policies and safeguards against trolls and vandalism, Wikipedia has already become a piece of the knowledge ecosystem. Like science, its aim is to propose a synthesis of existing knowledge and conflicting interpretations of reality. ... The main criticism against Wikipedia is that it is a free-for-all domain without any professional standards. Yet even if Wikipedia has to be used with caution, it is not a free-for-all. On the contrary, the Wikipedia community has developed a consistent set of principles, rules, policies, and guidelines that have helped build consensus among a community of thousands of contributors (Jemielniak, 2014). ... Wikipedia encourages contributors to edit articles, and to reach consensus by engaging in discussion on the "talk page" in case of a disagreement. The process is typically Hegelian in nature: make an edit, then wait for the next change, and if there is opposition, seek a compromise. A variant of this policy is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: bold editing is openly encouraged in the policies, as it leads to discussion, which helps make articles better. This collaborative culture, which is unique to Wikipedia, makes the community a living organism, growing continuously, adapting to its environment and answering its critics."

Vandendorpe, Christian (October 2015). "Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge". Scholarly and Research Communication. 6 (3): 1–10. doi:10.22230/src.2015v6n3a201.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

unity of science (complex systems)

Hi, i saw you modified my recent edits on article (Unity of science), I'm not a native speaker but i want to refer you to my another minor edit (just added see also and linked it to theory of everything) in article theory of everything (section: Definition of fundamental laws). both in unity of science or theory of everything due to phenomenon emergence we can't only from buttom-up direction underestand everything, because in system science there are non-linear systems and one type of them is complex system, and emergence. please modify that part of article in theory of everything too. your english is better than me, and you write science better than me too. thanks for your precis edits. 2.184.179.27 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also please from article theory of everything # Definition of fundamental laws, add more descriptive defination to article unity of science of importance of complex non-linear systems too. 2.184.179.27 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]