Draft talk:General Collective Intelligence

Ref problems
The third ref is just an announcement of a talk, doesn't support the claim that the term originated with Castner. The first and second refs don't even mention "general collective intelligence". Schazjmd  (talk)  17:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The third reference was cited as supporting the claim that that it made the distinction between strong collective intelligence (another definition of the equivalent terms "collective general intelligence" or "general collective intelligence"). It was not cited as supporting the claim that it used either the term "collective general intelligence" or "general collective intelligence". The first reference is to a talk that explicitly mentions a "collective general intelligence" platform in the title. A Google search for "collective general intelligence" and Castner will show that he is the first user of the term. The Wikipedia article draws an equivalence between a platform that accomplishes "general collective intelligence" as defined by Woolley et al. [1], and a technology enabled "collective general intelligence" platform as defined by Castner. Similarly, the second reference was cited as supporting the claim that it outlined the term strong collective intelligence. Again, it was not cited as supporting the claim that it used either the term "collective general intelligence" or "general collective intelligence". Accordingly, I am removing your comments. I would deeply appreciate if you could discuss your changes first before making them if you aren't sure of your arguments.
 * [1] Woolley, Anita Williams, et al. "Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups." science 330.6004 (2010): 686-688. CognitiveMMA (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleting comments, maintenance templates and notices of previous AFC declines is not done here. You've got to stop doing that. They'll go away if the draft gets approved. MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed your comments after addressing them. As indicated in the comments on the article itself, please provide justification for reinserting your comments again if you decide to do so. You or others potentially working with you have reinstated your comments multiple times without providing justification though I have requested that you do so multiple times. This is a completely different article with zero content reused. The comment is simply false. It doesn't make any logical sense to apply the exact same comment with no justification for doing so to an entirely new article. I would kindly appreciate if you could please remove this comment or justify your reasons for reinstating it on this entirely new article so that I might address any issues you raise. The former article that this comment and that the previously inserted maintenance template applies to has been deleted and completely rewritten. The current article does not read like an essay and does not contains any external links in the body of the article. For that reason I've removed the maintenance template. I have also removed the "Conflict of Interest" flag as the article does not mention myself, my work, or any organization I have ever been affiliated with. I have also removed the flag that this article duplicates content from the collective intelligence article on Wikipedia since I have made it clear how the concepts differ. Before adding these comments again I humbly request that you please identify the conflict of interest, please identify where the article "reads like an essay", and please identify where this article duplicates existing content, as this is a completely different article with no content reused from the previous version that these comments were levied at. CognitiveMMA (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We get it, you disagree. But that does not mean you can simply delete other people's comments. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree or disagree. I'm saying that the comments simply don't apply because they were made in response to a different article. Is it Wikipedia policy that editors can apply the same comments to entirely different articles where those comments don't apply? CognitiveMMA (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Other editors are still allowed to comment, even if you think those comments do not apply. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you are allowed to comment. But don't you have an obligation to ensure that your comments are applicable? Isn't repeating comments from an entirely different article a form of spamming? CognitiveMMA (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And why have you not simply responded to my requests for clarification to address whatever issues you might have instead of reinserting the same comments that clearly don't apply to this completely rewritten article? CognitiveMMA (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is obliged to respond on your timetable. Slow down, allow others to work in their own time, and most importantly, stop deleting stuff. You're not going to get much discussion while you continue to blank other people's comments, since that disruption has to be handled first. MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking anyone to work on my timeline. I'm politely asking editors to provide justification for repeatedly spamming an article with comments that belong to a completely different article. I've provided justification for having deleted these comments because they clearly belong to an old article that I also deleted. What is your justification for this continued edit warring? I'm just trying to spread knowledge. You've invested so much effort in vandalizing this article since 2021. To what end? CognitiveMMA (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, since the personal attacks are starting up, I'm done here. But I'll reiterate one last time - comments on AFC drafts and/or decline messages are not to be deleted while the article remains in draft status. I won't comment here further, I'll refer the matter to an admin if disruption continues. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since you've refused to reply to my requests for information and at the same time have continued to vandalize the article, I've referred the issues to administrators. If you decide to discuss the issue in a more collaborative manner it would be my pleasure to do so. CognitiveMMA (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:CognitiveMMA - AFC comments on drafts are a history of reviews, and should not be removed until the draft is accepted. Did you notice the notation that says Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.?
 * User:CognitiveMMA - Do not yell Vandalism when there no vandalism. If you really think that User:MrOllie has engaged in vandalism, you should report them at the vandalism noticeboard or WP:ANI.  If you are only yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute, remember that the false allegation of vandalism is a personal attack.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed the comment. But I deleted the entire article. So for confirmation, does the comment from the deleted article still apply? This is the question that I've been trying to get an answer to. MrOllie stated that I had removed the comments because I didn't agree with them, however I clearly stated that agreeing or disagreeing had nothing to do with it as those comments belonged to a different article. How is it not vandalism if this editor repeatedly reinserted the same comments to an entirely different article without justification despite being requested multiple times to provide such justification and refusing to cooperate in doing so? The only reason I didn't report the editor for vandalism is because I was unaware of the reporting process and because my search for the appropriate reporting process suggested that I post the issue on the Administrator notice board. CognitiveMMA (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction. After more research I discovered that the issue of an editor preventing an article from being published for years wouldn't typically be classified as "vandalism" per se. Instead, if an editor consistently and unjustifiably prevents an article from being published or continually removes content without a valid reason, my research suggests that it may be considered disruptive editing or a violation of the consensus-building process. CognitiveMMA (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)