Talk:Creativity/Archive 2

Hamid Rajaei
I'm setting this section up so that the editor who keeps adding material by this author everywhere can come and talk about why they think it should go in the article. This: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Hamid_Rajaei_(2nd_nomination) might help the editor understand what the problem is. OsFish (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No photos in this article is ridiculous
Are there any reason to delete all the nice photos that once was in this post? If there is any I will get them back. Is ridiculous a article about creativity with any pictures. Alex Rio Brazil (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0149206314527128. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae 🎄 22:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Malevolent Creativity Documentation
There are a few good sources of information and research on Malevolent Creativity. I suggest one source: "A New Tool to Measure Malevolent Creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale" by Hao, Tang, Yang, Wang, & Runco (2016) in Frontiers in Psychology. Psychologist are developing ways to measure it as well as this source provides definitions and references about prior research on the topic.Klmay1029 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klmay1029 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The seminal work would Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. I'll have a look at it when I have time to see what can be added. OsFish (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Creativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/641OBVx0d?url=http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf to http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016051449/http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf to http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319130652/http://neurology.med.ohio-state.edu/cognitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf to http://neurology.med.ohio-state.edu/cognitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710161255/http://www.e-metrixx.com/creativity-profit/me2-spec/ to http://www.e-metrixx.com/creativity-profit/me2-spec/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia's article on creativity, I noticed that the very basic mechanics of creativity aren't mentioned or at least, aren't underlined as much as they sould, COMPARING, COMBINING, ASSEMBLING. Everything else then in the article will complement the basic definition to give it the necessary depth, like who possess it and how, is it nature or nurture, the driving forces etc.

What in my opinion distinguishes creative thought, and defines it uniquely, is the manipulation of elemental units of information with comparisons and the subsequent combination of these for the assemblage of an entity that didn't exist before. Can one find such mental process that must not be labeled creative.Fay&#39;s unkle (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is value mentioned in the definition of creativity?
Why must something need to have value to be created? Value is highly subjective and you are essentially saying that some of the best artists technically were not creative, since their art was not appreciated or "valued" at its time of creation. Much better to say "something which can be perceived to have meaning" rather than treating art like a product in a supermarket. (regarding the 1st sentence of the article) J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is from the creativity research literature, and it's there for a reason (and so absolutely should be in the article). The definition needs to cover creativity across all domains, not just art - science, mathematics, architecture, history etc. "Value" is one word used to describe the concept. Also "appropriacy", or "usefulness" and various other words are found in the literature to try and capture this idea. Basically, along with being "new" or "original" or "innovative", something is seen as being more creative the more "value" it has. If it's a work of art, it's how "good" the work is.
 * You're absolutely right that this can be a very subjective determination, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of the definition. It clearly is part of how we ascribe creativity to a person or a creative work. It just means that we don't always agree on what is or isn't (more or less) creative. As it happens, inter-rater reliability in judging how good artistic works are tends to be quite high - we tend to agree - so it's not all that crazy. It's also true that what we see as "good" can vary over time. Csikszentmihalyi writes about this in his book on the subject. It might sound odd that the creativity of a work of art can vary over time, but that's only weird if you think of creativity as something inherent and decontextualised.
 * As an example of how including value as well as novelty matters: It helps us to understand differences in understanding of creativity in western and far eastern cultures. Western (particularly American) culture has tended in the past century to emphasise newness and originality, whereas East Asian cultures have tended to emphasise value (particularly social value) more. As a result, tests of creative ability focussed on divergent thinking have suggested that westerners are more creative than those raised in East Asian countries. This is straightforwardy a cultural bias in the test, as there is little evidence of a comparative lack of creativity in these cultures when it comes to science and the arts. (This hasn't stopped writers - including some East Asian ones - claiming that confucian cultures suppress creativity.)
 * Does this help? OsFish (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition too wide
The definition, as it stands, a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed, also really includes natural processes. Is nature creative, when oil is formed? Is an oyster creative when a pearl is formed? Is the sun creative, since it shines?

It seemed to me that the most simple solution was to add the qualifier: "through human activity". This was protested against, on the grounds that computers might be creative. I would object myself, since I believe in a creative God. So the question is: Who's got a better solution? St.nerol (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was me that suggested that “through human activity” was inappropriate. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that creativity is a human activity, but in the lede, we have to stick to what the literature says is the central definition, and it’s very clearly the twofold definition that is standard. (There are variations in the words used (new/original and valuable/useful/appropriate, but these are recognisably trying to get at the same ideas.) There are writers who want to extend the definition to include intentionality, or that creativity is also non-algorithmic, to capture what St.nerol is getting at. However, the question of whether AI could be creative is genuinely a live question. I think it is better that disputes within the literature about extensions to the definition or alternative perspectives should go into the definition section, rather than the lede.OsFish (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718204043/http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-creativity.pdf to http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-creativity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Creativity taught in schools
It was mentioned on the Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday 15 October that creativity should be taught in schools. If any one can find a reliable source for this, it could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news site, I don't see how this is notable.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Creativity is taught/encouraged in school systems around the world in various ways, and is an increasing priority in education policies. We have a section on it: Creativity. However, that section really does need some serious work. Btw, who was speaking on R4? OsFish (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Literary Works as creative product
Hello ! The unkown IP might be right. If one considers the book, it will be tangible. This is true. But the book is only the medium for the literary work. The literary work itself is not tangible as it emerges in the readers head during reading (or watching if it is played as a drama). Maybe "literary work" is misleading her. How about "...a musical composition, the plot of a literary work, or a joke"?--MorlocksAndEloi (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * After having a dig around some sources, it looks like literary works occupy an ambiguous position regarding tangible and intangible status, but not because they are an idea, or in someone's head (the tasting and enjoyment food is "in" the consumer), but because they can be in digital form. So I've been bold and inserted the word "printed" before "literary work" to avoid any confusion. Hope this clears matters up for all concerned.OsFish (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sociology of creativity
Two different (?) new users one after the other have tried to insert substantial material from a very new article on the sociology of creativity. While I agree with initial reversions of this material, in my opinion there should be a section on the sociology of creativity. As a direct focus for sociologists, it is a recent development, but review articles in a variety of publications identify this recent development as a thing. I therefore effectively replaced what was yet another attempt to promote this new article with a more thoroughly sourced couple of paragraphs on the currently developing subdiscipline of the sociology of creativity. That got reverted by the same editor who had been reverting the earlier attempts to promote the same very new article. I think that was a mistake given that the material I added was strikingly different. I reverted back to my additions and have invited that editor to talk about it here. OsFish (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
This is a really well documented article. However, the Lead could be a bit more explanatory in what sections were coming up. What is the best way to do this?KMakely1 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Powey 11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Business
Why is creative thinking important for a business — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.230.178 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music 209
— Assignment last updated by Anyla2004 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon supported by Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Open-endedness of Creativity
I find it important to mention that actions of creativity do not need to be deemed, "valuable" in order to be considered creative. What of an unrevealed art piece hated by the artist? No one in the moment of it's creation values it, therefore its title of creative is ripped away? I believe almost all things created in creativity are valued by someone, but to make value and new-ness creativity's unflinching requirements does not seem to be an absolute in my mind. Cablamalam (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The short answer is: the definition of creativity as the production of new, useful/valuable/appropriate (etc) products is the stable one found in the research literature on creativity, so of course it should stay as it is in the article (that being how Wikipedia works: it summarises reliable sources). The longer answer is that the question you raise is one discussed in the literature. How is value determined? The artist may say "this is not creative, it's boring, it's unoriginal, I hate it", but of course, other people may disagree and say it is a good, original painting, so it is creative. More often than that, someone believes they are a great artist/writer/musician but the rest of the world disagrees and thinks they're derivative or talentless and so not particularly creative. What immediately comes to mind is Csikszentmihalyi's discussion of this in Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1996) where, if I recall correctly, he argues that creativity is entirely dependent upon assessment in its field (the people who take part in that area of creativity - readers, listeners, art appreciators etc) and dependent over time. Thus a work can become more or less creative as public opinion changes. That sounds odd, but in practice, it's how it works. Every period in history thinks itself right.OsFish (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Honing Theory
There appears to be only one source cited with Liane Gabora's honing theory from the "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society". There are extensive claims made about the subject in this section that comprise three paragraphs. I feel that it would be important to add further sources related to the description of this theory.Pioneer25 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023
— Assignment last updated by Pioneer25 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023
— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)