Talk:Knowledge space (philosophy)

Discussion
As per our discussion on both Knowledge space and Pierre Lévy (philosopher) I have created this new page and done my best to write up what I have time to do right now for the article. I have only done this a few times but as someone who has done some work with Levy, I felt like I should contribute. None of it is original research but some parts might need to be tweaked to make them sound more objective. I'm less educated on the article writing guidelines (they are quite extensive!) and do not have time to go through them all right now. If there are major issues, let me know or feel free to tweak it yourself.

In particular, I did the sources rather quickly. Since my reference was the actual book I didn't bother to keep putting in the same citation but rather just put the page number in the appropriate place. --Etherfire (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the article, You say you have only referenced Lévy's book, have you copied sections from it and put them into the article? If so that wouldn't normally be allowed, for information on Wikipedia’s policy’s on copyright please see: WP:C & WP:CFAQ. also it is much better to use multiple third party sources like newspaper articles and book about the subject written by other academics. See WP:S PS & WP:RS.-- wintonian   talk   edits  06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, these comments are fair enough and I figured this would be the case. The article does rely heavily on the primary source but does not copy significant portions. It is easy enough to see what is taken because I made sure to put them in quotes and I think the two main quotes (describing the anthorpological space) are necessary so that the reader is able to get Levy's description first-hand. I think this does fit under Wikipedia's guidelines for copyrighted material since I did take the time to write the entirety of the article myself beyond those quotes. (If this is the case, should we remove the copyright notice?) Makes sense that we'll need secondary sources to strengthen the article however I have not read enough of the literature surrounding the book itself to do so. I do plan to read some in the near future and will update as I do (of course if others who come across this article have read some other sources, please add them). That being, said, I think Wikipedia would rather have the base of an article written by someone having read the primary source over second-hand readings (which all other references to Levy's conception of knowledge spaces were). Hopefully with time we'll get this cleaned up and up to Wikipedia's standards. --Etherfire (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused by the "Self-published" tag. What about the article is based on self-published material? Levy's book is published through a legitimate press as far as I understand. If there were parts of the article that were too severely inflected with my interpretation, this is understandable but also easily fixed (although probably not by me since I'm less apt to notice them). --Etherfire (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is all the copyrighted material then it shouldn't be a problem, but it needs to be laid out and cited properly as per the manual of style. You can find out more about the use of quotations and how to use then here WP:QUOTE, Self-published sources i.e. Levy came up with the theory and you are using his book as a (only) source, such sources are not usually considered reliable per: WP:SELFPUBLISH, this essay should help you understand Wikipedia’s guidelines on third party sources; WP:INDEPENDENT. -- wintonian  talk  04:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)