Talk:Social simulation

Linkfarm
Most of the external links in this article should be removed per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT --Ronz 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links on this page point at minor software tools. They were produced by many different groups. I don't really think anyone is making money on these. On the other hand, I don't see it necessary to have all of them there. I mainly us more general tools like Matlab, but I know that some researchers use these special packages. --Htw3 03:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The tools seem to be gone now but I would want them back. In fact one of the key points in SS is having tools usable by anyone interested. I don't see why someone should "be making money" on them (all the ones used in the community are open source stuff) MarioPaolucci (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

History seems pretty limited
I wonder about some second opinions on the history section. Social simulation, in the sense of using equations to represent aspects of a social system has been used extensively in economics and related research areas. And it should probably include a brief statement that ties into 4 types mentioned later, as well as point to the current research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htw3 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 October 2007

The current research is lacking
Current research should display a variety of recent and important projects. Macy's review gives a good range of work in agent based modeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htw3 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 October 2007
 * I would start by focusing on that. --132.235.210.196 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This section needs independent sources or risk being removed. It's becoming a section used to promote non-notable research and research centers. --Ronz 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of social simulation
Need section on this, will want to include how best simulation research can mitigate these shortcomings/criticisms. --132.235.210.196 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Links current, relevant?
Will want to check the links to make sure they are current are valuable. --132.235.210.196 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How Societies Remember
This book link has been spammed here. While the link itself fails WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT, is the book useful as a reference maybe? --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How Societies Remember by Paul Connerton, Cambridge University Press, 1989

Social Simulation: Another Meaning
This article is about "computer simulations of a society."

I just thought I should mention that there is another sense of "social simulation," used in the social sciences, to refer to: lots of people who think that the world works a certain way, and then make that way of thinking about the world real, by (unconsciously) enacting it into reality.

"Baseball" is a soft example, deeper examples include whatever "reality" indigenous cultures, or even fans of a particular genre of psychology, find themselves to "be in," and slot reality into.

See also:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality
 * http://www.transparencynow.com/overview/confuse.htm
 * http://www.transparencynow.com/decon.htm

LionKimbro (talk)


 * The term is widely used in a specific scientific fields (see introduction). Overloading it seems counterproductive to me. But if you want to do so, why not opening another page and disambiguate? MarioPaolucci (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"conse"?
Third paragraph:'' The conse which in the interesting cases interact to form a complex system, with scale and speed inaccessible to humans. ''"conse"? What's that? Also, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. – Sasoriza (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ABSS vs ABM
what the heck is the difference between agent-based simulation and agent-based modeling??? I read the descriptions several times over, and both seem to say the same thing. I even clicked on the wiki links under those concepts, and again, it didn't seem to clarify the difference. If no better explanation is given, perhaps it shouldn't be split into two categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.207.36 (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, I read those several times too and can't tell what the difference is exactly. I'm considering removing that section, if the content can be fit in a less awkward way. flammif e rtalk 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, i will put a merge message. Fitmoos (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Artificial society be merged into Social simulation. I think that the content in the Artificial society article can easily be explained in the context of Social simulation, and most of the content of Artificial society is already contained in the Social simulation article so the merging of Artificial society will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 131.211.228.179 (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, why not, it's not clear that having two articles instead of one helps much flammif e rtalk 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to a merger either, though I doubt if I could help much. -- KenBailey (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)