User talk:Khascall/sandbox/Communication theory

Create talk page! Gah4 (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

edit
I presume we we are supposed to edit it. Mostly it looks fine, though I didn't read it in the finest details, and didn't try to make a direct comparison. Gah4 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

information theory aside
as a reply to your request on my talk page:

yeah, this definitely looks good for all things "not shannon". but now the original article communication theory has evolved to concentrate on information theory. so either you have to rename this latter one or your article. i would propose adding qualifiers like communication theory (information theory), which of course is bad, all the more so since most people would expect an immediate redirect to information theory anyway OR communication theory (sociology), which again is only half satisfactory. given that the encyclopedia by littlejohn et al roughly speaking subsumes inf.theory just as you do under the wider heading of communication, i would probably do neither of the two and take care that the existing contents are cautiously migrated to a 'communication' paragraph in inf.theory and then copy over your contribution instead. but this is just an idea. -- Kku (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback request
You posted on my Talk Page asking for feebback. I replied there - then thought you might not see it! So, this is what I have written there:


 * Congratulations on an impressive draft article ! I would suggest biosemiotic theory is key to it though. Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote: "life and semiosis are coextensive" - a tautological reality others seemed to have overlooked - and this relationship, from the Hadean world, immediately and unavoidably led to "communication" - with society and language hot on its heels.  Anyway, hope that's of use. All the best with it.

After all this time I still struggle with fluency on wikipedia. Did my reply ping you successfully, making this post redundant?

LookingGlass (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping User:LookingGlass, I got this one for sure....and I'm much less expert than you. I think the biological perspective -- and the medical perspective, e.g. speech pathology -- are definitely missing. Sadly I'm not the right person to resolve this I'm afraid as it's outside my expertise. I'll drop a ping in a few relevant talk pages to see if I can entice anyone to add a bit (or maybe you'd like to?? :) :) :) Kaylea Champion (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation! When I revisited your draft however, I found I wanted to rewrite its opening!  I hope you'll forgive my frankness, but it seems to me you are approaching this in too theoretical a manner.  I find the problem evident frm the article's opening words: A communication theory is a proposed description of communication phenomena, the relationships among them, a storyline describing these relationships, and an argument for these three elements.  What are these "communication phenomena"; what is "communication".  Without answers that unify it, the article becomes a disambiguation page or a piece of original research.  FWIW, from my perspective, communication is simply a natural process - the daughter of semiosis - and artificial communication between non-sentient machines is either a subset of this or mimics it in some manner (until,in the full sense of this word, those machines are self-directed. At which point "life finds a way"). LookingGlass (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts User:LookingGlass -- I am definitely willing to confess that my work on the page is informed by an academic perspective, but to me that seems consistent with the wiki approach to other pages oriented to theory -- I'm particularly thinking of sociological theory although game theory also seems to follow a similar logic and perhaps other pages do as well. I think you'd find that what's here is not original research but generally consistent with the way communication theory is discussed and described in various other places (e.g. books) that say they're about communication theory. I guess the wikilink to communication belongs one line earlier, in the first mention; if someone wants to dig into what communication means or what phenomena are considered part of communication, my thought would be not to repeat what's elsewhere. But, I definitely understand where you're coming from....communication is a complex topic with many points of view. And, as the entry for communication says: "John Peters argues the difficulty of defining communication emerges from the fact that communication is both a universal phenomena (because everyone communicates), and a specific discipline of institutional academic study." My sense is that if there's anywhere that the 'institutional academic study-flavored' take is warranted, it's the article about communication theory :) :) :).  Kaylea Champion (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. Re-reading what I wrote in haste, I want to rewrite it!  That quote of yours I cited makes sense: "A communication theory is (comprised of) a proposed description of communication phenomena, the relationships among them, a storyline describing these relationships, and an argument for these three elements" except perhaps for the bit in bold, and I have added some words of "clarification'.  If those are appropriate then surely it is 'you' - rather than the originator of the theory - who is saying these three elements are what a communication theory is comprised of ? LookingGlass (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)