Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems/Archive 9

Wikiproject Foresight proposed
Dear WikiProject Systems members, User:John_b_cassel and myself have started a proposal for a WikiProject on Foresight and Futures! Please come and take a look on the WikiProject Council proposals page if this sounds interesting to you! We appreciate any tips and help! Zhanli2012 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

merge help requested
A need comment on a merge from knowledgable people at Talk:Quality of modeling languages D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Talk:Quality of modelling languages? Zfeinst (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, please comment D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems Article statistics kept up to date
I noticed today that the WikiProject Systems Article statistics are still kept up to date. I tagged some articles this week (Talk:Dragon1, Talk:Karl Deutsch, Talk:Morton Kaplan, Talk:Walter F. Buckley, Talk:Charles A. McClelland, Talk:James N. Rosenau).


 * For example: On the Talk:Morton Kaplan the article was assessed as stub-mid-Social systems theory. This categorizes the article in the Category:Stub-Class Systems articles, Category:Mid-importance Systems articles, and Category:Systems articles in Social systems theory. This tool gives an overview of all 214 stub-mid tagged articles in the WikiProject Systems.

I am not sure how it works, but it does. So it seems interesting to keep assessing systems related article. -- Mdd (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture framework
Yesterday, and anom (see here) claimed an unknown framework is one of the three popular frameworks. I have try to removed this, but this has been undone. Could anybody assist here? -- Mdd (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * After an article for creation about that framework has been declined, see here, the anon has put the text back here, see here. I think this is just unacceptable spam, which should be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Internal model
What's your opinion on moving "Internal model" to "Internal model (motor control)"? That way, the lemma would clearly reflect the scope of the article, and there could be a disambiguation page that also refers to mental model. 㓟 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, this seems like a good idea, and you have my support. However, please first propose this at the Talk:Internal model and wait a few days for people to respond. -- Mdd (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdd, please see Talk:Internal model. 㓟 (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Umple and Executable UML; request for further comment
Last month in the Executable UML article a link was added to Umple in the "See also" section (see here), which was undone (see here) and restored (see here), etc... And since then there is a dispute about this link, see Talk:Executable_UML. I hereby request for further comments on this matter on the Executable UML talk-page, thanks you -- Mdd (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg
Does anyone know of any reason other than its always been there to use the diagram that illustrates this project? The author says he produced the diagram after reading Roger Lewin (1992) Complexity: Life and the Edge of Chaos and Steven Johnson (2001) Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. I've read both and I wouldn't say it was an accurate representation of either. Its also only a partial view of the field at best, inaccurate at worst. Even then neither are mainstream to systems as a whole. Johnson's is one of the early books on CAS, Lewin's again is very early stage thinking on CAS. Given that systems includes Beer, Ackoff etc. etc. I would have thought we could have done a lot better - or maybe an abstract picture instead rather than something which attempts to define the field.Snowded  TALK 04:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Related discussion around this image are here and here. -- Mdd (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This image is choose 6.5 years ago as part of the current lay out of this WikiProject page, see here, because the image shows some on topic basic features, and has an appropriate visual expression both as diagram, and as smaller icon. -- Mdd (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't for the life of me understand why you are defending this diagram. The best that can be said is that it includes some words used in part of the field.   The author admits it is the result of being inspired by Lewin and Johnson's book and does not claim it represents them.  Anyone familiar with said books (and I am) would be hard pressed to see how the diagram relates to them.  Given that the giants if systems thinking include the likes of Beer and Ackoff, and in complexity you have Arthur, Stu Kauffman etc. etc we can do a lot better.  You are not connected with the author are you?  Snowded  TALK 09:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Apparently this diagram is supported by Mdd as useful if not perfect. Yourself, on the other hand prefer no figure at all until one is presented (by someone else's labor, of course) that you yourself think is adequate. I don't think this kind of armchair criticism of others' efforts that makes yourself the ultimate judge is what WP needs. Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I rolled up my sleeves and checked the sources Brews, in a field where I have referenced expertise. I've suggested we use a generic image or something from one of the main authorities in the field as a whole.  Unlike you I believe in consulting other editors before I start making edits where I know there will be disagreement.   Now to date Mdd has now answered ANY of the specific points on the picture and you are simply working out your multiple frustrations at being rejected on every policy forum and RfC where you have sought to gain support for your various attempts at OR and Synthesis.  Snowded  TALK 17:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the generally accepted standard to build on data from reliable sources, see WP:RELY, not to question, check and dismiss them. If you think there is a better alternative, please just make a proposal. -- Mdd (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is my point (i) the picture does not represent its sources it is simply "inspired by them" and secondly those sources do not represent the field. Two facts to which no one has replied.  My suggestion is for a generic public domain image.  If people are comfortable with that I'm happy to look for one.  Snowded  TALK 03:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Perhaps you are confused, or perhaps you haven't explained yourself carefully. A figure that is 'inspired' by whatever means, sources or inspiration, is OK as long as it properly represents what is said in the accompanying WP text it is supposed to illuminate. See WP:OI. This accompanying WP text, of course, is subject to comparison with sources and must avoid WP policy violations. Do you find some specific, articulable faults with the accompanying text that are in violation of WP policies, and if so exactly what wording in the text or exactly which sources are in need of attention? Brews ohare (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)As I have explained several times, in detail, the picture does not represent its sources and the sources are not used in the text. Further the picture completely ignores the major sources used in said text.  Try and keep up Brews Snowded  TALK 14:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Snowded. It seems we are (still) not on the same level here:
 * The image is published in the 2004 article "The Wiki and The Blog", which is cited in about 70 articles according to Google Scholar, and can be considered a reliable source.
 * Since it is the generally accepted standard to build on data from reliable sources, it is generally accepted to use this image here on Wikipedia
 * So this image should not be dismissed and/or removed, because it allegedly "does not represent its source" or whatever. According to Wikipedia image policy the image itself is not OR, it is no syntheses, it is simply an image from a reliable source.
 * Since this image is clearly a representation about Complex adaptive systems it can be added to the Complex adaptive system article with the appropriate subscript, and or other related articles. More specific: it can be added... it doesn't have to.
 * This doesn't have to stop us from looking for more images to illustrated the Wikipedia article on CAS in particular, and the articles in the field of systems sciences in general. All appropriate images are welcome.


 * As to the use of this image in this WikiProject, over the years this has become more or less the logo of this WikiProject. It is chosen, as said, because the image shows some on topic basic features, and has an appropriate visual expression both as diagram, and as smaller icon. Changing "the logo" of this WikiProject might even be a good idea, if for example we want to revive this WikiProject. This could be considered if other alternatives are available. -- Mdd (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article you reference seeks to explain a diagram it has found on a wikipedia article, it is not a source as such. Think self-referential.  You still haven't answered the specific questions Mdd about its relation to the text or about your relationship to the picture.  As you say, we are not on the same level here Snowded  TALK 14:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumption The article... is not a source as such? seems incorrect. The article is published in 2004, and the image is added here on Wikipedia in 2005:
 * D. Calvin Andrus stated "This paper was selected as a winner of the competition. The original was submitted 15 September 2004, and revised on 10 September 2005."
 * The image created by User:Acadac was moved from Wikipedia to Wikimedia on 29 May 2005 by Fenice
 * Do you have any hard evidence that the image is created for Wikipedia? Anyway the article definitely doesn't "seek to explain a diagram it has found on a wikipedia article" because User:Acadac identifies himself as D. Calvin Andrus. -- Mdd (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Snowded: Concerning "Try and keep up Brews". Snowded, your statement "the picture does not represent its sources and the sources are not used in the text appears to contradict the point here that there is no need for a WP picture to 'represent sources' whether or not they are in the WP text.
 * However, the pertinent point here is that this figure is not an accompanying figure, nor even a stand-alone figure. It has no intention of 'explaining' anything. Its presence here is simply in the role of a 'logo' for the project, and as such it could be an image of anything at all, Mickey Mouse for that matter. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are other criteria for inclusion in this WikiProject, then in Wikipedia articles. WikiProject are sort of autonomous and have the main goal to stimulate cooperation. It's tools have to support this. -- Mdd (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Let me try and summarise Now can we please move on from this unexplained obsession with an out of date illustration used out of its context and think of a more suitable logo?
 * We have a diagram from an article produced by a member of the CIA which won an Intelligence Community Award, those generally go for contributions to intelligence rather than for the quality of their source inspiration
 * The main references (per the author) are to newspapers, with one academic reference and neither relate to the text of the article in which it featured
 * The diagram purports to represent complex systems which is either a separate field or a subfield of systems theory; there are disputes about which but no one would suggest it represented the whole
 * The inspiration is to two books, only one of which would be considered mainstream in complexity theory and then only as an early work
 * So it might be an appropriate illustration for a paragraph in an article which looked at the application of complexity to intelligence with a historical bent
 * Micky Mouse might well be as appropriate to use this picture to illustrate a whole field not is it suitable as a logo, indeed to use it as such gives it status it does not deserve in a wider context.
 * On this basis I could take my Cynefin framework from the HBR cover article which has won an Academy of Management award for explaining complexity to a non technical audience and a further award as one of the 50 most cited papers in its class and use that as the main illustration. It has a better claim by a mile, but to use it would be as wrong as it is not an illustration of the field as a whole.  I could take a picture from Cilliers or Axelrod's papers all of those would have a better claim again.

One candidate would be a picture of a strange attractor, or a fractal. Highly visual, plenty of public domain ones available and no textSnowded TALK 16:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(PS to Brews, isn't this a physics subject broadly construed? Snowded TALK 16:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC))


 * What is absurd here is that you present a new series of arguments as summary, and want to expel the obvious arguments as unexplained obsession. -- Mdd (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No just answering new material from you. I note you continue to avoid the questions posed to you.  Mind you the position you outline below indicates you are not reading and/or understanding the points made to you<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for other WikiProject Systems "logo"
Snowded has made three one suggestions. My first impression about that:

* Cynefin framework: this indeed is "not an illustration of the field as a whole." -- Mdd (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)  (This comment has been altered by Snowded, ) 
 * A picture from Cilliers or Axelrod's papers: What kind of image would that be? and how do we solve possible copyvio problems?
 * A picture of a strange attractor, or a fractal: This illustrates chaos theory and one of those images is already in use
 * They are also used in complexity theory which is what the current one purports to do, but I am very open to other ideas <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I confess to not having the patience to read through all the extended discussion on this and other pages regarding the above figure. But I gather that on the plus side, it is a pretty, well-laid out figure that shows one approach to complex adaptive systems (CAS), and on the minus side, it only shows one approach to CAS and so couldn't be considered representative of the whole field of CAS or of systems theory in general. But IMO, it is not a particular failing of this diagram--any diagram demonstrating an approach to CAS is going to exclude others. I don't think there is any way to create a comprehensive diagram, simply because there are so many approaches to systems theory, in so many different fields of science and philosophy, all with incompatible nomenclatures, that "one diagram to rule them all" isn't feasible.


 * So what to do? The approach of broad subject WikiProjects like Math, Physics and Medicine is to go the iconic route: create a pretty picture vaguely indicative of the field (black hole accretion disk, tesseract, square root, stethoscope, caduceus). Icons have the advantage of being pretty and easy to recognize, but also having so little detail in them, that they could not be considered as advancing some particular POV in the field. Creating a systems icon out of a strange attractor or fractal would be perfect for this.


 * Another approach is to try to show the main subfields in a word cloud, as is done in Complex systems organizational map.jpg, the figure used in the Complex systems infobox. I like the hierarchical structure of the diagram (most complex systems have some sort of hierarchy) and the suggestion of the broad remit of systems theory. But it is also open to POV criticism--which subfields get top billing?


 * FWIW, I'd support either the iconic or word cloud approach. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mark for your suggestion. The File:Complex systems organizational map.jpg is worth considering. What about the File:Complexity-map-overview.png? -- Mdd (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark's suggestion is where I started this conversation. We need something iconic not descriptive as any descriptive is controversial.  That includes the complex systems organisational map and map overview which are partial in nature, and describe complexity not systems as a whole.  I am not sure I have the energy for another page but the map in Complex systems info box is truly terrible.  It makes systems theory a subset of CAS includes SNA (which is nothing to do with complexity) by implication and so on. A pure wordle of language in the field might work or maybe take a three dimensional strange attractor (better for wider coverage than the Lorenz attractor) and overlay it with a systems diagram?  I'm happy to create something like that or open to others <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 00:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From an artistic and symbolic point of view, a logo should be immediately intuitive like Apple's logo with the apple-with-a-bite-out-of-it-symbolizing-the-tree-of-knowledge. Apple did not opt for a complicated agglomeration of circuit components and labels that are unreadable without 20-fold magnification. On the other hand, the Lorenz attractor is insufficiently general and has no connection with the ideas of emergence, evolution, feedback, or self-organization. The criteria pertinent to the selection of a logo are not part of WP policy, so far as I know, and discussions of its content might require a closer look at the article Complex systems, which at the moment suffers from chaos itself. And as for agreement on WP about artistic merit - well, that will be a spectacle. Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And then there is this: 'systems and systems science' is even broader than Complex systems, and that might afford an opportunity for an artistically clean and very general logo. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with you there <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is one thing I have learned in the past decade here it is, that these topics are very easily to criticise, yet very hard to improve. I also experienced on the Dutch Wikipedia that discussions got blurry, if not impossible, because data from (what are considered) reliable sources isn't good enough anymore. Things had to be removed, articles even had to be deleted, because allegedly "a fresh start is so much easier". We can make up a thousand excuses, not to use that matter. If all is removed, all suffering from chaos is over. We couldn't agree on the Complex adaptive system, and should we now focus on further diminishing of the Complex systems article? This line of discussion gives me no confidence at all.
 * If we would really want to turn the tie here, we should try to reach a common understanding. Most important: What kind of things we want to improve? And what kind of matter we want to use: sources, quotes, images... etc? Creating a new logo can be a challenge. Personally I would prefer if we (also) would focus on a more up to date systems model of complex adaptive systems. There is established that the current image is not mainstream, and we can do better. I already start an initiative at commons for images and at wikiquote for quotes, where your feedback and/or more contributions would be very much appreciated. In time we could also make a word cloud, which more focusses on systems science and add to that article... etc, etc. -- Mdd (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A wordle is a good temporary measure. Otherwise if something is inaccurate or misleading then it should be removed (and criticised) from wikipedia, that is the strength of this place <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mdd: Your observation of discussions that "get blurry" is very common on policy Talk pages where no-one sticks to the subject and it is almost a paradigm for doing nothing to defocus any discussion until no-one remembers how it all began, and no-one any longer cares. On article pages the paradigm for doing nothing is a bit different: instead of assisting with a sensible summary of a topic, critics invoke WP:OR, WP:Primary, WP:RS to stone-wall discussion, which then leads nowhere. In both policy and articles, the underlying problem is an unwillingness to help with the evolution of a better structure and environment for fashioning contributions, and an unwillingness to do the work to construct an encyclopedia. Instead, there is a growing enthusiasm for verbal sparring and in one-up-man-ship. This malfunction, whatever its psychological or social origins, appears to be beyond any fix. Maybe a meta-discussion of overall objectives like you mention can help, though I suspect the trend to "blurry discussion" will surface to obscure any concrete conclusions. However, abandoning reliable published sources in favor of some more nebulous form of establishing credibility (which seems to be what you are advocating in becoming more "up-to-date") will make things even worse. Brews ohare (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies
Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tree diagram
Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Talk:Tree diagram. I believe that "tree diagram", by definition, implies "tree structure", and would like to see Tree diagram moved to Tree diagram (disambiguation) so that the name can redirect to Tree structure. User:Steel1943 disagrees that "tree structure" is the primary topic suggested by the name "tree diagram" (but please see his/her comments, in case I have inadvertently misrepresented them). Other opinions are, I think, necessary. Cnilep (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons category Computer simulation needs diffusion
The Commons category Computer simulation currently has over 800 files that would benefit from a more fine-grained categorization. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several categories with similar problems on Commons, which seem to be created by bots overloading particular general categories. It is almost impossible to correct this manually. -- Mdd (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am operating such a bot and am open to suggestions on how to improve its workflows. The main problem in my view is the inconsistent quality of the metadata at the source of the files, as discussed here. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems you reached the core problem of information retrieval. -- Mdd (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Systems design" or "System design"?
Comments on this question are welcome at Talk:Systems design. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal technology for featured candidacy
I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Portal:Technology

What are the definitions of "alternative medicine" by "major world health organization[s]"?
At Talk:Alternative_medicine I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".

I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANATOMY invite
Hello everybody! This seems to be a relatively active project. WikiProject Anatomy, of which I am a member, is beginning a revitalisation effort aimed at the various articles relating to medical systems. I've noticed a few under the umbrage of this project, and was wondering if there would be any interested members? Articles at the crux of the effort include: A full list is available here: Human body. If there are any editors interested in collaborating, that would be fantastic. Ping to, who's at the head of many of these efforts. I wish everybody a splendid festive season! --LT910001 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Immune system
 * Nervous system
 * Respiratory system
 * Digestive system
 * Reproductive system
 * Currently working on (or in the start of working on)


 * Central nervous system - expanded
 * Peripheral nervous system
 * Enteric nervous system
 * Wondering if these may apply to you as well?
 * P.S. Might not be so active over the holidays, but I'll answer any queries. CFCF (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)