User talk:Thomas Mandel/General Systems Theory

Duplicate article

Erm... Systems_theory_(general). --Robert W King 14:58, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

This does seem to be the title of a book... J. Noel Chiappa 16:11, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Thomas, if this is about the book, then the caps would be appropriate, but if it is about General systems theory then we need to rename it according to CZ:Naming conventions. Considering the wide variety of uses for this title, maybe even a disambiguation page is in order. It might be a good idea to bring in some editors to help you decide. I'll let you guys work that out. --D. Matt Innis 12:15, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

Referee statement

This article is refereed. The Citizendium Executive is continuing to pilot a Dispute Resolution process. The leading proposal is a system of "referees" for disputes. Gareth Leng has been playing role of referee, but since he will be unavailable for several more days at least, I am stepping in here myself.

About the referee system. A referee will be an uninvolved member of the project who will play no significant active part in a disputed article, but will be empowered to make certain types of decisions about a disputed article that will be provisionally binding on contributors to that article. The purpose of such decisions will be to call a halt to disputes with a decision that enables article development to continue. The decisions will be on the basis, where appropriate, of Citizendium policy, and there will be an appeal mechanism if decisions are thought to be in breach of this. The referee will not make judgments on matters of expert knowledge that lie outside their expertise, but may make judgments on style, tone, balance, neutrality etc. The referee will attempt to make a swift decision that is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the Citizendium project; swiftness means that decisions will be imperfect, but authors will be expected to abide by them rather than extend a dispute. The referee has no disciplinary powers, a flagrant breach of his or her guidance will be a matter for the Constabulary.

One editor has written me privately raising the issue of the "Systemgestalt.jpg" graphic here. Apparently there is some objection to it because it was created by Tom Mandel himself. Moreover, the editor who contacted me said that this was discussed earlier and removed. I would like to invite the people involved here (Tom and anyone who objects to the graphic) to explain their positions, and then I will make a decision. In particular, I would like to hear from Tom about why he feels the graphic is important to include (this isn't explained or contextualized in the article itself). If anyone has any objection to its inclusion, I'd like to hear why as well.

On the issue about where this article should live ("General Systems Theory" or "general systems theory"), the question is whether it is usually referred to in its capitalized form, as in this article title, or lower case. If someone can provide some useful evidence on that question, we can make a decision about it.

Editors: please do not be shy about editing this article. The fact that Tom Mandel has started it does not mean that it is his article, as he knows. In particular, unexplained quotations may be excised, as can incomplete and completely cryptic sentences you find, as well as outline headings that have no content (see CZ:Article Mechanics Complete on this). Such incomplete or substandard material might be usefully moved to this talk page. Just, please, explain why you have removed any significant amount of text; that's our policy, too. In short, I am confident that, if we all behave ourselves, we can work on this article together and make good progress on this interesting topic. There is no reason that Tom needs to feel unwelcome here--I only hope he does not confuse hard-headed editing with hostility. Similarly, there is no reason that others need to feel that they must accept in CZ work that is plainly substandard. This is a collaborative project.

I will try to be as impartial as possible. I hope to pass off referee responsibility to Gareth, or someone else, ASAP. I won't be able to continue past Tuesday. Thanks in advance. --Larry Sanger 20:07, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

This article was suggested by Gareth Leng and he asks to be notified if there is any problem.

I have just started to write it and am making up a skeleton or outline based on the book which I will be filling in as I move along. It is impossible to write the entire article at once. I can remove it and do it offline if that would be better.

The graphic was indeed created by me and I have placed it into the public domain. The question at the earlier time was that copyright status if I remember correctly. It is being used in part by the society as its logo since 1997, which Bertalanffy co-founded and is accepted by that community as a heuristic tool. It is not, therefore, stricty original research. I notice that a graphic in the DNA article was created by one of the editors so I really do not understand what the question/problem/objection is. I look forward to the exceptions...To answer the questions of its significance, one had to understand what a system does before what the symbol does can be appreciated. However, the symbol can convey that understanding if one studies it for a while. It is therefore a dynamic symbol as it changes its own state, that is it can change our perception of it. It has been described by a semiotics expert (Søren Brier) as brilliant design by a genius while in truth it was just an accident.

I would hope that any editor or authors who would edit this article have some working knowledge of General Systems Theory, i.e., actually have read the book. Because the subject matter is ontologically different from conventional science there will be many factors which cannot be understood from the "mainstream" perspective and may in fact contradict conventional science. The whole point of the book is to create a different kind of science, not a difference of degree but a difference of kind kind. Conventional science investigates things, systems investigates what things are doing. GST studied the common principles of organization regardless of what thing it is organizing. It was written specifically to contradict mainstream science. In reality it is complementary to mainstream science but because it introduces the complementarity it can be taken as contradictory. Interestingly, I have been exposed to the logic of "I haven't researched the subject and do not understand it and therefore I have deleted it" which does not make sense to me.

I will be working with the Bertalanffy Institute out of Austria in about two weeks. The director is out of town for a conference at the moment. The president of Bertalanffy's society will be meeting with him in ten days and he will make the introduction then.

I used upper case in the title without thinking. However after trying to find it after it disappeared, (I typed in lower case) I have come to think that if it is about the book then it should be like the book and upper case would be appropriate. I am thinking that this is the way to go assuming that I will not be restricted to not using other books that are written about general systems theory. If that be the case, then we can use lower case just as well. (I wonder about changing an entire article just because the title is in caps...) I suspect that ultimately we will end up with general systems theory in lower case so maybe now is the best time to revert and redirect all versions to the lower case article. Including the obsolete and unused systems theory general

Tom,

Indeed I look forward Gareth's return.

If you cannot write complete sentences, contextualize quotations, and in other respects follow our article mechanics guidelines, then it would be better if you developed the article elsewhere than in the main article namespace. Articles are expected to be improvable by other contributors, and with all due respect it would be unreasonable to expect anyone else to improve this article in its current form. What you have written is clearly a personal draft, not something that others could reasonably be expected to work on. So, please do move the article until you have a draft that others could be expected to improve. In the meantime, I would suggest simply instructing a constable (using {{speedydelete}}) to delete this page.

I personally have no objections to the use of the graphic. If anyone else does, I also would be curious why. You are correct that it does not violate our original research policy, nor does it violate our self-promotion policy. But you should label it appropriately as to its source and copyright status; you might contact User:Stephen Ewen for help with that.

You are incorrect about our standards regarding who may or may not work on articles. You state that you would like only those who have read the book to work on the article. But we have no policy that states that. One need not have read a book in order for example to copyedit the article, to point out that it is incoherent, or to render it in correct format. You need not worry at all that any article about the book or the theory will be deleted here; we will strongly defend the claim that articles on both subjects belong in CZ. But, again just to be clear, please do not enter the writing of this article again with the expectation that the article will cover only the point of view of an advocate of the theory (or the book about the theory, whichever is your precise topic). Since we have a Neutrality Policy, the article simply cannot be written as if the book is correct. It must be written from a neutral standpoint, which admits the possibility that the book's views are correct, but also admits that they might not be correct.

As to the name, once you start the article again here, assuming that the article is focused on the book, it should be titled General Systems Theory (book), to avoid confusion with the subject that the book discusses. Just bear in mind that our articles must have clear topics. If the article is about the book, make it about the book; if it is about general systems theory as treated by many different people, then make it about general systems theory, not just as treated in this particular book. --Larry Sanger 14:38, 31 March 2008 (CDT)