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 which Bertalanffy co-founded and is accepted by that community as a heuristic tool. 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 is. I look forward to the exceptions...

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 will in fact contradict conventional science. The whole point of the book is to create a different kind of science, not a different degree but a different kind. 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 it must be deleted" 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 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.