Jump to content

User talk:Dessimoz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dessimoz (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 4 November 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Dessimoz, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 03:20, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hey.... Just wanted to let you know that you can change your username if you wish. See Wikipedia:Changing username for details. -- VV 09:47, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 3, moved discussion from VfD:

Cognitics is VERY different from Cognition: it relates to AUTOMATED cognition. This field will surely develop very much as machine-based systems expand and concepts including knowledge, learning or abstraction for example will apply in this context. It is already pushing for more formal definitions and novel metric units for cognition.-- Dessimoz 13:59, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but automated cognition simply sounds to me like artificial intelligence. Feel free to add the information there, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we should use standard terminology wherever possible. From my research on the term cognitics (Google lists only 37 links most of which are citations from a JD Dessimoz), it seems one J.-D. Dessimoz, is one of the few authors who use this term, in fact about 9 refs were just added on Cognition theory that only cite this author. --Lexor 13:11, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Intelligence is just one of the numerous key concepts in cognition, such as knowledge, abstraction, learning or expertise; therefore automated cognition should not be cantained under IA title. But you make a good point: a sentence and link should be added in both directions to and from artificial intelligence (I will do it). For the rest, additional references have been added to key contributions close to MCS theory. Those references where already provided in the cited articles, along with other ones, but the change makes them more directly accessible. For the number of citations, it should be in the future one of the measurements of success for Wikipedia to see how the number of hits will grow as a result of making easily available a novel and useful theory.-- Dessimoz 18:12, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place where novel theories and terminology which isn't widely used in the community are given an entire page, your individual website can do that, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia which means that the space devoted to a subject should be somewhat representative of the consensus in the community (see Wikipedia:NPOV#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view?). This doesn't mean new or controversial opinions don't get a hearing, but that space should be proportional with respect to the consensus in the field. I maintain that term "cognitics" does not warrant an entire page to itself, but should be merged into the AI article because almost everything you refer to above is normally discussed with respect to that term. I would have no problem with adding a section in artificial intelligence with the term "Cognitics" in the title, but not an entire page. --Lexor 03:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Dessimoz,

Regarding your entries, on cognition theory, MCS, cognitics and others such as expertise, you really should read: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically items #9 & #10:

9. Personal essays, that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. We're reporting on what is in the canon of human knowledge; unless you're unusual, your idiosyncratic opinions aren't part of this canon. (But you can put your essays on meta-Wikipedia.)
10. Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. (But of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.).

I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, but you must understand what Wikipedia is attempting to be, and from the foregoing discussion that we had on VfD (now transferred here), it is clear that you perhaps misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. I understand what you are trying to do, a short summary of these ideas in an article that uses standard nomenclature and terminology is the appropriate place to do it, not an extended detailed technical essay. --Lexor 11:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've replaced the redirect at Know-how. Dictionary definitions are not allowed, which is basically what this was before I redirected it. Perhaps you could write this at Wiktionary instead? Also, the ideas you were putting in the page seemed to be largely primary research which, as has been explained to you above in relation to the cognitics and other pages, is not encyclopedic. Let me know on my talk page if there are any problems with this. Thanks. Angela 20:45, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)


Thanks for the remarks above.

Basically, I agree with the reasons given above and, of course, the way Wikipedia is organized. Eventhough I am not an expert in Wikipedia (on the contrary, I am rather a beginner here), I understand what you are saying, and my commonsense had already guided me in fact to a large extent so as to comply with Wikipedia practices.

My contributions so far can schematically be viewed as consisting in two components.

A. One component consists in giving a short (indeed dictionnary-like) definitions in articles which are already existing, for most of them. Look at them and I bet you will agree that those definitions are very clear and even contrast in that sense with some preexisting material. They make explicit, ideas pretty much universal. Nevertheless by respect to tradition and general acceptance, these definitions remain short and point to component B, for thoses readers who may want to understand things deeper. Now I think that those few lines (usually 1 or 2) should remain because they are precious in that context. (To do a similar work in Wiktionary would surely be a good thing, if time or resources allow).

B. The second component refers to the (MCS) cognition theory, which is quite established now, having been reviewed, published and discussed in various scientific contexts for more than 10 years. This part is well encapsulated in a single entry "cognition theory". In my opinion this is a good and precious contribution for an encyclopedy. For some readers, this article may take some preparation to be comfortably understood, but surely this is a sound and good proposal; all the persons I know, who have given it some attention, have found it useful. Anyway the best alternatives, the most recognized authors in the context, are cited as well (e.g. Chaitkin, for complexity), for the benefit of readers who might like to look by themselves for alternate views. More than 50 years after defining and measuring information, time as come to similarly assess other cognitive properties, such as complexity, knowledge or abstraction. And to explain it in an encyclopedy.

Components A and B have opposite merits. While component A may make us think of dictionnary entries, component B is typical of an encyclopedy. Reciprocally, while component B questions us about possible too singular originality, component A is not controversial at all. --Dessimoz 23:55, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dessimoz&oldid=1674004"