Talk:Co-production (society)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by Mountaincirque (talk · contribs) on 26 April 2023.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles

History of Science

This redirect is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles

Sociology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

This page is kind of a hot mess

After hearing the term 'coproduction of knowledge' for the first time 20 minutes ago, I came to my trusted 1st stop for learning about a concept in wikipedia, hoping there might be an article on the topic. After reading through this page, I am more, not less, confused. TBH I don't think I could really tell you even slightly what the heck this concept describes. The problem is that the entire article is written using so much discipline-specific jargon terms, with practically zero accompanying context clue language around the terms, each one used in such rapid fire fashion to make even getting a shallow gist of the subject not possible without sitting down and visiting 25 other pages of associated jargon terms, pages which I can only hope are written in such a way that they might be more accessible to someone who doesn't live and breath the topic on a daily basis.

Look at the last sentence of the first subsection:

"Unless overlapping sets of boundary-work are employed, co-production may also fail to account for power differentials within each variable, (in this case, within technology and society)."

...? That's the final sentence of the section. The section just ends with that, as if it somehow summarized or concluded something.

Almost every sentence in the article is like this. The whole thing is written in such a way that only people already intimately familiar a HUGE range of discipline-exclusive jargon ahead of time might be able to digest what is written (and anyone who that might be the case for is VERY unlikely to be needing to look up the topic on wikipedia to try get the gist/general idea of what co-production means to begin with!). I'd take a shot at trying to interpret and revise the language in the article myself, but I don't have the time to do a deep dive case study that would be required to reverse engineer what the original author was likely trying to get at each sentence.

Sorry to be so harsh, but this article really needs to be re-written with an eye towards accessibility to non-subject matter experts. It sounds like the topic is worth covering -- though I really can't say for sure, based on what little I managed to glean from the article in its current form. Laced8 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my merge proposal below? I agree with many of your points and think that the article could be simplified and re-written as an over-arching 'coproduction of knowledge' page with sub-sections for science/tech/public services. Mountaincirque^talk 12:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S&TS literature

Co-production is actually referenced extensively in the S&TS literature; in fact, it's referred to on the Wikipedia page for technology and society (not my edit!). I'll add other references, but at this point it's not a neologism - it's a conceptual framework.

Or perhaps this should be added to the technology and society page?

How to disambiguate between the already-existing entry for co-production? (So this page, if it should exist, can be called 'co-production' instead of 'co-production (in science and technology studies)'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stequoianie (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we need to work on the title because Co-production (in Science and Technology Studies) will really not work. I can do the disambig. I'm thinking co-production should fork into co-production (film) (existing page) and co-production (social science) (your contribution. If you agree, I can do the code for the change. Mbisanz (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this disambiguation would be ideal, and I'd really appreciate if you'd be willing to do it. Do you think the article needs more edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stequoianie (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig done; all articles nee more edits :), I'd suggest expanding the articles you've created. I'm sure there are counterpoints, controversies, developmental histories, etc. Also, you seem to know your way around science and technology, so those articles are always in need of a good editor. Mbisanz (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again Mbisanz! i'm actually in the process of moving and then leaving town for 3 weeks, so doubtful i'll get to improving this page and other science and technology pages within the next few days, but i'd Love (LOVE) to help with this when i return. interestingly enough, i was just asking my friends the other day: if you had to 'watch over' a few different pages on wikipedia, which ones would you choose? i'd definitely enjoy watching over some of the science and technology pages ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stequoianie (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coproduction of public services by service users and communities

A page on a related topic, Coproduction of public services by service users and communities was recently created, which points up that the title of this page is probably too general, considering the relative specificity of the content (technology/society co-production). Not sure how best to sort that; probably moving this to a more specific title. Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Co-production (public services) with Co-production (society)

These articles are both weakly referenced and have very closely overlapping themes, a merge would strengthen both articles and clarify the topic matter through use of sections with an over-arching explanation of the concept.

I argue that the distinction between the two is too close at present, especially for a lay audience. The specific application of co-production to both public services and 'society' (presenting more of the scientific/technology angle), can be explained in sub-sections. At present the titling is also problematic as 'public services' are intrinsically linked to 'society', I would argue that simply having this page as the main article for co-production and then having Co-production (media) separately would be best. Mountaincirque^talk 11:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. STEMinfo (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much engagement and these aren't high profile pages at present, so I will be WP:BOLD and make the merge when I have time. Mountaincirque^talk 09:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]