Talk:Communication/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abigaelclark, Irot2002 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Heba.Aweiwi.

— Assignment last updated by Haitao+Huang (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rokibat Giwa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rokibat Giwa (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Extension to/Format of Organizational Communication section

Firstly, welcome aboard @Rokibat Giwa -- I will also ping on user talk but wanted to have the discussion here because I think other commenters on this talk page will have thoughts. I went ahead and fixed the headers associated with the new additions made to the Organizational Communication section. But what I'm thinking is that this material probably belongs in the Organizational Communication article rather than Communication. If you look at the orgcomm article, which is linked in the orgcomm section as the Main article for the topic, you'll see it has a listing of approaches -- but they're shorter than what we have here! That seems off to me. The longer and more detailed treatment probably belongs in the Organizational Communication article while a more summary version goes in the Communication article. If you/others agree, feel free to go ahead and make the changes; otherwise I can do them, no problem. Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I went ahead and removed the material. Another problem is that the source does not even mention communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, per WP:Summary style. Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Kaylea, although you pinged RG above, my long experience with Wiki Ed students tells me that once their course is over, they're done here; and will rarely if ever come back to edit the article or respond to inquiries or comments on Talk pages. Since their course ended on 15 Dec, one day before you posted your comment above, I wouldn't expect any response (although I would love to be proved wrong). Looks like Phlsph7 already went ahead and acted after you posted, so all is well, but just something to keep in mind when interacting with Wiki Ed students. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. But I'm a sucker for an opportunity to AGF :) Kaylea Champion (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Context and purposes

Hi, I have read the discussions on the talk page, both on this page but also on the information page, and the link/differentiation of these two concepts has been a topic of debate. It is also mentioned in the French article.

Could we address the link between communication and dissemination of information, as well as the related issues in the "Contexts and purposes" section?

As an example, disinformation, misinformation, freedom of expression, hate speeches, freedom and plurality of the press as well as the safety of journalists are human contemporary issues linked to human communication means.

I wrote a small paragraph here in my sandbox, about some of the challenges it represents.

Could you tell me what you think about that? Thank you very much! E.poul (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi E.poul and thanks for your suggestion. These topics may not deserve a detailed discussion in this article but I think you are right that it would be a good idea to mention them somewhere and the section "Contexts and purposes" is probably the best fit. Do you have page numbers for the books you use as references? It would be better to have one source mentioning all or most of the items on the list of challenges. But the list does not sound controversial to me so that shouldn't be much of a problem. I hope you don't mind that I added templates to your sandbox so that we have a consistent reference style. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, E.poul, and welcome! I took your phrase and wikilinked parts of it, thus:

• disinformation, misinformation, freedom of expression, hate speech[es], freedom [of the press] and plurality of the press as well as the safety of journalists

As you can see by that exercise, we have articles about all of these topics, with the exception of "plurality of the press" (which is why it appears in red above; that's a link to an article that does not yet exist). As it turns out, none of those words are currently in the article, but conceivably you could add them to the § See also section. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello to both of you and thank you for your quick feedback!

Thank you @Phlsph7 for the references, I've added the relevant pages and reduced the number of references to 3 in my sandbox.

And thank you @Mathglot, "Plurality of the press" was not the right term, the page is called media pluralism.

Should I add the paragraph in the "Contexts and purposes" section and add the words in the section the § See also section? Or should we choose between the two options? E.poul (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

First, in connection with the expression plurality of the press, the term has a definite presence in online resources (although less so in Books). Comparing the two terms shows that media pluralism is about 100 times more common than plurality of the press. I have a question for you about this: would you say the two terms are synonyms, related terms with different meanings, or something else? In your work on this topic, have you come up with any secondary or tertiary sources that give a definition of these terms? If they are synonyms (or if one is closely related, or a subset of the other) then we should set up a WP:REDIRECT from the red link to "media pluralism". Looking at our article, and some of the websites on "plurality of the press", they look synonymous to me, but this is the first I've encountered these terms and I'd like to know what your research has shown. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Second, regarding your sandbox: I see your three citations there (good job creating them, using citation templates) which document the source of your assertions about media pluralism, the spread of hate speech, and the third one which talks about mis-/dis-information. It's probably okay, but there's a question in my mind whether they're enough, or not. On the one hand, three refs in one paragraph is more than you'd find in a lot of our content, and I think most editors would say you're good to go. On the other, the key concept to understand here is Wikpiedia's policy on WP:Verifiability, in particular, the section on WP:V § Responsibility for providing citations (a.k.a, "WP:BURDEN") where the key sentence is, "All content must be verifiable"; note: not "verified", but "verifiable". And by "content", most editors understand this to mean "assertions of fact".

I count eight factual assertions in your first sentence; they are: "A intrinsically linked to B", "use presents ... challenges", "challenges include [five items in comma series]" (of which two are verified–i.e., have citations which back them up), and the assertion of logical consequence that begins with the 'As', i.e., the assertion that everything that follows the comma is the logical consequence of the proposition before the comma.

Do more than those two assertions need citations? It's debatable, and I normally wouldn't go into this much detail, but I think you're a professional who uses words in your work, and would profit from it more than most. I can see it (unless I'm entirely misreading the situation) in your use of good techniques of expository prose, including introductory material to set up a topic, segues to link to more detail, followed by the detail. In a way, I see much of the first sentence—up to the first dash—as your natural creativity in creating a smooth narrative. Was any of that in a source somewhere?

"As communication is intrinsically linked to the dissemination of information"—is anyone ever going to challenge this, thereby triggering the requirement for a citation? I doubt it. Maybe it's already covered somewhere else in the article, in which case you're covered; you don't have to cite something twice (although people do, the more so when stuff is controversial or might be challenged). So probably what you have is fine, unless someone challenges you.

I'd add one other wrinkle: in the first half of the lead sentence, which in my interpretation kind of sets up and segues to the meat of your cited content later, was that completely out of your own head, an assumption, as it were, or did it come from something you read in one of the sources? If the former, there's a danger of it being impermissible as a violation of original research; and I'd especially place the "As [A] , [therefore] B" implication in that bucket.

In a way, Wikipedia's requirement for WP:Verifiability is somewhat at odds with the goals of superior expository prose, if you see what I mean. So, I'm not going to tell you what to do, here, as far as the specific content or what to cite and what not to cite. Rather, I will recommend that you go through WP:V carefully, following some of the links as seems necessary, and think about how to balance your desire to write a clear monograph for a reader along with the intros and setups you are used to on the one hand, with Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability on the other, which will probably create some inner tension in their competing objectives, as you compose your content.

I really hope I haven't gone too far into the weeds on this; I don't think I would do this for hardly any other editor, I just have the feeling that you will get exactly what I am talking about, and are probably a better judge of how to balance these competing aspects than I would be; in a nutshell, I trust you to do the right thing. That said, there are about umpty-zillion rules here, and you can expect to get flustered or uncertain of how to proceed, here and there, and if so, by all means write me at my talk page or {{ping}} me from anywhere, and I'll be happy to help, if I can. Sorry for the WP:WALLOFTEXT; I think you will be a really good editor here, and I'm looking forward to your contributions. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S., are you subscribed to this discussion? Adding ping @E.poul: just in case. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page numbers and condensing the references. Mathglot's comment may not win a prize for succinctness but it makes some insightful points. The clause As communication is intrinsically linked to the dissemination of information, its use presents many challenges plays the role of justifying the relevance of what follows to the concept of communication in general. But it seems this relevance is not covered by the sources, which talk about more specific issues, like contemporary trends in journalism or hate speech on twitter. Concerning the accuracy of this claim: communication is often defined as the transmission of information. But some theorists reject this view and define communication in terms of making meaning of things, which may or may not involve the transmission of information. Many of the challenges listed are relevant to some forms of interpersonal communication but not to others and may carry little importance to intrapersonal communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you again for your help and for taking the time to explain the editing rules in detail.  .

I have replaced the word « intrinsically » with « usually », following the term used at the beginning of the article. I have also pointed out that only certain forms of interpersonal communication face these challenges: « As interpersonal communication is usually linked to the dissemination of information, its use can present many challenges as (…) ».Does this wording seem more appropriate to you?

If it can be likened with original research (as it is my own formulation), I can simply put it as follows: « The use of interpersonal communication can present many challenges as (...) ». E.poul (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes! I think it presents a more balanced perspective like this. If the source does not draw the connection between interpersonal communication and dissemination of information, it might be better to leave that part out. The claim does not seem controversial. But this way, we are on the safe side. Since the new version focuses on interpersonal communication, it might be better to put it at the end of the subsection "Interpersonal" instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Phlsph7, I'm sorry I hadn't received the notification! Thank you very much for the feedback, I've removed the part that wasn't safe and I'm adding the text in the section you indicated. Best, E.poul (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot @Phlsph7, I'm having trouble adding the sources according to the template (the page freezes every time I try to modify the template). Do you have a solution? Thank you in advance E.poul (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@E.poul: I haven't heared of that problem. Do you use the VisualEditor or the source editor? If you need help with a specific source then you can post the link or its details here and I'll convert into using one of the cite-templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? What source? what template? are you making a change, or an addition? Can you include a before-after description below showing your precise change, in sufficient context so it's clear where it goes? You may find template {{TextDiff}} useful for this. Mathglot (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaruduan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review

This section is an excerpt from Talk:Communication/GA1 § GA Review.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bart Terpstra (talk · contribs) 14:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): to be followed up by a close reading b (focused): to be followed up by a close reading. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars, but an IP keeps adding in nonsense. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Bart Terpstra: Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article. How is the review progressing? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the reveiwer has been inactive for several weeks, I've marked this for a 2O and added it to the old nominations list for the drive. Vaticidalprophet 19:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the initial reviewer has been gone since the 7th without really touching the nomination, I think I'll take up this review. I don't expect many issues seeing as the editors on the talk page seem quite knowledgeable, but a full review will still below. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Thanks for relisting this nomination. I had contacted the old reviewer both here and on their talk page but there was not response.

@ArcticSeeress: Thanks for taking on this task on such a short notice. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Historiography

I wonder if it would be worth adding a historiography section, if enough material could be found for it. This occurred to me, when I ran across the following article on ancient Roman beliefs about communication:

• Wiseman, Rob (January 2007). "Ancient Roman Metaphors for Communication". Metaphor & Symbol. 22 (1): 41–78. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms2201_2 – via TWL/EBSCOhost.

Everyday Roman beliefs about how communication occurred are founded on the process of breathing. Speaking is breathing, and hence words are breath. Words are formed in the chest, specifically the animus. In speaking they are "ejected" or "emitted" from the animus. Speech is either "breathed" or "poured" into an audience, or else listeners "grasp" or "catch" what is said.

— portion of abstract from Wiseman-2007

If there's material on medieval views on communication, Renaissance, age of printing, industrialization, and so on, that could make an interesting addition to the article. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) copied here from wrong page Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the historiography of communication is important enough to merit its own section beside our current history section. But maybe some ideas about the historiography could be included in the history section. In general, historiographers study what historians do, like the methods and assumptions they depend on. Presumably, the historiography of communication would investigate how the methods and assumptions of historians of communication developed and changed. On a short search, I found some works on the historiography of communication studies. This would probably be more relevant to the article communication studies but maybe some information could be included here as well. If we can find a few good general sources then I could look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; perhaps in the Communication § History section, or in Communication studies. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Volitional plants

These two extracts in the lead do not accurately summarize sourced information in the body of the article, and the wording twists what is already a minority viewpoint about plant communication, into a construct implying the existence of sentient plants capable of volition:

• For example, plants like maple trees release so-called volatile organic compounds into the air to warn other plants of a herbivore attack.
• For example, many flowers use symmetrical shapes and colors that stand out from their surroundings in order to communicate to insects where nectar is located to attract them.

In my opinion, neither of these statements can be substantiated. The offending portion is the "to warn", and "in order to communicate", which are either reification or anthropomorphism fallacies, or both. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) copied here from wrong page Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot and thanks for your input. I agree that we should be careful not to imply that plants have volition. Some sources use the word "warn" in relation to plants, for example, in the title of "Pickett, and D. Johnson. 2013. Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighboring plants of aphid attack. Ecology Letters 16:835–843". But others talk of "transmitting warning signals", which could be used here to avoid this implication.

The term "communicate" is quite common in this context. For example, its found in the title of one of our sources: "Becard 2017: How Plants Communicate with their Biotic Environment". Or from Karban 2015 p.93: Similarly, plants that were more closely related communicated more effectively than those that were unrelated strangers. But we could replace "communicate" with "signal" in this sentence if this is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

One-way vs. two-way

It occurred to me that the article doesn't appear to discuss one-way vs. two-way (or N-way) communication, but I don't know if these are important distinctions. (Two-way was mentioned in Models.) One-way might be: reading (printing) a book, SETI messages, talking to your turtle, listening to (broadcasting on) the radio, a newspaper or any print publication (like a "communiqué"). Not sure if there's a distinction between two-way and N-way. I asked Chat GPT about this, and it gave a long answer, with the following concluding summary:

The distinction between one-way and two-way communication is crucial in understanding the dynamics, impact, and effectiveness of various communication processes. Communication theories often consider factors such as feedback loops, noise (interference in transmission), encoding and decoding processes, and the context of communication. Depending on the goals and context of communication, one-way and two-way approaches may be used strategically to achieve different outcomes.

which I found interesting. It mentioned (echoed?) 2-way, and N-way, but did not draw an important distinction between them. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Btw, lurking at the GA, and rooting for you! Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the idea. These issues are already discussed in the sections "Models of communication" and "Interpersonal" thought not using that exact terminology. I edited it to make it more explicit. As far as I know, the contrast of one-way vs two-way communication is mainly introduced in guidebooks that aim to help people communicate better. We could consider mentioning this also somewhere in the section "Communicative competence". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Improving the Communication article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Improve the introduction. The introduction to the article is a bit dry and could be improved by adding a more engaging hook and by providing a better overview of the topic. For example, the first sentence of the introduction currently states that "Communication is the transmission of information." This sentence is accurate, but it is not very engaging. A more engaging hook could be something like "Communication is the glue that holds society together. It is how we share our thoughts and ideas, build relationships, and solve problems." The introduction could also be improved by providing a better overview of the topic. For example, the introduction currently discusses the different types of communication, but it does not discuss the importance of communication or the different models of communication. The introduction could be improved by adding a brief discussion of these topics. Expand on the different types of communication The article currently discusses the three main types of communication: verbal, nonverbal, and written communication. However, the article could be improved by expanding on these different types of communication. For example, the article could discuss the different types of verbal communication (e.g., active listening, assertive communication), the different types of nonverbal communication (e.g., body language, facial expressions), and the different types of written communication (e.g., email, letters, social media posts). The article could also discuss the different channels of communication. For example, the article could discuss the different types of face-to-face communication (e.g., one-on-one conversations, group discussions), the different types of mediated communication (e.g., phone calls, video calls, text messages), and the different types of mass communication (e.g., television, radio, newspapers). Discuss the importance of communication The article currently discusses the importance of communication for human interaction, but it could be improved by expanding on this topic. For example, the article could discuss the following: How communication helps us to build relationships How communication helps us to solve problems How communication helps us to learn and grow How communication helps us to make informed decisions How communication helps us to participate in society Discuss the different models of communication The article currently does not discuss the different models of communication. The article could be improved by adding a brief discussion of the following models of communication: The linear model of communication The transactional model of communication The cultural model of communication Improve the organization and flow of the article The article is currently well-organized, but there are a few places where the flow of the article could be improved. For example, the section on the importance of communication is currently located after the section on the different types of communication. This section could be improved by moving it to before the section on the different types of communication. This would allow the reader to better understand the importance of communication before learning about the different types of communication. Add more images and videos The article currently has a few images and videos, but it could be improved by adding more images and videos. Images and videos can help to make the article more engaging and can help to illustrate the different concepts that are discussed in the article. Add more references The article currently has a number of references, but it could be improved by adding more references. This would help to ensure that the information in the article is accurate and up-to-date. Improve the grammar and style The article is currently well-written, but there are a few places where the grammar and style could be improved. For example, the article currently uses some passive voice constructions. The article could be improved by converting these passive voice constructions to active voice constructions. The article could also be improved by using more concise language. For example, the sentence "Communication is the process of exchanging information between two or more people" could be improved by changing it to "Communication is the exchange of information between two or more people." Conclusion The Wikipedia article on Communication is a well-written and informative article, but there are a few ways that it could be improved. By improving the introduction, expanding on the different types of communication, discussing the importance of communication, discussing the different models of communication, improving the organization and flow of the article, adding more images and videos, adding more references, and improving the grammar and style, the article could be even more informative and engaging for readers. In addition to the above suggestions, here are some other specific ways that the article could be improved: Add a section on the history of communication. This section could discuss the different ways that people have communicated throughout history, from cave paintings to the internet. Add a section on the future of communication. This section could discuss the different ways that people are likely to communicate in the future, such as through virtual reality and augmented 41.212.44.18 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello 41.212.44.18 and thanks for trying to help with the article. I'm not sure what to make of your suggestions. For example, you recommend that "Add a section on the history of communication" and that a discussion of models of communication should be added since it is missing. However, the article has a section on history and one on models of communication. You suggest improvements to the sentences "Communication is the transmission of information" and "Communication is the process of exchanging information between two or more people". However, our article does not contain these sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A precursor to dedicated research on LLM communication. CMD (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the best explanation of how these suggestions came into being. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That was my interpretation too. There are ways to use LLMs effectively to improve articles, but this ain't it. Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's unanimous, then, as that was my impression well before I was halfway through it. Closing this as not helpful, but feel free to re-open if needed. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untitled

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.81.198.188 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References