Talk:Mind map/Archives/2013

Is there a mindmap standard protocol

Is there a generally-accepted standard for exchanging mindmap data between mindmap applications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.63.174 (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding Images

someone should put a sample Mind Map image in this article. I would, but I am a real amateur at this stuff.

Wish I could help there but I'm new too: anyway, Someone else removed my line in the Pensieve entry about software that attempts to do what a Pensieve does, marking it irrelevant. Fair enough, given no further context, but mind mapping was actually what I was specifically thinking about. Now I'll grant, the software for mind mapping is generally... er... well it's 1990's shareware, that's just been my opinion (I haven't seen the specific software at the link on Mind mapping page). But the concept, using a tool to collect and organize thoughts, is very close to a Pensieve. Are these two topics close enough to link, or if not, why not? - Paul Kroll

I added the mind map about the mind map guidlines. - DannyStevens 07:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had to add it back because someone took it out. - DannyStevens (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly research on mind maps

There is nothing scholarly about this section in the main article.

The following has no citation and is argumentative, not an appropriate NPOV. Argument should be left for the cited work -

There has been research conducted on the technique which suggests that such claims may actually be marketing hype based on misconceptions about the brain and the cerebral hemispheres (see Human brain#Popular misconceptions).

There are benefits to be gained by applying a wide range of graphic organizers, and it follows that the mind map, specifically, is limited to only a few learning tasks.

Well, duh, any method is for a limited, non-universal scope. Mind maps are not limited to Learning tasks however as they are also used for organisation tasks and clarification tasks.

Research by Farrand, Hussain, and Hennessy (2002) - What research? Where did the paper appear?

found that the mind map technique had a limited but significant impact on recall only, in undergraduate students (a 10% increase over baseline for a 600-word text only) as compared to preferred study methods (a −6% increase over baseline). This improvement was only robust after a week for those in the mind map group, and there was a significant decrease in motivation compared to the subjects' preferred methods of note taking. They suggested that learners preferred to use other methods because using a mind map was an unfamiliar technique, and its status as a "memory enhancing" technique engendered reluctance to apply it.

OK so garbled research results with bad subjects for answering the question at hand. To study beneficial value you need a control group that does not use the technique, and a group that is trained in the technique properly and uses it.

Pressley, VanEtten, Yokoi, Freebern, and VanMeter (1998) found that learners tended to learn far better by focusing on the content of learning material rather than worrying over any one particular form of note-making.

What has this got to do with mind mapping? Are they suggesting that no technique is better than anyother in any situation? Again this is argument not reporting and what paper was this published in?

External links

I deleted a whole bunch of links which provided no extra information but simply went to commercial mind-mapping software providers. No mercy for wikispam!

I've seen similar links in other articles and I don't think of them as spam. After all, there are plenty of articles that essentially offer 100% free advertising on individual pieces of software. Links to commercial or open source mind mapping software doesn't seem inappropriate to me. And I hate spam as much as the next guy, If the links were totally random as you see in blog spam, that would be another story).

P.S. Please sign your comments folks. kthx.

--angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that those articles you indicated are about software that is so significant that the encyclopedia would be remiss to not have them. (See Wikipedia:Notability (software) for the guideline.) These links to non-notable software just don't compare. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, techically, as the mind map is simply a trademark, it could also be considered as spam. Oliver Y

The mind map is not simply a trademark. Only the mark "MIND MAP" is associated with a trade. The process isn't pantented, if that's what you're thinking. — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have added an external link about the rationale behind mind maps and a comparison with other note taking styles. The quotes are taken directly from the prime source (The Mind Map Book) by Tony Buzan. http://geocities.com/buzanguru/MindMapping1.html

As the entire article is already about explaining mind mapping, a poorly-written Geocities page about the same thing is redundant. Further, the page is blantantly promotional, making the link verge on spam. If you can offer a good reason to include this link in an encyclopedia, please do; I'll remove it later otherwise. — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I think the quotes could be useful though, as they are correct. I checked. I also altered the "popular with managers" and "used by millions of students" portions. According to research (and ask around a bit) they are advertised, and taught as part of seminars, but generally not adopted as a technique. Other graphic organisers are more common and powerful. Considering that note taking is their main purpose, and that note taking is used so widely this is an important point. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12028392&dopt=Abstract The efficacy of the 'mind map' study technique. Farrand P, Hussain F, Hennessy E.

I deleted the statement claiming that the more brain reflecting principles you follow, the more effective the mind map. There is no evidence for this, but evidence for the contrary. Also, the principles do not reflect what science can actually tell us about the brain. (according to this research (The efficacy of the mind map technique) Farrand et al 2001) Lets try to keep the spam at a minimum! Or banish it altogether.

http://www.mindmapsearch.org/ - maybe add this link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.113.223 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind mapping versus Concept mapping

I reverted the language contributed by 144.214.237.193 from the following paragraph because it is uncited and substantially non-NPOV (italics to show removed text):

• The idea is closely related to that of concept map, which originated in academic literature in the 1960's. The two techniques are distinct in that the mind map rationale is supported by pseudoscience and mind myths, whereas the concept map theory has had consistent support from rigorous psychological research.

The "rigorous psychological research", though possibly existing, isn't cited. Since this isn't a comparative article, I think it's inappropriate to talk about the legitimacy of concept maps when they have their own article. Given a source, I'd be happy to see this information included at concept map and let the See also link here at Mind map speak for itself. As for the claim that mind mapping is only supported by pseudoscience, this rightly belongs in the article only if a good source is provided.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just adjusted myth to urban myth (as recommended by wikipedia I think!) and added a relevant link. JuneD 23:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Saxifrage The mind myths link should clear up this point for you. There is a well supported reference (and some interesting reading:). Cheers Juniper

I'm afraid that still counts as not having any citation. Though the Mind myths article is interesting, there's no verifiable source that unconditionally shows that mind maps are based on mind myths and pseudoscience. I was concerned about this lack of link, not the lack of a definition for mind myths. I would change it to say that Sergio Della Sala says or claims that mind maps are based on mind myths, but I have no evidence for even that weak statement. Failing that, or new evidence being included in the article that demonstrates a connection, there's really nothing citable that can be salvaged from that section of text and it should be removed. I'll do so in a few days if you haven't responded.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded, I'm removing the section in question as uncited.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Saxifrage I've had a re-search and rearranged the section. I treated the mind myths common knowledge as a quote instead. Cheers Juniper

I see the Buzan quote you added in a different section, but there is still no justification for the assertion that mind maps are based on conjecture, pseudoscience, and "mind myths". Since that's no improvement over the wording I reverted before, I'm going to revert it again for the same reason (lacking citation).

If you would like some help in crafting a wording that is more appropriate while still meeting Wikipedia's standards for citations, why don't you post a suggested wording here and I (and whoever else would like to help) can help you work it into shape?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:41, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, on reflection I think you're correct, Saxifrage Cheers Juniper

Its definitel critical research, but certainly the researchers only set out to find out the actual efficacy, rather than to be critics. Best regards D.Right

The meaning of "critical" in this context has nothing to do with negativity. See Critic for the meaning of "critical".  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that mind mapping is superior to a concept map, or vi subversa, is like saying that an orange is superior to a banana quercus robur 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, but for the purpose of meaningful learning and understanding cognition, mind maps are bananas. DoctorDog 04:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition of mind map

I think an important feature that distinguishes the mind map from other forms, is the multicoloured or polychromatic feature with an image at its centre. The "theory" of a picture is worth a thousand words, the use of the left/right brain myth (images and words) and the assertion that colour stimulates the mind are essential key features of mind mapping. I am open to discussion on that one, as always though:) Cheers Juniper

OK, I agree. Paranoid 11:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Expand the HowTo?

I've tried and tried to use Mind Maps but they don't seem to help. Can we see a more substantial example than the two pages described? Perhaps mapping a well known example, like a Shakespearean play or something....

Inclusion of a How-To would be unencyclopedic. The section "Mind mapping guidelines" is a description for the sake of people reading the encyclopedia entry who wish to get a better image of what people do when they're mind-mapping, not a guide for how the reader can do it themselves. If anyone is interested in writing such a comprehensive How-To, though, I would encourage them to write it at Wikibooks, where it would be appropriate.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The mind map will not work to anywhere near the level the author claims. In this way it is guaranteed to disappoint. It may lead to you buying more books by the author in order to satisfy the dream though. Probably don't even bother. You may get some limited benefit, but you don't want to spend more than a few minutes on the technique. It will be a waste of time, it will not make you a genius, balance your cerebral cortices or lead to excellence or creativity. You will be able to learn really well using the range of sensible study techiques that go way beyond the Buzan map. Best regards 144.214.54.211 07:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the links to Cmap and Inspiration. They are generally used for concept mapping (and there is a vast difference in both theory and applicability). 144.214.54.211 07:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Research section changes

User:D.Right, please do not edit a section paraphrasing research so that it no longer reports the results of the research. The primary reason Farrand et. al. found for the low preference for mind mapping was due to its unfamiliarity, and that is how I phrased it. Removing that and including a reference to an unrelated research paper is misleading to the reader as to the actual results of the research.

The Rosenheck article, to which I have access, does not compare mind mapping to any form of mneumonic learning: in fact, it compared mneumonic learning to taxonomic and free-form study. Further, the research was on a body of information that was not of the same form or length as the Farrand et. al. research—in fact, it was on the order of 17 words and was focused on their heirarchical relations. Being irrelevant to this article, I have removed the reference.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. So much for burning the candle at both ends! The Rosenheck article should have read Hyerle, (1999), and Mastropieri (1995), and the general non-adoption of mind mapping beyond the flavour of the month in businesses was due to the look in addition to the unfamiliarity, "messiness", and anticlimax factors (Kwok et al, 2002). It seemed a little limiting to be working with a single and slightly promotional paper that seems to have been inspired by the hype (notice the Buzan literature quoted in the Farrand paper, and that the researchers were surprised at motivation being low). Just trying to make the research comparable to other methods. D.Right 07:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole?

I wrote "A mind map or mindmap is a revolution in human thought (Buzan 1991), will change your life (Buzan 2004), and will free you from the prison sentences of linear notes (Buzan 1991)." and it was removed. However, this information is quoted directly from the world expert on mind mapping (Tony Buzan). How can it be possible that is should be removed? Best regards NRaja 07:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buzan has written plenty of books about mind mapping, but Wikipedia is not one of his books. His hyperbole, if it should be quoted, should be clearly indicated as a direct quotation. Further, quotations are almost always not suitable for inclusion in the first paragraph of an encyclopedia article.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was the pesron who edited out the 'hyperbole', I actually agree with the points made, for me mind mapping turned around my own thinking patterns in very positive ways (see my rough notes mind map graphic within the article), however Wiki is about striving for NPOV, and just as we reject the exagerated negative attacks of those who seem to be anti-mind mapping, so too hyperbolic pro-mindmapping claims should be considered unhelpful within the context of an encyclopedic articel- sorry if I'm vague, been dri9nking all afternoon... Cheers quercus robur 21:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thats a good point. The image you posted is not really a mind map. I know the hype often states that even Davinci's notes and other such icons are mind maps (so you could probably even state that the swastika is a kind of mind map), but there is a very clear section in the mind map book that shows examples of what is not a mind map. Your image fits one of those non-mind map configurations. The top image may also be described as non mind map due to the lack of a central image. I'll make the appropriate adjustments. Regards EBlack 05:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. You really have got an anti-mind mapping agenda havn't you? In fact it might have slipped through if it weren't for that clumsy attempt at pushing your POV through in the form of your replacement graphic. BTW, my mind map does meet the criteria in that it does have a central image (a brain), hence that has gone back in as well. Regards quercus robur 08:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any reason to be disparaging. Take a closer look at the images of "mind maps that are not really mind maps" section in Buzan's Mind Map Book. You will notice that your mind map is similar to the non mind maps in that the links are pointing to seperate keywords. We need to use diagrams that are dissimilar from other forms of radial diagram. The mind map specifically has images at the centre, and keywords/phrases written in clear block lettering for clarity placed on the lines. We do need to be clear here. If my map is clumsy, then you will just have to forgive me. In form and content (personalization, free flow of ideas, and use of metaphor), it is a vast improvement on the previous imageless map that does nothing to enhance attention or mental stimulation. EBlack 09:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, but how about producing a demostration of a mindmap that isn't actually a snide representation of your own POV?

Snide? Well, I realize mind maps are often vague, personalized, and often open to interpretation. But if you look closely you will notice I have included keywords used in promoting mind maps, and keywords used in clarifying those claims. Regards EBlack 09:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its now the main article image and is an image representing your personal, negative POV on mindmaps. If it was an example further down, and labeled 'a mindmap representing some critical views of mind mapping' or somesuch it would be less problematic. As it stands its not only POV, its provocative.

I can't see how this can be provocative beyond the actual goal of mind mapping. And I don't know where you got the idea my changes are POV. I have only added balancing statements that point out claims as opposed to actual facts. Besides that, perhaps you havn't considered that placing a brain at the centre of a mindmap is extremely POV. Considering the subject matter of your mind map, a heart may well be more appropriate. EBlack 10:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You missed my point, that you have used your mind map as the key image of the article, mine is not.

Incidentally, though I think the image is wholly unacceptable and, indeed, it could be called $#&%$#!!, the textual edits you've made are entirely appropriate in that they represent the claims as claims, rather than facts. I'll support those wordings even while opposing the image.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I think the new image is a fine representation of both the aspects of mind mapping in practice, and what is on the wikipage, and it really is a big improvement on the last. Don't worry about QRobur, he's probably still tanked up. EBlack, it looks like an adaptation of the open source software, Freemind. Would you be able to direct me to the source?(I can place my email on my talk page if you like) Best regards D.Right 10:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new image is wholly unacceptable under the NPOV policy as unfairly representing the anti–mind mapping POV as more "correct" than the pro–mind mapping POV. Had the image included branches that represented both sides for completeness, it would be acceptably NPOV. As it stands, it should be removed from the article. Remember no spoon feeding.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers Saxifrage, I'm glad somebody else can see the obvious without being accused of being pissed! As said, i wouldn't have a problem with the image being further down the article, maybe in the 'criticisms' section with a relevant caption, its actually quite funny, but it is certainly inappropriate as the 'lead' image. I feel I'm repeating myself here- obviouly I'm pissed again! quercus robur 21:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now look here, chaps! I am quite into mind mapping, but I am getting a strong impression that you have both swallowed the hype without thinking. You really seem to be reaching if you want to call it spoonfeeding. A mind map is always open to interpretation, and you are obviously seeing this one with your own biases. But if its as simple as changing the perspective, then I can make it more palatable to the mind map devotees. I'll put some sugar on it for you when I make the adjustments. EBlack 05:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeaah. Okay, cut the smart-*** tone of voice, please. You can make it more palatable to mind-map devotees if you like, but that won't satisfy me as I'm not. I happen to be an NPOV devotee and originally came to this article as a balance between the anti- and pro- forces yanking this article around like a yarn doll. Remember than an unstable article is a bad article. I understand that you have an anti-mind-map bias, but please do try to keep it in check. We're much smarter than you give us credit, and your juvenile taunts about out interpretation of your mind map are passive-agressive and counter-productive. All of you, pro- and anti-, seem to forget that this is an article to inform the reader of an encyclopedia about everything around mind-mapping as a thing in our world. It's not your personal platform to enlighten people to the glory/danger of mind maps.

Incidentally, the image is still terrible. I know you're amused by the subtly of the anti-mind-mapping slights you have throughout the map, and you think it's appropriate since you think mind mapping is inherently flawed, but it's just making you look bad as a capable editor.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I actually like mind mapping. But I have noticed the more devoted followers tend to overreact as you have done when someone balances the hype. And calling people names such as smartass or snide? Thats not editing! And to refresh your memory: why would you personally want to keep commercial links on the site, and remove links that contain actual quotes from actual books written by the author? e.g. http://geocities.com/buzanguru/MindMapping1.html

Regards EBlack 04:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a follower of mind-mapping, don't do it myself, and generally dislike spatial note-taking methods. I also did not call you any names, I described your tone, which was belittling, and agreed that your image could probably be justifiably called snide. You yourself I don't know from Adam and don't really care what kind of person you are, as only your actions matter here. Talking down to people just isn't acceptable, and because it usually goes under people's radar (as passive-agressive behaviour is designed to do) I'm calling you on it so that I can ask you to stop it and start being a productive consensus-building editor.

I wanted to remove that link because the site is awful in terms of design, hype-filled, and not a respectable source for an encyclopedia. It makes WP look amateurish to cite that deplorable site as a source. If it's the quotes you want, the proper way to do that here is to cite the original source (Buzan's books) and include the quotes in the article itself. Linking an eyesore site is not the way to do it. As for why I would keep commerical links, you may be making a common mistake that commercial links are automatically bad at Wikipedia. Contrary to that common misunderstanding, links are kept or removed according to their use to readers and editors, not by whether the site makes money or is pro-bono. The only WP rule remotely resembling this non-existent no-commercial-link rule is an informal rule against linking to one's own site, which is usually the rule invoked against commercial linkspammers.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, D.Right. I developed it myself. I'll send you a link to my fileshare site. Best regards EBlack 10:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is an extremely marvelous image. The cow is a favourite and sacred icon of nurture, perseverance, and growth of my culture. I would be enormously grateful for a copy of the OS version also. Much thanks. NRaja 12:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing, NRaja. Just post your email on your talk page. But after this distribution, you can share amongst yourselves. Regards EBlack 04:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you EBlack its posted there now. BTW, I think some people here are being very unfair and abusive. Your new image is even more better than your previous. Its a clear demonstration of load reduction, balance, and a perfect example of a image centred radial diagram. Please keep it up. NRaja 12:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disapproving of the new image(even after requested changes) without disapproving of the non-mind map posted below? To believe there is a yarn doll struggle going on? That is unbalanced. Presently the page very reasonably covers: What a mind map is, what it does and what it is good for, and some clarifying examples, and the top mind map is exemplary and gives a very broad view of its presence in the world. Over the past few months the hype has been reduced, and fact and balance has greatly improved. The latest map is an obvious improvement, and unbalanced or unstable are not labels I would give to this wikipage. Concerning abuse; keep it to yourself. So much for "Harmonious Editing Club" members! DoctorDog 07:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Harmonious Editing Club, note that I'm talking rather than engaging in a revert war. The charter of this club is to "bind oneself to the rule of 'you can only revert once'" and to "politely remind others to not make abusive remarks". Thanks for reminding me of the polite part—it can be hard to keep up when calling people on the more subtle and frustrating anti-social behaviour. I'm not calling the current article unstable or unbalanced, either, just that I originally came here because I saw only pro- and anti- people editing and thought a non-involved editor would benefit the article. The yarn doll struggle was a while ago, and the current struggle is better than that was. I do think you're mistaken if you think there aren't active factions here, though.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Now that sounds more realistic! I'm sure it will go on improving. DoctorDog 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mind Map Utility

Thanks guys. I have to say, this article is very reassuring. I was inticed by the mind mapping marketing, but was concerned why it never delivered on the promise. I thought I must be stupid or something. There are promises of genius, increasing mental skills, increasing intelligence, balancing the brain etc. I followed them for quite some time with no good result. After reading your page, I understand that the Tony Buzan is just another charlatan snakeoil salesman. I do not need to go any further into mind mapping. You have saved me time and effort, and saved me from undue damage to my self esteem. Thanks much, Andy Ransom.

Shame you've rejected a useful thinking tool on the basis of biased stuff that has appeared in this article. Still, no skin off my chin as Judge Dredd would say.... quercus robur

Oh no, its good news. I actually rejected it based on the fact that it really doesn't work after repeated and persistent attempts to get the "revolution in human thought" to work, or to satisfy the claims that were promised. I don't think in terms of killer aps any more. So now I have real freedom and flexibility in my learning strategies. I think the label "Tony Buzan's mind traps(R)" would be more accurate. AndyRR 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Good for you. They work for me. Dunno about 'revolutions in thought' or what Tony Buzan claims, I just find they help to organise my notetaking, planning and recall skills. maybe your expectations were too high? quercus robur 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with quercus robur. I have found mind maps to have significant utility in taking lecture notes, or even just watching the news, recall, organising knowledge, preparing document organisation and developing web sites. Like any technique it has to be learnt well to be used well and this one is probably best for people who are visual learners. - 139.168.172.72 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--> Andy Ransom.... I cannot agree more. Plus I really like the way you put that. - Anonymous.

Accepted and original mind mapping

Hello all I included a section at the top of the page on original mind mapping, and as it is accepted outside of the present restriction to the radial mind mapTM. I feel it is important to make this improved definition, partly because people understand mind maps in this generic way (do a good search and look at the varieties), and because the mind map is something people have been using way before the present trademarked concern. Basically, just because someone has written a few books on mind mapping, it doesn't mean that they get authority on the definition. RegardsDRCoren 06:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this seems reasonable to me. I myself was taught mind mapping during the early 60s, well before the origin was claimed by Tony Busan. It emphasised good organisation, much as you would expect from a visual representation, and was applied to study and problem solving during a course in psychology. I could also get my hands on some refs that predate Busans claims. Regards DoctorDog 08:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Are we there yet?

Question asked by 219.43.110.40- not whilst the highly negative POV 'example' mindmap graphic remains on the page I'd say. quercus robur 01:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. The image is unprofessional at least, and certainly unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Apart from that, though, I don't think much real cleanup work has been done since the notice was put up.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mindmaps of Wikipedia

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but my question is: Is there also an online tool to see the Wikipedia articles as graphical mindmaps? Vdegroot 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I think that would be prohibitively processor-intensive. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WikiDraw. Example: Mind map of Linux wiki.--Dzulco (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrections to 'Origins' Section

I made some minor corrections to the Origins section: added a reference to Alfred Korzybski for general semantics, removed the reference to L. Ron Hubbard, who didn't use GS in his novels; claimed connections between GS and Dianetics are controversial. In general, resolved minor inconsistencies between the general semantics article and this one. -- Charlie (Colorado) 17:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Idea map

I feel there are basically the same ideas there, why not merge ? --Khalid hassani 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no research you have done just a feeling right - to show your claim as true.

Mind Mapping was the start of Idea Mapping HOWEVER it is not the same thing as it has taken a different shape over the past 20 years... Although idea mapping has a foundation in mind mapping, it does not hold to the laws of mind mapping. "Rules" are constantly broken based on the purpose and application of the map, on top of that other rules apply as well...

Lenroc1999 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mind Map article states:

Mind map guidelines "These are the foundation structures of a Mind Map, although these are open to free interpretation by the individual:" ... and then lists the 'guidelines'

Surely these can not be interpreted as 'rules' or 'laws'. I am not a researcher but have used what I call Mind Maps for many years now and cont really distinguish any material difference between what is called Idea Maps from what I think of as Mind Maps. DaveK@BTC 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Idea Map article does not, in itself, show any departure from the Mind Map concept. In that regard I think it would be better to add as a sub article to this one. If there is a demonstrable difference in technique or usage then that would justify a seperate article. Currently it just seems to show that "Mind Mapping is also known as Idea Mapping".

--DannyStevens 11:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind Mapping adheres to set of rules that are different then Idea Maps... The fact that the article states that "these are open to free interpretation by the individual" I belive is a fallacy in this article that should be corrected. I will ask the Idea Mapping book author to join this and comment as she begun as a mind mapping instructor for Buzan over 20 years back and she will be able to give you better understanding on how it is different.

Lenroc1999 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have edited the sentence in question to clarify that the 'mind mapping rules' are those suggested by Buzan. Whether one is 'allowed' to break those rules or not is largely moot, I suspect most people adapt and interpret the 'rules' to suit their own needs and style anyway :) quercus robur 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the only Senior Master trainer for the Buzan Organization until January 2006,and taught over 15,000 professionals to create mind maps along with certifying over 100 licensed instructors and Master Trainers from 24 countries. No where in any of past 15 years did we give permission to break the mind mapping laws -- especially for the instructors who would be modelling for others. If you look at Buzan's book "Use Both Sides of Your Brain" you will see the Laws in Chapter 7. No where in the chapter does it allow for people to "do their own thing" and still call it a mind map. Chapter 9 of The Mind Map Book by Buzan also refers to the laws, does not give license to break them, and in fact on page 111 one of the major headings reads "Mind Maps that aren't really Mind Maps". Examples of more Mind Maps that aren't really Mind Maps are on page 112. Even something as simple as using more than one word per branch is considered breaking the laws. With Buzan holding a registered trademark for something with a clear definition, I don't see how you can take an Idea Map which may deliberately break one if not multitudes of these laws (which Tony clearly says are not Mind Maps)and give them that name. No, Idea Mapping is a hybrid that takes its foundation from mind maps and allows the user to redefine and break laws to suit their own needs and purpose. This may mean that even the structure may look different. After years of business people's frustration with these laws it was time for a change.

Jamie Nast Ideamapping 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet 'law' number 8 suggests 'develop your own personal style'???? I alawys associated mind-maps with creativity, the rigidity that Buzan seems to wish to impose on 'his' trademarked 'idea' flies right in the face of the idea of personal creativity. I guess I'll carry on using and adapting mind-maps in ways which work for me until such time as the mind-map police knock on my door in the middle of the night to take me away for my thought-crimes!!! ;) quercus robur 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. The "laws" vs creativity just don't work for most people. I have seen many throw out the baby with the bath water because of this. I taught a class in Florida earlier this week. One of the participants was an MD that gave up on any mapping techniques (because of the laws) until she read 2 chapters in the Idea Mapping book -- Overcoming Obsticles and Breaking all the Rules. Idea mapping should not be associated with the need to follow these laws. Jamie Ideamapping 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideamapping (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

There seems to be a lot of 'issue' about Tony Buzan's copyright of Mind Mapping and its impact on the plain common sense merging of highly related material. How about we think out of the box on this one and merge Mind Maps into Idea Maps. To the average Joe they appear identical, it is just that one is, apparently, constrained by laws. Ergo if Idea Maps can't be Mind Maps, Mind Maps can surely be a constrained variety of Idea Maps. DaveK@BTC 10:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've merged in whatever appears to separate mind maps and idea maps from idea map and made it redirect here. Kimchi.sg 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only has this guy missunderstood the entire topic but he is off the wikipedia until 2008...this has to be reversed. I will contact the proper admins.Lenroc1999 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tools

Following discussion with Saxifrage, I have rationalised the list of Mind Mapping software out to a page of its own which can be linked to from elsewhere. The idea is to have one consistent list to which all related entries can link. Evolvon 12:16, 31 October 2006 (GMT + 1)

'Very complete'?

I find the following: "A very complete list of mind mapping software: http://www.mind-mapping.org/".

Something is complete or it's not. There is no such thing as 'very complete'.

I would like to change 'very complete' to 'comprehensive'. Comments?

Bellthorpe 11:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have made that change.

Single mindmapping product removed

Removed * On-line mind mapping This would be appropriate in the article on mind mapping software.

Research on "left to right" mind mapping style

This section on purported research cites no sources, has grammatical errors and makes incorrect assumptions - for example, that all mind mapping software lays out the mind map afresh ("relayouted") when new topics are added. It does not even explain properly what the neologism "left to right mind mapping is".

I would happily correct the grammar, if I felt that the content was salvagable, but I do not. In addition, the content does not display a NPV. The four paragraphs appear to be a self-serving introduction leading to a link to the same software product mentioned in the section immediately above.

I propose that this section be removed. Other views?

Agreed, untill WP:ATTsources are found.Tmtoulouse 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to proposal to clean up external links

I have removed links to: "tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwbc/ World Wide Brain Club - group for discussion of Mind Mapping and mnemonics". I subscribed to the above group at one time and it varies from interesting to off-the-wall, but I did not find it at all a good primary source for information about mind mapping.

I have removed links to: "www.mindmapoptions.com Mind Map Options - selected mind map links" because this seems geared towards Adsense links around mind mapping. Each page has "Ads by Google" panels in two or three places and the other content is doubtful. For example, the "About mind maps" page appears to be aimed at selling a book, the mind map gallery points at other gallery sites but has no mind maps in it, and similar categorization could reasonably be applied to other pages.

I have removed links to: "mindmappingsuccess.com/clientmaps.cfm Idea Mapping Success - collection of publicly posted Idea Maps". This may be a candidate for future inclusion but it has few maps at present (77) compared with the "Directory of mind maps" at the foot of the external links, which has 600.

In my view, the other links are neutral and relevant. Argey 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo in "mind map guidelines" image

There is quite a prominent typo in the "mind map guidelines" image. Hierarchy is misspelled as "heirarchy". How do I go about amending that? Ft. Jack Hackett 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) addendum: just noticed the image name and description misspells "guidelines", too.

External links again

I put a new entry: WikiDraw and have been deleted. Why? this software show the wiki content like a mind map. Is a mushup using wikipedia like data source. This software is not commercial is a proyect made by university students. Wikimindmap is not commercial? --Dzulco (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI, which have all been pointed out to you already. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I read, and now answer me the question (again): WikiMindMap is not commercial? There does exist WP:COI?--Dzulco (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked why yours was deleted and have received an answer. Perhaps Wikimindmap should be removed as well, but that is not relevant to why your link has been removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant because both software are mind maps of wiki content and the rules of Wikipedia are the same. Wikimindmap must be removed or WikiDraw must be added. --Dzulco (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Both EL must be stay or almost all EL in this page should be removed with that thought.--190.16.199.50 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I have stripped to the two EL that I think fit EL standards. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind Map, Brain Storm, Spider Diagram, Thought Showers

Schools often relate each of the above terms as the same thing. Politcal correctness has it that the term "Brain Storm" can be deemed as offensive and thus the word "Thought Shower" should take it's place. This too could

Wikipedia use policy violation

I'm a longtime reader/user of Wikipedia; this is my first post. I recently purchased an ebook in which two appendices have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, one of them from this section on mind-mapping. The material was not similar in tone to the rest of the book, so I put it into a search engine and turned up the Wikipedia source. When I contacted the author, the author said it was an oversight and will now cite Wikipedia as the source, though presumably the author will continue to sell the material and put his own copyright on it.

I wanted to check with authors of this section to see 1) what action you recommend and 2) if anyone is interested in taking this up as well.

Why do I care? Because I admire Wikipedia and believe in building the cultural commons, I find this sort of piracy repugnant.

If this isn't the appropriate forum for this, I didn't know where else to bring it, and I wanted to go to authors before I went to Wikipedia staff.

OrangeBlueRed (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

External links yet again

An admin took down the two links I added to the Mind mapping article, citing "WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK" as the cause (Feb. 25th, '09). This is interesting, since I don't see how either link falls into these two categories, compared to the existing external links? "My" links contain no blatant advertising that I can see; they seem to contain good information (which, in turn, led me to utilize this method of note-taking, as well as purchase a mind mapping program), and so I added them to augment the existing resources already dealing with "how to create a mind map".
In fact, the first of the existing links contains generous references to "Sotopia" and "MindGenius"; the second seems like nothing as much as bait for a training seminar. And both links seem to contain far less factual information about the actual subject than do the links I added (for mindmapping.com and mindmappingsoftwareblog.com respectively).
I vote for the inclusion of mindmapping.com on the list, at least, as this was an excellent source for me when I started out. The admin in question (Ronz) seems to agree ever so slightly, although he doesn't seem completely sold on the idea. I'd appreciate some thoughts on this matter. Don Gis (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think one or two links on how to make mind maps should be enough.

Blogs should not be included per WP:ELNO #11. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected: not an admin. And I see why the software blog shouldn't be included. I still think mindmapping.com would make a far better informational link than the first of the current ones (mapyourmind.com). Don Gis (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

mindmapping.com is run by Matchware to promote their product. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, that isn't exactly much better. How'd you find out? There's quite a big link to their product in the left column, but what else? And is this much worse than the mapyourmind.com-site? At least the mindmapping.com-one has some thorough information (and as for the promoting, I still ended up buying MindJet MindManager, so MatchWare's advertising didn't work in my case)... Don Gis (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but I removed them all except mind-mapping.org as a possible solution. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the external link "Peter Russell's complete list of Mind Mapping software" from this article to to the mind mapping software article where it more clearly belongs than here. (There I removed the word 'complete', as it obviously is not, but that's another matter.)

I also added a link to a wiki that has many articles covering different aspects of mind mapping and goes into matters more extensively than would be appropriate in a single Wikipedia article. Argey (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

-6% increase?

In "Effectiveness in learning" section, there is a phrase reading "-6% increase". I think it should be replaced by "6% decrease", as it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.185.2 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Mind Mapping section from Buzan's iMindMap

Buzan's_iMindMap#Mind_Mapping should be merged into this article, leaving a link and a very brief summary. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Since this request has been posted for almost a year, I will make the edit this month unless someone objects. --winterstein (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree and have now removed the section. I think it was all covered in this article anyway, one way or another, so didn't do any merging. Argey (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

These are just graphs

All this is is a mathematical graph; it's really not anything new or innovative, it's just a standard way of drawing any many-to-many relationship amongst items. Wikipedia should not be promoting a trademarked term for this. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. They are also not system diagrams nor are they UML charts of any sort.The term mathematical graph could encompass enough stuff to make all articles on any form of graphical modelling into the one subject. Why not go the whole hog and say Wikipedia is just a description of everything so we don't need all these sub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.58.154 (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now that I've looked at the collection of different ones on Commons I see that you're right; before now everything I had seen referred to as a "mind map" looked like this, maybe I was only seeing ones that had been generated by a particular software package. I've also worked with people who would refer to any illustration of a graph they saw as a mind map. But it seems like it's the other way around; the concept of a mind map is so broad that it can encompass mathematical graphs, fishbone diagrams, and a bunch of other forms besides. That actually makes it seem even more to me like it's a brand rather than a discrete concept.

But if the guy has a strong enough brand that he's got some people convinced that just about any relational diagram should be called a "mind map" he probably deserves an article on that brand, at least... however this article should really be trimmed down in its scope and claims. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however then the page for Idea Maps which claimed and showed thru the published book by the same name serious differences to Mind Maps and was merged into Mind Map should be revived as well. Buzan has had and currently holds the trademark for Mind Map so in that respect I suggest that the page be looked at seriously. Lenroc1999 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please split back Idea Map from Mind Map

I am not sure how to suggest that an old merge be un-merged; namely Idea Map which I know is different than a Mind Map - there was a misunderstanding a couple years ago and they were merged. you can see the discussion on this page, one of the participants was a Mind Map trainer for a number of years and she explains it eloquently. Since the term "Mind Maps" is trademarked by Buzan; the term clearly expresses his rules definitely apply to the maps you can call "Mind Maps". Idea Maps do not obey the rules set forth by Buzan so in this case should it not exist as a separate page, since they can not be called Mind Maps by trademark laws? you can check his trademark at the US Trademark Office Database http://tess2.uspto.gov/ Lenroc1999 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the reference at USPTO, you will see that the Buzan Organization trademark applies only to "EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY, CONDUCTING COURSES IN SELF-IMPROVEMENT" (their caps). The trademark does not restrict the use of the term in other contexts. This is already stated in the article itself here: Mind map, Trademarks. There may be other reasons for splitting off "idea maps" (I don't think there are myself) but trade mark ownership is not a good basis. Argey (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

“Idea Mapping” is different than “Mind Mapping” for several reasons:

1. By definition Mind Mapping follows a specific set of laws or it is not considered a mind map. This is how they were able to get the Trademark by setting up these Laws which define a mind map.

2. The laws specifically state (among many items) that you can only have a single word per branch. Otherwise it is not a mind map. Idea maps allow for multiple words per branch.

3. Another law is that you should limit the number of main branches to 7-9. Again these restrictions are eliminated in idea mapping.

4. Another law states you must use color. Idea Mapping eliminates that restriction as well. Sometime color is a waste of time or unnecessary based on the purpose.

Many people get frustrated with these and other laws and some have thrown out the tool because they felt their creativity was being hampered (especially by the one-word-per-line law). The use of the laws or better “guidelines” should be determined by the application and purpose for creating the idea map to begin with — not because of a set of rules. The main purposes for using Idea Mapping could be described as follows: Idea Mapping is the single most useful tool I’ve found that helps individuals and organizations improve productivity, clarify thinking, communicate visually, improve memory and save time while effectively organizing and managing large amounts of complex information – all in a single view .” The applications of Idea Mapping in the business world are infinite and growing constantly. Self development ranks low in the business uses of Idea Mapping. Please consider separating Idea Mapping from Mind Mapping as they are not the same and do not follow the same laws. Ideamapping (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You say "By definition Mind Mapping follows a specific set of laws or it is not considered a mind map." This could have been argued once, but now "mind map" has a widespread usage that extends well beyond the Buzan defined rules. While Buzan held the trademark for "Mind maps" as applicable to a style of cognitive maps limited by rules he stated, limiting the term to maps following those rules may have been justified. Later that trademark failed to be renewed and when a reapplication was made, the USPTO granted it only in the context of courses, as I mentioned in an earlier comment. The term "mind map" has since become so widely used for bubble-diagrams, spidergrams, spider diagrams and other forms, that it is not helpful to fragment this WP article into many sub-types under terms that many mappers would not know. In addition those terms have other meanings as well. You can find a useful comment about the trademark in this article (scroll down to the first comment by "Euan"). In passing, I'll mention that the difference in structure and use of concept maps, and their clear definition, does justify the separate article that exists in WP. Argey (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Web-Based Mindmap

We come up with a Web-Based open Mindmap service called OKmindmap. It supports collaboration, image and video embedding, SNS (facebook, twitter, and Delicious) integration, and conversion to PPT and wiki. Service available on http://okmindmap.com, more information on http://wiki.modulestudy.com/index.php/OKmindmap_Web_Mindmap . Your comments are welcomed!

Criticisms?

The mind maps certainly "work" for their writers, just like any notes and maps work like reminders, but the Buzan theory behind Mind Maps seems like pseudo-science to me:

mind map is a vastly superior note taking method because it does not lead to a "semi-hypnotic trance" state induced by other note forms

OK, so Buzan is much more knowledgeable about hypnosis than the science community is?

taps into the alleged "99% of your unused mental potential", as

is the standard marker for certified pseudo-science, since real neuro-physicians univocally allege that we already use something like 90-95% of our mental capability, making a sum around 189-194% ...

My conclusion: there should be some pretty harsh dismissals from academics about the irreality of the marketing mumbo-jumbo of Mind Maps. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say: those dismissals should be in the article: academic dismissals are high-ranked sources and necessary for the reliability of Wikipedia. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry me sloppy: there's already adequate criticisms there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We use about 0% of our mental capacity under the very reasonable Extended Mind hypothesis, which is not pseudoscience, though not science either. PPdd (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind maps seem like a dated representation for Semi-structured data. With modern text editors you cat have the same use-cases with via hierarchical notetaking. You can use bookmark managers to take notes, providing you with the ability to quickly rearrange your ideas simply by dragging bookmark folders up and down. This allows for quick search and accumulation of years worth of "mind maps", with about a 90-95% recovery of old "maps". By dragging and dropping recently used items, frequently used "maps" come up faster and also preserve context. In Computer science this is known as a self-balancing Splay tree. You can leave off, come back tomorrow, then see what's at the top of the stack and continue where you left off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.228 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

MEMORY IMPROVEMENT

DURING WORKING OUR MIND FOR SHORT INTERVAL STOP WORKING ,PLEASE GIVE ME A SOLUTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.141.54 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You may be referring to a maladaptive brain activity change. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sample

File:Sample-copy.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.7.48 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)