Talk:Structural information theory

A lot of the text of the article appears to be identical to this page: https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0084530/doc/sit.html. Is this plagiarism, and if so, in which direction? --Rmalouf (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

COI Template

The primary author of this article may have placed undue weight on the research of van der Helm. Seven refs are sourced to this individual. External links were made to this individual's personal pages, here and elsewhere. Significant chunks of text appear to be copied or rephrased from this individual's website[1], as someone else as noted above. I deleted an entire section on Transparallel processing and Transparallel mind, two articles deleted at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Transparallel_processing, as the research of this individual which and has gained no known secondary recognition. I tried to clean up a little, but I fear we may need to revert to this stub unless we get a knowledgeable editor to review this. Alsee (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Out the 13 sources currently in the reference list, 7 of them cite van der Helm's work and papers he co-authored with Leeuwenberg and/or van Lier and the others don't do anything to support the notability of the subject. Out of the 6 non-van der Helm citations, all but 1 were published decades before van der Helm's studies, one as early as 1909. It sounds like a violatation of WP:OR at a minimum, if not WP:PLAGIARISM. Alsee, even if its reverted to the stub you linked, there are still major problems. The only 2 citations in that version are to broken links, so it's essentially unsourced. This is far from my speciality, so I can't say off the top of my head if sufficient secondary and tertiary sources exist about this subject that it would meet WP:NOTABILITY for its own article. I thought this review from 2015 of 2 books by van der Helm and Leeuwenberg was interesting. Note: I only skimmed the review and I have no idea if Perception is a reputable journal or if there's any connection between the authors, so that should be explored if this article is going to stick around. These parts were interesting though,

In the slipstream of the many publications surrounding the centennial anniversary of gestalt psychology (100 years after Wertheimer’s landmark paper in 1912), Cambridge University Press published two books authored by two of the proponents who kept some of the ideas of gestalt psychology alive, in a period when its popularity had declined so much that it was almost declared dead. Both books, the first coauthored by Emanuel Leeuwenberg and Peter van der Helm and the second written by van der Helm on his own, represent a somewhat unconventional approach to one of the core principles of gestalt thinking...I worry that it will not lead many researchers to use SIT as a basis of their own theoretical and empirical work as the approach taken seems somewhat too detached from mainstream vision science (eg the reference list is strongly biased to the authors’ own work and slightly outdated).

Would it make sense to condense this article (<5 sentences) and nest it under gestalt psychology in a controversial section or something like that? If not, does it belong on Wikipedia at all? Permstrump (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting review you found. It seems to confirm legitimacy, but it also seems to imply non-Notability. I can't quite decide what to do here. I think I'll let it sit a while and see if we get any more input. There are posts on two apparently-dead wikiprojects and here.

Perception Journal: It had an impact factor of 0.9 last year, and ~1.3 most years. I get the impression that is a rather low figure. Alsee (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)