Talk:Definitions
For major concepts please always link to an article - no definition should exceed a small paragraph, for anything longer create an article
Please maintain alphabetical listing
As this article grows it may be split into sub-sections.
Proposal: merge Definitions and Concepts into Glossary -----Luca OrlassinoT-A-L-K 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Method
Proposal - Revise the definition as follows "A Method is a repeatable process, relying on certain concepts, frameworks, and principles, that produces desired outputs out of certain inputs, in a certain context, for a certain purpose", and expand the other aspects of the concept in a "Method" dedicated page to be created. -----Luca OrlassinoT-A-L-K 10:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Specific vs General Epistemology/Ontology/Semiotics/Phenomenology
The request was to add a definition of AN epistemology, AN ontology, A semiotics and A phenomenology. The definitions are of the fields more generally and less helpful in terms of understanding, for example, philosophical groupings of ideas in the context of Cynefin (rather than in general).— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCrowe (talk • contribs)
- If you want to give it more pertinence in regards to Cynefin, I would offer to put directly "The epistemology of Cynefin" etc and give your definition. Because by using "A", it remains vague. It's like saying what is the definition of "A science", but you're still not saying which science, whereas if you're saying "The science of physics", then you can become more precise. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, my suspicion is that Cynefin doesn't have a single ontology or epistemology? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That would mean people are competing about what exactly Cynefin is about. Do you think it's the case? Because that would mean you'll start having different branches within Cynefin where people start creating different type of specific knowledge related to different ways to embrace the terms. I would say for now it remains consistent and didn't branch, but maybe I'm wrong. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it means that there are competing versions of Cynefin, but that different (for example) ontologies are used depending on the particular problem at hand. I think I need to think about that more, but I think Cynefin is quite pragmatic rather than principled ontologically? --DavidCrowe (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Apparently in Computer Sciences ontology means something else than in Philosophy. That could bring up misunderstandings and different views. ---Corinalupu (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it means that there are competing versions of Cynefin, but that different (for example) ontologies are used depending on the particular problem at hand. I think I need to think about that more, but I think Cynefin is quite pragmatic rather than principled ontologically? --DavidCrowe (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That would mean people are competing about what exactly Cynefin is about. Do you think it's the case? Because that would mean you'll start having different branches within Cynefin where people start creating different type of specific knowledge related to different ways to embrace the terms. I would say for now it remains consistent and didn't branch, but maybe I'm wrong. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, my suspicion is that Cynefin doesn't have a single ontology or epistemology? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Should we offer definitions available on Wikipedia/elsewhere?
This wiki should be more than just a collection of information you can obtain elsewhere, so echoing definitions (from Wikipedia, for example) adds little value, and will require maintenance should the external definition change. I'm of the opinion that definitions should be original and not duplications. (Repetition without creativity is a dead act.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCrowe (talk • contribs)
- I am not sure how useful it is to copy definitions that exist elsewhere either. But, for me, either those definitions disappear and the terms are linked to the wikipedia content, either we take directly the definition created by specialists. Because unless the goal is to define terms which are specific to Cynefin (like Cynefin), I don't see the point in inventing our own definition of terms already well referenced by experts. To me it would be like saying, because I am using the word "chair", I want to create my own definition instead of duplicating the one in the dictionary. But maybe I'm misunderstanding, and you had something else in mind. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I guess my point was more that if the word is better defined elsewhere, should we be defining it? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, then I totally agree with you. Maybe the standard definitions could be erased and then we would add a link to wikipedia when used in a generic sense. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I guess my point was more that if the word is better defined elsewhere, should we be defining it? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)