Talk:Conceptualization (information science)

Combining pages

The article Conceptualization has been combined with this article, and Conceptualization is now a redirect to this article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of figure

In this edit Snowded removed the figure at the right with the comment Original research deleted. The view that this figure constitutes 'original research' is untrue. It parallels exactly the text deleted by Snowded and supported by Gruber. See next item on this Talk page.

This figure is exactly parallel to the text, and the text is not 'original research'. In the text it is pointed out that a conceptualization is an extraction from the world and leads via a specialization of language to one or more ontologies, and in each ontology a subset of items and relations is that ontology's 'ontological commitment'.

The figure is a hybrid of two separate figures that appear in two of the references for the article.[1], [2] If there is any specific objection to the figure that might be 'original research' it would be helpful to have these features identified explicitly.

I have itemized the original sources for the drawing in a footnote within its caption and reinstated the figure. Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the figure is not particularly helpful and as you admit is a synthesis of other material. This was very clear in my edit summary and I am only repeating it heresy as you seem unable to realise that the edit summary is sufficient explanation. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The helpfulness of the figure is not something you can establish by your personal opinon. Obviously the cited sources and myself think a figure is useful. Your notion appears to be that any original figure is OR regardless of its content, which is not a WP policy and is not consistent with the idea of OR. The figure would be OR if it were not consistent with the sourced text, but it is. So, if you have particular complaints about the figure, articulate them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is its usefulness established by your opinion Brews. To repeat you have synthesised two pictures and the it has little utility anyway. If others agree with you then it could be reinstated, but I don't so the prior position stands. Now please STOP this, you have been banned for a month and you are straight back to your old habits of insisting you are right, ignoring edit summary comments and generally exhibiting major [[WP:OWN|ownership issues with any article you work on. You also continually push the boundaries of OR and Synthesis. This has been explained to you by several editors on several articles and on EVERY RfC you have raised. You really should be getting the message by now. I suggest you self-revert as a gesture that you have understood this. If not I will ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: I have requested specific comment and you refuse. I have supplied this figure as a version of figures found useful by published authors. You have made no attempt to specify your objections beyond your personal opinion about utility. Your blather about my record here in trying to deal with your innumerable objections using this same vague and unjustified obstructionism is no basis for rejecting this figure. Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made specific comments Brews you just don't agree with them; that happens. Your record I am afraid speaks to the issue of your inability to work with other editors. I'm going to the Opera here in Seattle so you have a few hours to reflect. But it its still there when I come back it gets removed for the reasons I have already stated. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: As long as the figure describes sourced text accurately it is not original research any more than the text it illustrates. That is why I have asked repeatedly, and without response form you, for specific indications of how the figure fails to be an accurate depiction of the text. Can you do that?? Please. Brews ohare (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is discouraged Brews (as you admitted before you just removed that), and it adds nothing of any value to the text. Now that is a matter of opinion, and your's is no more valid than mine. So if we don't agree and other editors don't engage, then it's not right for you to add it. Its also wrong for you to keep adding it back in after it has been removed before there is agreement here. Oh and the reference is misleading, you created that picture ----Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the question of utility were only between you and I, then its inclusion would be warranted, assuming we have equal votes, because it is well known that some fraction of the population prefers a figure to text. Ostensibly, you belong to one fraction and I to the other. But in fact very similar figures are found in the cited works, suggesting you are outnumbered so far.

And as for my reinsertion of the figure, here I question why your removal of the figure is more privileged than my initial introduction of the figure when writing this article. You have made zero objection to the figure based upon its felicity to the (sourced) text. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD and also WP:SYNTH both of which apply. If an edit is disputed it does not stand until there is consensus. I'd also say that its not particularily attractive, distorts the opening paragraph and provides a restricted view of a complex issue. Basically you need to learn that you can't just decide you are right when there is a disagreement and that wikipedia defaults to prior text if there is a disagreement ----Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as I am entirely responsible for all versions of this article before your appearance here, I'd say the 'original' version has the figure. As for your artistic evaluation - well chacun son goût. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding material to Wikipedia Brews. Read WP:OWN. I am deleting it, you do not have agreement to its inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have agreement with whom, exactly? I wrote this article, you have critiqued it - there isn't anybody else. No reason to think your own opinion trumps my own, nor to imagine some outside parties have had something to say. You could of course try to pitch in and help make the article better. Brews ohare (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{od}In the absence of other editors it is just me. I am not sure of the utility of the article, but it is "mostly harmless" so I am confining myself to ensuring it does not become a personal essay, with your own personal illustrations. My opinion does not trump yours, but for the inclusion of material you do need to have consensus, you don't. I am doing my best to let you develop content, but it would be a lot easier if you avoided synthesis, using single references to assert a position etc. etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now, Snowded, your goal is to help me create a better article. Such help could evolve from specific suggestions, for example, in what way the figure is inaccurate. I've asked for this kind of help several times already, but it is not forthcoming. Instead, you have summarily deleted it based upon your own view that it is "not particularly attractive, distorts the opening paragraph and provides a restricted view of a complex issue". The issue of attractiveness is a non-starter. The question of distortion of the text could be serious, but no distortion has been identified, and in fact, there is none. The issue of a 'restricted' view can be taken various ways without any specifics. I'd say the figure illustrates the connection between the terms 'conceptualization', 'ontology' and 'ontological commitment'. Of course these terms do not exhaust the subject of ontology matching, but that is not the intention.

Also, the figure parallels those cited in its caption, so it is not as though it sprang out of nowhere. The 'world', the 'conceptualization' and the 'ontology' tree is topologically exactly that of van Harmelen The interior ovals representing 'ontological commitment' are exactly what is described in the footnotes defining ontological commitment referring to Gibson and to Ceccaroni & Ribiere.

If your goal is to be helpful, then you might consider actually pointing out what you object to in terms of specific recommendations rather than vague generalities which have no apparent relevance without details. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above is further evidence that you are creating a synthesis Brews. One of your sources is a slide set, not normally considered reliable but if it was it distinguishes between concept and agreement on conceptualisation. You can't go from that to the use of conceptualisation on your other source which also makes a key distinction between models and intended models. One source shows commitment as a direction you use it as an overriding description of different ontologies. Its all your interpretation. It's not helpful ----Snowded ^TALK 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded; If you read the sources and looked carefully at the figure you would see that it is a completely accurate picture of the relations between the terms identified in the figure. This figure is not the same as the two related figures; it just uses some of the same elements. Guarino's figure is not clearly reproduced on line, but if you look closely at his Figure 1 you will see a poorly reproduced oval called 'ontology' interior to the oval for 'models'. The oval interior to that oval, labeled "intended models" by Guarino, is pointed out by him to reflect ontological commitment. They are a subset. There is no need to dispute vocabulary as the definitions of Gibson and Ceccaroni & Ribiere are clearly demonstrated in the new WP figure. If you actually think there are real discrepancies between the indicated terms in the figure and their use in the text, point them out, please. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you have one source only (a weakness with the whole article) and you are attempting to summarise that in a form that the author of the article did not think appropriate, then combine it with an illustration from a powerpoint slide set? This is not the place for you to write essays or create your own abstractions. Its all your interpretation. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: The WP figure is a representation of the text, and how well or how poorly it corresponds to the figures of Guarino and van Harmelen is not an issue. The WP figure accurately represents the text, as I guess you agree having never proposed any discrepancy. That is all it is supposed to do. Where your idea comes from that there is only one source, I don't know. There are 10 sources cited. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OR: " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The provided figure satisfies this requirement. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only have one source for the picture that counts, a slide set does not. Otherwise the bulk of the article has limited sourcing - hence some of my changes. That is OK for an article that is in the early stages of creation by the way but it means we have to be careful. Now you are shifting your grounds from saying it put two diagrams together to providing a summary of various texts. That just makes it worse in terms of both OR and Synthesis. You have had running problems on this issue over multiple articles and with several editors. We represent what the sources say, we do not synthesis or interpret those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, I do not wish to offend you, but there is a misconception in your approach to this figure. The WP figure stands or falls upon its accuracy in representing the text, in this case, the relation between the terms 'conceptualization', 'ontology', and 'ontological commitment'. Although the two published figures did suggest to me the form of this WP figure, that is immaterial. If I had come up with this figure completely from my own imagination, that would be fine. According to WP:OR even if nothing like this figure exists anywhere else, it is acceptable on WP. The pertinent question is only this: Does the figure convey correctly the vocabulary it is intended to illustrate? Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of reference to Gruber.

In this edit and this edit Snowded removed the following text and source:

An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies.[1] A conceptualization is language abstract, while an ontology is language specific.

[1]Gruber, Thomas R. (1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications" (PDF). Knowledge Acquisition. 5 (2): 199–220. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The reason give was that reference only supports the first phrase as far as I can see. That reason would suggest questioning the last sentence, not removal of the first sentence and its support. The second sentence is a modification of one in another source. It can be argued about elsewhere. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for deleted sentence

In this edit, rather than request a source, Snowded removed the statement:

A conceptualization is language abstract, while an ontology is language specific.

I have replaced this statement with a direct quote from Guarino:

"An ontology is language-dependent, while a conceptualization is language-independent."

The original sentence makes more sense to the reader because it is ambiguous to claim that a conceptualization is language independent: after all, the purpose of the conceptualization is to discuss its ontologies, which obviously requires some form of language. Guarion is using 'language' to mean a very specific formal language. and not a more general form of language.

This is simply an example where insistence upon a verbatim sourced quote is less successful than a paraphrase that fits the meaning better, but unfortunately can be wikilawyered. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted two quotes of wording from Guarino that may get the idea across without a paraphrase. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence makes a difference Brews so lets keep with the sources shall we----Snowded ^TALK 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the sequence of the quotes from Guarino is unchanged. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinence of translation to ontology comparisons

In this edit Snowded removed a discussion of translation between languages as an example of the difficulties in comparing ontologies in information science. That discussion was as follows:

An example of the problems encountered in comparing ontologies is found in translation between human languages. Ostensibly, as all humans live in the same world and have the same physical senses with which to see the world, one might expect to correlate human activity with language and thereby make rules for translation. However, that view is utopian because humans act upon cultural interpretation of their surroundings, and relating two cultures is an entirely different matter than understanding what term in both represents a 'rabbit'.[1],[2] Some suggest that humans think in 'mentalese', but so far we don't have access to this level of conceptualization.[3]

[1] Willard v. O. Quine (2013). Word and Object (PDF) (New ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 9780262518314. Quine raised the issue of translation and 'holophrastic' indeterminacy of translation in a series of books and papers. He famously introduced the example of interpreting the word 'gavagai' in a hypothetical language where it might mean 'rabbit', but had to be distinguished from various other things related to a rabbit.

[2] Crispin Wright (1999). "Chapter 16: The indeterminacy of translation". In Bob Hale, Crispin Wright, eds (ed.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 397. ISBN 0631213260. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) "Quine's contention that translation is indeterminate has been among the most widely discussed and controversial theses in modern analytical philosophy."

[3] Murat Aydede (September 17, 2010). Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "The language of thought hypothesis". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

The pertinence of translation to comparison of ontologies is unarguable in the realm of philosophy, and is the subject of many WP articles. The main difference between that discussion and the corresponding discussion in information systems is that the ontologies involved in language comparisons are more complex and less explicitly defined than those involved in information systems. Nonetheless, the problems involved are similar, as discussed by Gruber in his work "A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification" and more generally by Smith who compares philosophy and information science.

If there are specific questions about this example, it would be helpful to have them articulated. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I've also read this prior discussion to contextualize this RfC. This was largely an intractable debate between two participants and is a pretty solid of example of a discussion that produced more heat than light. I agree with Jreferee's assessment that the basic question of whether the image violates WP:SYNTH or WP:OR has not been answered. Simply using two reference sources to create a diagram does not necessarily constitute synthesis if the diagram does not make any original claims. It was asserted that the diagram "actually contradicts one of his original sources", but it was not clearly explained why this was the case. In fact, many assertions about synthesis were not substantiated. The only explanation of this was here, and was not clearly articulated in this discussion:

One of your sources is a slide set, not normally considered reliable but if it was it distinguishes between concept and agreement on conceptualisation. You can't go from that to the use of conceptualisation on your other source which also makes a key distinction between models and intended models. One source shows commitment as a direction you use it as an overriding description of different ontologies.

The consensus on this argument was unclear, because the only two participants were in stark disagreement, and more outside participation was required. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, this point was not explicitly described in this RfC and could not be further clarified or examined.

Based on these conclusions, I am inclined to determine that consensus was in favor of including of the image with no prejudice against the concerns brought up by Snowded, which will require more discussion from outside editors if this image is discussed in the future. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ontological commitments.png restored per the above close. Cunard (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A figure is proposed to illustrate the relation between several terms used in the discussion of Conceptualization (information science). Comments are solicited as to whether it should be included in the article as it is, or whether modifications should be made. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is shown to the right. The question is whether the figure helps to understand the text for those readers who have a visual orientation in assimilating information, and whether some modification would improve its clarity.

WP policy governing original images is found in WP:OR#Original images.

The terms 'conceptualization' and 'ontology' are described in the introduction. The term 'ontological commitment' is defined in two footnotes to the second subsection.

The elements of the figure have similarities with Figure 1 in Guarino and to Slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen. However, the figure is a representation of the usage of terms defined in the text of the WP article. How its genesis was inspired by the figures of Guarino and van Harmelen is not the issue.

Comments

This RfC is a result of an impasse between Snowded and myself described in this section of the Talk page. Snowded has raised the issue of OR. According to WP:OR: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"

Discussion of this figure therefore is not about WP:OR, nor about hypothetical conjectures upon the circumstances of its birth, but is to be based upon (i) its utility, and (ii) its fidelity to the text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See arguments above (OR and/or Synthesis by the way). Brews started off by saying he had put together two images, one from an article one from a powerpoint slide set! Then he moved his grounds to say it was a representation of the text. In other words his interpretation of the text in a form which actually contradicts one of his original sources. The diagram by the way despite its claimed origins was created by Brews. This has also been raised by Brews here at the NOR notice board and the only other editor involved has also expressed concerns at attempting to summarise text.----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment addresses neither (i) utility, nor (ii) fidelity of the diagram. Any 'contradiction' has not been identified. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OR even if nothing like this figure exists anywhere else, it is acceptable on WP. The pertinent question is only this: Does the figure convey correctly the vocabulary it is intended to illustrate? Brews ohare (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram is not exempt from normal sourcing rules Brews, and this one of yours is synthesis per my various comments above ----Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment directly contradicts WP:OR#Original images, which says in part: "there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images." Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so Brews and will you ever just let an RfC run? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. This is storm-in-teacup stuff. Arguing for OR when the material is not substantially new, just because it is a new representation, is no favour to anyone, least of all to the five sacred pillars. The diagram in question won't set the world of information science on fire, but it is not intended to; it is just a diagram of a relationship and might help some readers who happen to be visually rather than verbally oriented; it shouldn't drive anyone to distraction just because like me they don't feel a need for it. As such it is no more OR than any verbal formulation of the same information and might be helpful. Given that it illustrates material in the text, it requires no more citational support than is already in the text. To call it synthesis on that basis is about as rational as calling any verbalisation "synthesis" on the grounds that it does not appear in any source in so many words. To waste everybody's time arguing that it should be nailed to the barn wall isn't editorially functional; it is more like wikilawyering. Now, can we get back to work, please? JonRichfield (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A storm in more than one teacup Jon. It's a minor issue, but the point is that it does not represent the sources, it is a synthesis by Brews of different sources, adding an interpretation which is not present in them. Its also an interpretation that he has run over multiple articles (and several RfCs) without support. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: it is a figure, and if it was made of whole cloth it would not matter so long as it represents accurately the text, which it does. JonRichfield is on the money, and Snowded, you are, as usual, trying to drag in anything you can find as a red herring without addressing anything worth discussing. Brews ohare (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JonRichfield: this does seem like a tempest in a teapot. At some point in an edit war like this you need to throw in the towel and take your talents elsewhere in Wikipedia, because they're being wasted in this conflict. (No, I don't have a specific one of you in mind when I say this.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: The argument that the figure does not represent the sources having been demolished by reference to the cited sources themselves and by comparison with the accepted text, the figure should be reinstalled. As pointed out above by JonRichfield: " As such it is no more OR than any verbal formulation of the same information and might be helpful." Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made that argument at the policy notice board it was rejected. Each element of the diagram maybe in a source, but you have put them together to make a conclusions not originally in either source and that is the problem. Incidentally, even if it was valid (which it isn't) its perfectly OK for an editor to oppose inclusion on the grounds that it adds nothing or confuses issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me respond line by line:

"You made that argument at the policy notice board it was rejected." No. What was decided that the policy did not need to be amended because it was already clear. What the policy says is: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments."

"Each element of the diagram may be in a source, but you have put them together to make a conclusions not originally in either source and that is the problem." This statement is unsubstantiated and invalid. If you really think there is some conclusion in this figure not in the text, spell it out. I don't think you will attempt that.

"Incidentally, even if it was valid (which it isn't) its perfectly OK for an editor to oppose inclusion on the grounds that it adds nothing or confuses issues." Your particular whim in this matter is neither here nor there, and cannot be made a basis for removing a figure. Brews ohare (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have spelt out how the diagram is synthesis in the earlier discussion so I have already done it and I will not attempt it again. I have worked out that if you don't want to hear something no amount to repetition or alternative wording will get the point through. Your selective reading of the debate at the policy board further illustrates this. As to the final point it works both ways. Your particular whim is no reason to include a figure ----Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: No-one but you thinks the figure expresses the text incorrectly. Despite your claims to have said exactly what is wrong with the figure (in your opinion), your assessment is provided here, stating the figure is a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images because it is not the same as those in the two citations. Of course it is not. It is an original figure illustrating the WP text. The source of inspiration for an original figure is completely irrelevant; only fidelity to accepted WP text matters.

Snowded: You are completely aware that you are off the beam on this one, and have just dug in your heels because you don't like to change your mind. Brews ohare (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misconception that a figure is exempt from normal rules on synthesis. You were told this was not the case by all the editors when you attempted to change policy to allow this. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: You aren't considering the policy statement quoted above concerning original figures, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Questions of synthesis and so forth are to be judged in relation to the text illustrated. However, inasmuch as you are capable of running in circles forever in the abstract, let's compare the WP text with the figure. At the top of the figure is the 'world' and an abstraction from the 'world' is indicated as a 'conceptualization', The realizations of a conceptualization are its 'ontologies' and the portion of its various ontologies that is shared by all of them is their 'ontological commitment'. That is the content of the figure. It contains only the definitions of these terms as they are understood in the text accompanying the figure. There is no synthesis and no original interpretation. So your arguments 'in the abstract' hold no water; this figure is entirely acceptable under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Brews ohare (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Snowded, you wish to debate these definitions and argue over the text. Fine. But it is not the figure at fault, it is then the text. Brews ohare (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The different texts all support aspects of the figure, what is synthesis is you putting them together in the figure. I've explained this to you several times and you need to start reading up on WP:AGF and WP:NPA again (and again) ----Snowded ^TALK 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: You refuse to compare the figure with the text and the definitions of the terms it illustrates. If any synthesis occurs in the figure, it also appears in the text, which is then subject to accusations of synthesis or interpretation. Your refusal to address this issue suggests that in fact you have no criticism of the text. As the figure clearly corresponds with the text, it is equally exempt from your assertions. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully focused Brews and try not to misrepresent things. I have done the comparisons, I have told you my conclusions. You don't agree. That happens, but this is a petty issue. Most editors who created a figure and didn't get it accepted would move on. You seem incapable of doing so. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive. Nowhere have your compared the text to the figure, and nowhere undertaken a criticism of the text, which is, of course, actually under the jurisdiction of policies about synthesis and original research that you espouse. You apparently will not follow that path because, of course, you cannot. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: See multiple comments around the 5th August given the sources you claimed when you inserted it. Also your misleading sourcing, not admitting you had drawn it. You have since shifted your grounds to move away from your original sources to a somewhat mysterious claim as to the texts. Again synthesis. I am moving over to 'see previous comment' from now on unless you introduce new material or other editors engage. This is going on far too long move on ----Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each source in the figure caption has an identified figure with some similarities to mine, but it is not claimed they are identical. There is no attempt at deception about this figure being my work; it is stated to be my own work under the menu entry Source on the Wikimedia Commons. You continue to insist that this original figure is a synthesis of these two published figures, but no speculation (such as those you made around August 5) about where the idea for the figure came from has any bearing upon a possible violation of Wikipedia:OR#Original_images, as that policy clearly states. My figure stands or falls in its fidelity to the WP text. My figure contains only the definitions of various terms as they are understood in the WP text accompanying the figure. There is no synthesis and no original interpretation. I'm sorry, but these remarks of yours that avoid all pertinent argument and make wild claims seem to depart from rational discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status so far: So far the voting is 2 to 1 for reinstatement of the figure. As usual, there is next to no interest in the matter, so I suggest it be reinstated. Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a democracy Brews and 2:1 including one single participation is not enough. You've made other improvements to the article which I am happy with. Please stop obsessing about one illustration. You have to learn to let some things go, not fight for every edit refusing to make an compromise. Also the personal attacks are getting beyond a joke. I've asked to to redact one set, if you don't and this continues then it goes to ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Original Images permits original images to illustrate ideas or arguments in sources and does not restrict Wikipedian original images to illustrating only images already shown in sources. Snowded's claim that the diagram reaches/implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (WP:SYNTHESIS) is weak since it lacks analysis posted in this discussion. Asserting that you posted it "elsewhere" is not a basis to include it as part of this discussion. No one has really answered the question posted at WP:SYNTHESIS: What "A" statement does the first reliable source say, what "B" statement does the second reliable source say, and how does the diagram join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources? Observation - Brews ohare states above that elements of the figure have similarities "A" with Figure 1 in Guarino and similarities "B" to Slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen and A and B have been combined to represent (summarize?) "C" usage of terms defined in the text of the unreliable source WP article.[3] That follows the WP:SYNTHESIS pattern of establishing original research, but fails to explicitly state the conclusion C in the diagram that is not mentioned by either of the sources or any source in the field. The problem is that no one is specifically talking about the elements of the diagram itself. The discussion keeps dancing around the diagram with conclusory statements not based on analyzing the diagram itself. What is the conclusion C in the diagram that is not mentioned by either of the sources or any source in the field? The failure to answer that question in this discussion means that a case has not been made for the diagram being Original Research. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very explicit above if you check and to date no one as answered those specific comments about the picture and the text. I made specific reference to aspects in the text which are missing and the fact that much of the picture is not in the text anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee is entirely correct: the issues here have nothing to do with the sources of inspiration for the diagram; the only relevant question is whether the resulting diagram represents the accompanying text, which it does. The accompanying text accords with all WP policies regarding WP:OI, WP:VER and WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded's claims of being 'very clear' and making 'specific references to missing aspects' are inventions. Brews ohare (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing figure describing relation between definitions

Comment: The introduction refers to a 'figure at the right' that portrays the relationships described. The figure is missing because Snowded removed it making arguments that WP is 'not a democracy' and so, despite his being in the minority, there is insufficient reason to include the figure. He has argued here and elsewhere that this figure is unacceptable because:

"you are using the diagram to create a synthesis of material in several sources. So you are not illustrating the material you are creating something original not fully contained in the text." [typo corrected]

Unfortunately, Snowded is unwilling to describe just what in the figure is different from what is in the text. He maintains that the inspiration for this figure makes this original figure a synthesis, a play on words. The figure is indeed an original combination of elements inspired by various published figures. So the figure is a 'synthesis' as that word is commonly used, but it is not a violation of what WP refers to as 'synthesis', as is made abundantly clear by the governing policy WP:OI, because the figure illustrates WP text without introducing any additional information of its own.

I speculate that Snowded at first thought the figure was original research because he understood it to be a 'stand-alone' figure that introduced material not in the text, but now that he understands that the figure actually depicts exactly the definitions described in the text he cannot find it within himself to back down.

As detailed by myself above and by JonRichfield, there is no reason this figure describing the definitions of the introduction should not be included. If Snowded thinks the figure departs from the text, he can do everyone a favor by spelling out exactly how the figure departs from the text. Based upon past encounters where I have made this request before, Snowded will not do that. Instead, he will claim he has made his position all clear before, in prior comments that he will not identify. He believes his statement that 'there is synthesis' in the figure separating its content from the text needs no explanation. I hope he will try harder to be clear. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why before Brews so please stop saying I haven't. I would also point to the policy board where you raised this and other editors agreed it was problematic. Let it go for God's sake, its impossible to work with you as you will never ever compromise and carry on and on and on. forum shopping as you go. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: Your reply is as I anticipated - exactly no attempt to explain your beliefs. Your prior arguments are totally discredited in my comments above and are completely contrary to WP:OI. Your more recent assertions of non-compliance with the supporting text are unsubstantiated. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that people who disagree with you are 'totally discredited' if you simply repeat your previous arguments. Unfortunately the world is not that simple and you need, you really need, to learn to let somethings go and work with other editors. Your interpretation of WP:OI did not receive support at the appropriate policy notice board. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid your position is undermined by your unwillingness to provide any support for it, in particular, to demonstrate any departure of the figure from its supporting WP text and any departure from the principles enunciated in WP:OI, namely "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Snowded - shape up., please. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See multiple prior discussions here, and at the notice board where you also raised the issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: This is beneath you. Your prior arguments have been linked by me in my discussions of them. Repeated requests for explicit comparison between figure and text are consistently denied. Your approach is one of claiming to have provided such comparisons when none exist, and you will not link them simply because they are non-existent. I will reprise to fill in your foggy recollection:

If you actually think there are real discrepancies between the indicated terms in the figure and their use in the text, point them out, please. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP figure stands or falls upon its accuracy in representing the text, in this case, the relation between the terms 'conceptualization', 'ontology', and 'ontological commitment'. The pertinent question is only this: Does the figure convey correctly the vocabulary it is intended to illustrate? Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This is storm-in-teacup stuff. Arguing for OR when the material is not substantially new, just because it is a new representation, is no favour to anyone, least of all to the five sacred pillars. The diagram in question won't set the world of information science on fire, but it is not intended to; it is just a diagram of a relationship and might help some readers who happen to be visually rather than verbally oriented; it shouldn't drive anyone to distraction just because like me they don't feel a need for it. As such it is no more OR than any verbal formulation of the same information and might be helpful. Given that it illustrates material in the text, it requires no more citational support than is already in the text. To call it synthesis on that basis is about as rational as calling any verbalisation "synthesis" on the grounds that it does not appear in any source in so many words. To waste everybody's time arguing that it should be nailed to the barn wall isn't editorially functional; it is more like wikilawyering. Now, can we get back to work, please? JonRichfield (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with JonRichfield: this does seem like a tempest in a teapot. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your argument:

Each element of the diagram maybe in a source, but you have put them together to make a conclusions not originally in either source and that is the problem. Incidentally, even if it was valid (which it isn't) its perfectly OK for an editor to oppose inclusion on the grounds that it adds nothing or confuses issues. ----Snowded TALK 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me respond line by line:

"You made that argument at the policy notice board it was rejected." No. What was decided that the policy did not need to be amended because it was already clear. What the policy says is: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments."

"Each element of the diagram may be in a source, but you have put them together to make a conclusions not originally in either source and that is the problem." This statement is unsubstantiated and invalid. If you really think there is some conclusion in this figure not in the text, spell it out. I don't think you will attempt that. Brews ohare (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason this figure describing the definitions of the introduction should not be included. If Snowded thinks the figure departs from the text, he can do everyone a favor by spelling out exactly how the figure departs from the text. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does repeated refusal to even try to support your argument do for you? Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Brews but I have had my fill of your refusing to pay attention to arguments, or simply saying they are not 'spelt out' if you disagree with them. Add to that multiple failures by you in respect of WP:NPA and my patience is at an end. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Snowded, I've listed some of the many times I have asked here for explanation and got nothing in return, except possibly abuse. There is no need for that. As for personal abuse - who exactly is the sinner here? Brews ohare (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.