Talk:Community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Community article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Community (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Community has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ Community|archived]]. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
GA	Community has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

To-do list for Community:

edit · history · watch · refresh

"Community" from various perspectives (such as psychological, sociological) Etymology Effects of technology Make more concrete somehow Photo of neighborhood Social capital? Section on social capital research findings in this article. Community improvement initiatives related to social capital moved to Community development. Sourcing - Notes and references Editing/copyediting/tweaking (on-going) Watch size of article (31 Kb+): avoid big additions, without off-setting adjustments, to keep size down. Consider creating new sub-articles.

	This article is within the scope of the Community WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Community and related subjects on Wikipedia.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archive • 6 August 2002 — 11 February 2006

Archive • 23 March 2006 — 31 July 2006

Contents 1 Some comments - definition and general ideas 2 GA 3 Article size 4 I'm not sure where to start

[edit] Some comments - definition and general ideas

The article is in a good stage, so I propose here some changes of

"A community is a collection of living things that share an environment. These can be plant or animal; any species, any size. Communities are characterized by interaction in many ways. The definitive aspect of community is that each subject in the mix have something in common. This article focuses on human communities, in which intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the degree of adhesion."

into

"A community is a collection of living things that share an environment, so forming a recognizable group. These living things can be plant or animal; any species, any size. Communities are characterized by interaction in many ways. The definitive aspect of community is that each subject in the mix have something in common that allows an identification. This article focuses on human communities, in which intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of adhesion."

Generally speaking, I have the doubt that a holistic approach to the concept of community should be used, because in the community the whole can be much more of the sum of the parts. This means, in my idea, that an approach as a whole is much more interesting than splitting the idea in the strict points of view of various disciplines.--Truman Burbank 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that your revised lead adds an important element to the definition of community: identification of the participants in all communities, including plants, and identification by participants in the case of human communities. In both cases, this addition is useful; for human communities, it seems to me indispensible. Thank you for bringing your suggestion here in the Wikipedian tradition of consensus; I would suggest that you go ahead with the change in the Wikipedian tradition of being bold in updating pages.

As to your suggestion about not splitting the article. I certainly agree that a holistic approach (as currently taken in this article) is better than a balkanized version with the different disciplinary perspectives. However, I had thought that the proposal to add brief summaries of the different disciplines approach to community would be a useful addition, without interfering with the overall holistic flavour of the article. Perhaps it would be best to simply add a few lines (rather than sections) on each of the disciplines' perspectives (e.g. Community psychology; Community studies in anthropology). Sunray 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can identify (pun intended) with Truman and Sunray's comments. I think the article is great for the general reader and is approaching, I believe an ideal length for a core topic article. It touches a broad spectrum of specialized subtopics, providing links to many supporting articles. I think the holistic flavor is appropriate.

The conclusion of the "Sense of community" section, "The sum of the creative energy (often referred to as "synergy") and the strength of the mechanisms that maintain this balance is manifest as an observable and resilient sense of community." might cover Truman's second point. CQ 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Congratulations to us. Thanks all for your help. Maurreen 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! The Community article got dropped from the assessment list because we had not yet created Category:GA-Class community articles. It should re-appear after the bot makes its rounds. Should we go ahead and create Category:FA-Class community articles?

Also, what other community-related articles might be of top or high importance in relation to WP:1? Virtual community? Community studies? WikiProject Community could use some guidance toward where to concentrate some focus. Thanks in advance. • CQ 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Community development. Maurreen 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Pats on back all round. Sunray 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

As with many great collaborations, the article size has mushroomed. We now need to rationalize additions in accordance with guidelines on article size. The prime concern is readability. The guideline suggests concise summaries for long sections and new sub-articles, improving organization of material, etc. Sunray 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. That's do-able. Are the Images a problem? if so, I would "sacrafice" the burning crosses picture, first in favor of the new one I just put in (Heart of Community - I really like it for here). I suggest also a "Further reading" section for some of the more detailed coverage. Several areas can be trimmed, in that specific articles (Community development, Community studies??? ...) can take on the "extra" text. Maybe we can start a new article something like Community theory or the like. Just my 2 centavos worth. CQ 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Conversely to a "Community theory" article, Sense of community could probably expand to take on more content and context, eh? It should be done "expertly" though, I think. Another $0.02 worth. CQ 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No the images don't reside in this file so they don't add much content. Not remove the burning crosses! It ain't pretty but it too is community. To my mind Community studies and Community psychology are (or should be) the two theory articles. Sunray 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure where to start

I haven't been around much in the last few months and recently I think I've avoided this important article because its problems are so unwieldy. My dissertation was on community from psychological perspective, and it's hard for me to see this article as ever being successful unless the answer to one question is clear: "says who?"

I know there are some quotations and references sprinkled throughout, but that's not enough. People have been commenting on community since the dawn of commentary, so the only thing that makes sense to me is to have this article reflect some views of professional commentators that deal with the subject. That means each group of views has to have some semblance of coherence and be in its own section. The "perspectives on community" section should expand to encompass most of the article, and should have subsections entitled "sociological perspectives," "anthropological perspectives," "psychological perspectives," etc.

Unless the article consists of summarizing the views of professional commentators, it will not really become an encyclopedia article. The first sentence is a fine illustration. The definition that was there at the end of last year was very poor, but I'm guessing it was just made up off the top of some editor's head. People here tried to improve it, but it is still sorely lacking. Some Wikipedia articles have a large section devoted entirely to various definitions of the topic (e.g., by different groups of people who deal with that topic). A separate section for definitions would certainly seem to be appropriate for "community."

This page has seen great improvement since the beginning of the year, but unless there are clear sections representing the perspectives of various academic fields that study community, this article is far less likely to attract the interest of experts, who may otherwise view it as a quagmire.

Then, later in the evolution of this article, when patterns emerge that make clear where various fields agree or disagree on (or emphasize vs deemphasize, etc.) regarding some aspect of community, attempts can be made to show how the perspectives fit together.

Until then you don't want to have social scientists read the article and after every other sentence (some which may even sound to them like uninformed, puffed-up pronouncements) say to themselves "says who?"

I expect to get very busy very soon, but I wanted to share these suggestions, especially with those who have invested a lot of valuable time and effort into this page. -DoctorW 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When an expert comes along and is willing to put time into a difficult article like this, it would be encouraging if people would either take the advice or at least respond. What happened to the "Perspectives on community" section? Any thoughts on providing a possibility to attract experts to contribute to the perspectives of their respective fields by having a section for each one, as I outlined above? -DoctorW 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

what is it