Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Modification:Sciento-2017-0012 (view source)
Revision as of 15:45, 2 February 2018
, 15:45, 2 February 2018no edit summary
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard,
|Resource=Overgaard (2017)
|Preamble=TODO: Nick add Although it is accept in scientonomy that communities are bearers of mosaics, the preamblenotion of ''community'' currently lacks a proper definition. To remedy the situation, I suggest differentiating between ''accidental group'' and ''community'' as two different types of ''group'' based on the respective absence and presence of a collective intentionality. This differentiation provides a foundation for the taxonomy of social agents of scientific change.
|Modification=Accept the following taxonomy for ''group'' and its two sub-types:
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Group Community Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017).png}}
|To Accept=Group (Overgaard-2017), Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017), Community (Overgaard-2017),
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2018|Date Assessed Month=February|Date Assessed Day=2
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-53|c1]]</sup> and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-67|c2]]</sup> Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of ''group'' as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-52|c3]]</sup> Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c4]]</sup> it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]</sup>
}}