Talk:Darwikinism

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Before doing so again, please review these discussions (k/d/n).

No consensus (for this talk page), 04 November 2003 (1/1/0). Nominated by 195.92.67.69, kept by Anthere, moderated by Pathoschild

Breeding[edit]

"The ethos within Wikipedia is that the ecology of Wikipedia is self healing and does indeed breed quality."

What it breeds, is en:User:RK. 142.177.93.37 16:48, 3 November 2003 (comment deleted by 81.77.3.209, then restored by Anthere)

This is a talk page? Who said something about RK? I don't get it. What does RK's user page have to do with breeding quality? Should I have looked at RK's contributions? Anyway, I wanted to question the "Wikipedia articles are subject to undirected random mutation by idiots" statement. Did someone have examples in mind when they wrote this? I think directed mutations would largely overwhelm any kind of "idiotic" content. Xaxafrad 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Did someone have examples in mind when they wrote this?" - I didn't write it, but vandalism is a case where it clearly applies (One could replace "idiots" with "vandals" though). 213.196.206.115 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Darwin[edit]

Why does the article flatly state that "Darwikinism" fundamentally misunderstands Darwin? The article claims that some people don't think that's true, so isn't this a NPOV violation? 140.247.249.127 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just read that and it seems rather bizarre for the article to contradict itself, in the first paragraph, no less. 24.16.59.120 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarce Resource[edit]

In (natural) Darwinism, scarce resources drive the competition that leads to survival of the fittest. What are the scarce resources driving Darwikinism? I believe a clear answer to this question can help to resolve some of the contention and ambiguity among the various philosophies. --Lbeaumont 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness. Content divided by length. 213.196.206.115 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scarce resource in this case might be user time. However, the metaphor has problems and the article is not clearly written. The main problem with the metaphor is that the wikipedia environment fails to meet the three requirements of "self-replication," "variation," and "selection" that are necessary for evolution. Articles do not replicate, some with slight variations that allow them to be better at leaving additional replications. Msheskin 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socially darwinian[edit]

Are the articles social or just a sequence of text? I think darwikinism (as at least three other wikideologies) is good, but it is not social darwinism, it is much more like the survival of the fittest texts, and polishing/improvement of the rest. Doco-darwinism, more like ... rursus 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rursus, maybe because I am User:Rursus. I just wanted to say that ... rursus 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! rursus 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful?[edit]

Hi! Useful scientific theories guide action by helping one predict the consequences of ones behavior, and can be tested by checking whether or not the predicted consequences occur if one does (or does not do) certain actions. But I don't understand how this theory guides action or it is testable. What would a person who has this perspective do differently from a person who has a different perspective? How does it help predict the consequences of behavior? How could one test whether this theory is useful or not? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a theory but a witty neologism. 213.196.206.115 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to be that stringent here on a policy related discussion page. OK, for me, as a computer engineer that know about linguistics and data representation of semantics, having read some social science methodology, the essay actually sketches a model that might be compared to reality, and thus could be used for tests. The fact that I object to some of the claims means that the model can be tested "subjectively" by questionaries, which might do scientifically if the experimental setups are proper. The descriptions could also be reformulated to theories making predictions on emergent convergence patterns in the development of Wikipedia articles. If those predictions fail, the theory fail and indirectly this essay. I think the essay claims some flawed things such as that there is a "social darwinism" ongoing as regards to the articles and the memes contained therein. I believe the articles don't give a damn about territories as regards to their neighbor articles, they're not struggling for their survival, or whome is getting the fittest spouse to multiply with, instead I believe the symbolizations in the mind of the editors might temporarily act as the articles being "pets" or like "exterminable vermin". rursus 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness[edit]

In terms of stability and visiting frequency, fitness is being more stable and visited more often. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]