This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communication article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting
As a discipline communication studies is focused on mass communication between people. I wouldn't say there is a "main discipline" studying communication. 81.77.58.180 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. The terms "communication studies" and "communications science" are normally used as umbrella terms to cover scientific research into communication. For example, see Danesi 2000, p. 59 (Science studying all the technical aspects of communication) and Gill & Adams 1998, p. vii (The title 'Communication Studies' covers a vast area of interest and embraces many different disciplines, including journalism, telecommunications, social psychology, physiology, linguistics and semantics.). Communication studies is not restricted to mass communication. For example, most of the models of communication discussed in communication studies are general models and only a few are restricted to mass communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Communication is usually understood to be the transmission of information."
Minor quibble but I have to say I find this unnecessarily vague and borderline WP:WEASELish, staring that some undefined group of people "understand" something. The three dictionary definitions all refer to it as a "process" or an "act" of transmission. Therefore I'd suggest rewording to something along the lines of "Communication refers to the process of transmitting information" or similar. This matches the sources and I also don't think it contradicts the following lines about the definition being disputed - as I understand it from the following sentences and the body, this dispute concerns what's included rather than the fundamental definition. This looks an excellent article generally though, so kudos for bringing it up to such a good standard. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and for raising this point. The weasling is intentional since there is some controversy. For example, from Dance 1970 "This essay examines multitudinous definitions of ‘communication’ in the light of the meaning of ‘concept’ as reflected in the literature of the philosophy of science. The examination produced 15 main themes from the definitions." and from Reisinger 2010 "The term communication is difficult to define because it has been used in a variety of ways for different purposes.". Some theorists explicitly attack the transmission-view but it is still the definition most commonly found. Weasling is not ideal but we can avoid the danger of NPOV, which is probably a good deal overall. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Ah OK, thanks for the response. Can we maybe state is a bit more simply then as just "Communication if usually defined as..." rather than "Communication is usually understood to be"? The current wording makes it sound like some sort of great scientific fact, which mere mortals such as struggle to understand. But in reality it's just a matter of semantics. Most people define it that way, and that's what the sources say, but we can still nuance it with "usually" per your good points above. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Done. The previous formulation was my attempt to avoid WP:ISAWORDFOR but I agree that the new formulation is more accessible to the general reader while also avoiding to state the definition in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I earned a BA in communication arts & sciences from Western Michigan University. One 300 or 400 level class I took: Communications Theory. The instructor, Dr. Gilchrist, hammered this definition of communication into our heads:
To have genuine, successful “communication” four components must exist: A sender, a receiver , a message from the sender to the receiver and feedback from receiver to sender that tells sender the message was received and understood.
This was the course’s central, guiding tenet. Dr. Gilchrist wrote a diagram of it on the board first night of class. It was in our textbooks and on handouts. We had to know it for tests and exams.
This is what informed me when I changed the opening subhead to “the exchange of information”.
Some will likely disagree or debate this. But I wanted you to at least know why I made the change.
Hello Juliska357 and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. There are many definitions/models of communication. Some of them require feedback while others don't. It's possible that your professor taught you Schramm's model of communication, which requires feedback. To the extent that it is possible, we should look for formulations that do not take sides, which is why the term transmission is the better choice in this context than exchange. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tannaman12 (article contribs).
I agree, it could be difficult for a new editor to make non-trivial contributions without being reverted. Focusing on underdeveloped articles about less important topics is probably a better way to get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2025 and 10 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gpettinato13 (article contribs).
level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tannaman12 (article contribs).