Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnitopia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete. Comment on lengthy discussion: the two independent references may possibly cover the concept, but the do not cover the term (simply because they predate this neologism). Therefore I am sorry to conclude that the discussion didn't sway the opinion of the majority of voters. `'mikka 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Omnitopia

Omnitopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Keep (see below) Although the article compares omnitopia to other theorist's ideas, Andrew Wood is the only cited author actually using this term. It's a well written article, but it fails to demonstrate that Omnitopia meets wiki criteria for notability (i.e., multiple independent sources). Also, Andrew Wood wrote most of the material on the page, which is a conflict of interest Jordansc 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a neologism (the article says so), not very notable (few ghits that don't involve the author Andrew Wood), and definitely OR. Basically it's an idea that the main author of the article came up with a few years ago and which is picking up some interest here and there but is still far from being notable. andy 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and andy. Anville 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and where he seems to be using us as a publishing service, for this is a much more widely visible position than any of his actual publications.DGG 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andywo 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I am Andrew Wood, the author mentioned in this discussion. Respecting the principles of wikipedia, I will defer to its collective wisdom. However, I am compelled to respond to a few of these comments.

At present, yes, omnitopia has generally appeared in peer reviewed work written by me. Such is the nature of academic scholarship. One person will propose an idea, distribute it in various venues, and hope that other folks employ it in a fruitful way. However, I am not the only user of this term. A recent master's thesis from North Carolina State University cites the concept widely. Moreover, I am aware of a number of scholars and students who are working the idea into their own research. While that process is necessarily slow (due to the practice of peer review and the time necessary to publish in print journals), I don't think it is appropriate to short-circuit the dissemination of a published idea without much more time granted by the conversation I'm reading here.

I would add that, while I wrote the initial entry for omnitopia, it was substantially updated - and improved - by another author, one whom I do not know. Such is the value of wikipedia.

Finally, I must respond to the notion of using wikipedia as a "publishing service." Based upon a number of national and international publications, I do not need wikipedia to serve in this capacity. Rather, I felt - and I still feel - that it is appropriate to share research that has undergone a rigorous peer review with an online encyclopedia that seeks to reflect contemporary knowledge.

On a related point, the "visible position" of a peer reviewed publication is a questionable factor. Relatively few people read the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, but its findings should be widely distributed nonetheless. While research appearing in communication and cultural geography journals does not address similarly "life and death" issues, the value of such scholarship ought not be quickly dismissed.

I therefore propose that the entry stays for three reasons.

1. It reflects knowledge that has appeared in four separate peer reviewed journals.

2. It conforms to an appropriate degree of written professionalism.

3. It helps other people pursue their own research (even as they come to different conclusions).

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

--

Wikipedia policy on notability states that "the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it"[1]. There are published non-trivial works on Omnitopia, but there are no independent sources. I'm not arguing against the usefulness or correctness of the term; what I'm saying is that wikipedia is not the best place for it until it is cited in other works. If Andrew Wood is the only person cited, or the only person who has written on Omnitopia, the article is biased towards Wood's perspective. While this might not seem like a problem in an article on something like architectural theory, the reader has no way of knowing how the topic was received in its field. There's no way to know what objections or addenda experts might make; we can only take Wood's word. I would certainly vote for a keep if someone could point to published works that have engaged with Wood's omnitopia. The article is interesting and well written; it just doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria. Jordansc 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--

Andywo 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC) In response to Jordansc's comments, a friendly reminder about bias and questions about being "received in the field": Each of the pieces to which I refer is peer-reviewed and *published* in respected journals (Communication Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Space and Culture, and Text and Performance Quarterly). That, by definition, means that they have been evaluated by experts in the field (two fields, actually: communication studies and cultural geography). Indeed, peer review demands anonymous evaluation by two, three or more experts as selected by a journal editor. While I can assure you that each of these shared substantive comments and criticisms prior to publication, the fact that these pieces were included in these journals should provide some degree of assurance that omnitopia research has survived a rigorous process of fact- and bias-checking. I propose that folks who remain concerned acquaint themselves to the scholarship cited and the journals in which they appear.

--

Even if it appears in a peer reviewed journal, it still isn't automatically neutral. Also: do you propose that Wikipedia include every academic neologism, regardless of how many people are using it? Jordansc 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--

Andywo 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Jordansc's point is well taken, but let us not speak in generalities. Please indicate specifically how these four separate peer reviewed publications are biased. Here I invite you to avoid the obvious error that qualitative research must lack a point of view. The issue is whether the editorial boards Communication Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Space and Culture, and Text and Performance Quarterly -- top-tier journals with rigorous rejection rates -- are somehow biased to this particular associate professor.

I would also note that omnitopia has already been cited elsewhere in academic scholarship. Mark B. Salter (University of Ottawa) writes in the journal International Political Sociology (article title: "Governmentalities of an Airport: Heterotopia and Confession") that he disagrees with my "notion of the airport terminal as a smooth space of international mobility" (p. 52). [2] While I respectfully differ from his interpretation of a piece I published in Communication Theory [3], I certainly hold that his essay represents "engagement" with the omnitopia concept.

I should add that seeking to address the overly broad question about whether "every" neologism should be included "regardless" of use does not advance our conversation in a fruitful manner. It is clear that some terms belong in this venue; some do not. This discussion is about this specific term that was added to Wikipedia because of the term's adoption by four separate peer-reviewed journals in two fields (communication studies and cultural geography), including two distinct subfields of communication studies (performance studies and media studies) -- and its engagement by still another field (sociology). Let's focus our attention there.

--

I don't have the time or expertise to determine if or how your articles are biased. It's not a question of validity or quality; it's whether or not it should be included in this venue. Even if I did find bias in the articles, including my thoughts as a counterbalance in the wiki article would be original research. I can say for certain, however, that they represent a particular argument about or viewpoint on omnitopia. Presumably you aren't writing tautologies or empty statements; people can disagree with your articles and they therefore represent a POV. If you are the only person sourced in the article to describe this concept, the article is not NPOV - it's one person's ideas about omnitopia. But since someone else has commented on omnitopia, their critiques should be included in the article. If Salter has written a "non-trivial" amount on omnitopia and someone could post a summary of his argument in the omnitopia article, I will change my vote to keep. Given that you (Wood) have a stake here, I think it would be a conflict of interest for you to do so. My school doesn't have International Political Sociology, but I'll try to gain access to it somehow & see if I can write something. Jordansc 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--

Andywo 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, I have a PDF of the article. I asked its author to send it to me because, like you, my library doesn't yet subscribe to International Political Sociology. If you wish to backchannel me at wooda AT email DOT sjsu DOT edu, I'd be happy to email you the article when I get a chance (within 24 hours). I agree that it would be less than ideal for me to integrate Salter's piece into the omnitopia entry, though it would not be inappropriate if I did so in good faith. However, the issue is moot because I don't have time to summarize his article and add that component to the entry - at least not now. Of course, since Wikipedia's omnitopia entry is a collaborative effort, I'd be delighted for another person (you, someone you suggest, another person with some interest and expertise) to edit away. So let me know if you'd like me to email his piece, and we'll take it from there...

• Comment. I'm with Jordansc on this. Nothing to do with bias or a judgement on the intrinsic merits of the idea. It is simply, clearly, Original Research and therefore something that WP does not publish. Notability (in WP's terms) will no doubt come in the end, but it hasn't yet. The concept has to make bigger ripples, become established, be increasingly widely cited, etc. andy 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Andywo 18:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a copy/paste from Wikipedia's statement on OR: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."

Now, let us review:

A reasonable inference from that policy is that publication in peer-reviewed journals constitutes a warrant for Wikipedia to report about the work. Omnitopia research has been published in four separate peer-reviewed journals, representing two distinct disciplines. These journals have editorial boards that represent the contemporary state of their respective fields. The entry cites those pieces, making them available to any reader who takes the time to peruse them and evaluate whether the material is verifiable. Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [4]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [5], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review. If that doesn't reflect a "part of accepted knowledge," I don't know what does.

Incidentally, in case it matters, I have read these two authors' works, but I could not pick the people out of a lineup.

If the only issue is that these two non-Wood citations of omnitopia -- Mark B. Salter's (University of Ottawa) International Political Sociology essay and Richard Scot Barnett's (North Carolina State University) master's thesis -- need to be integrated into the entry, I have no problem with either (1) doing so myself, (2) inviting another person to do so, or (3) awaiting that revision with no action done by me.

Otherwise, barring some specific statement in Wiki-policy that defines "accepted knowledge" in more narrow terms, I think participants in this discussion should either (1) err on the side of knowledge advancement or (2) bolster their arguments with specific rationales about why these particular publications do not reflect "accepted knowledge." Choosing that latter path calls for substantial responsibility: Respondents must actually read the articles and acquaint themselves with the fields of communication studies and cultural geography. This seems like an entirely appropriate requirement that should be met prior to editing or removing an encyclopedia entry.

• Thanks for the lecture. That really helps. andy 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Andywo 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) andy, I am unclear as to the meaning of your post. I will read it from the perspective of the wiki-notion of "good faith" [6] -- a concept I presume I too can receive -- but there's little context in your message, so I can't be sure as to its intent. As a professor, I might be forgiven for overly-parsing your use of the word "lecture." But there is no doubt about the order of this discussion. An entry was marked for possible deletion. I was asked to comment. I did so. Comments were posted that, in my opinion, reflected insufficient evidence or supporting material. I have attempted to add those materials to ensure a complete and accurate discussion. Moreover, I have striven to write in a professional tone. If you're thanking me for that, I accept your comments, and I appreciate them.

• You're welcome. andy 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think notability has been satisfied on this page (though not in the article as it stands); there are four published articles focused on Omnitopia and at least one other independent, non-trivial, published source. (I don't know if Master's theses count as published sources for Wikipedia. Someone should check.) I think the article should be kept with input from the new source or sources. Jordansc 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jordansc, thank you for your consideration of the notability issue. I suppose a useful next step is to revise the omnitopia entry to include that independent non-trivial published source. As I've mentioned, I'm happy to do so. But if the group prefers, I'd be just as happy for someone else to take on that edit. Andywo 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.