Talk:Symbol/Archives/2019

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: Reinstate changes made at 03:09, 10 February 2019 by 73.78.109.121. (19,611 bytes)

Explanation of issue: The changes made to the “symbol” article on 10 February were undone by GermanJoe for two reasons: WP:SELFCITE and the changes were (in GermanJoe’s words) “trivial commonplace ‘facts’”. Given that GermanJoe has already “weighed in” on this issue, I respectfully request that a separate and unaffiliated moderator examine this requested edit.

• Regarding the first reason evoked by GermanJoe to undo the changes that were made, I (the original editor) do have a conflict of interest with the refereed material. I know the authors of this recent review article well. However, I see no clear grounds to omit the modifications made to this page on the basis of SELFCITE. WP:SELFCITE clearly states that “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant [and] conforms to the content policies.” Firstly, the proposed reference and edits made to this article on Wikipdedia are relevant (please see below for more detail). Moreover, as other contributors have noted, the symbol article in question needs tremendous help. Having spent nearly a decade studying symbols and symbolic processes, there are clear issues in this article that are misleading and/or incomplete. I will not go into them here, but suffice it to say, I am interested in contributing to the symbol article to help clarify and advance knowledge that is conveyed on this page.
• Regarding the question of whether my previous edits conformed to WP's content policies (including WP:SELFPUB), the reference that supports the modifications made to the “symbol” article is published in the Academy of Management Annals. This is a double-blind, peer reviewed journal that is ranked #1 out of 209 journals in the social science index category of “management.” This means that the impact of the articles published in this journal are second to none in the field of management (a scholarly community spanning tens of thousands of folks with PhD’s from around the world). It is a highly respected journal. Furthermore, this article is also a review article that summarizes our collective understanding about symbols from multiple perspectives (including semiotics and symbolic interactionism). Thus, it provides a comprehensive definition of symbols (which I attempted to insert in the edits to the symbol article that I originally made). Moreover, it advances our understanding about symbols by defining three pivotal forms of symbolic value (again, which I attempted to insert in the edits to the article that I originally made). Given the nature of this reference, I see no reason that a moderator (i.e., GermanJoe) with evidently little expertise in the field of symbols, symbolic action, or symbolic processes should be the sole judge about the merits of such a contribution. I assure you, if these contributions were “trivial commonplace facts,” they would have never made it through to publication at the Academy of Management Annals.

• References supporting change: The reference supporting the proposed changes is included in the edits that were made on 10 February, but here it is again for good measure. There are other articles on Wikipedia that could benefit from the material covered in this review article (e.g., “impression management,” “reputation management,” etc.). To fully understand the breadth of this review article and how it relates to these other topics, you would simply have to read it. However, I am not suggesting that edits to these other topics (through their respective pages on Wikipedia) need to be made. I can see the point raised in the WP:SELFCITE description that embedding a single reference across too many articles can appear disingenuous. However, it still stands to reason that this review article is directly relevant to the symbol page on Wikipedia. Thus, I believe the changes proposed in this requested edit are fully justified.
• In closing, I would simply say that I am a supporter of Wikipedia. I believe it serves a vital role to connect intellectuals, scientists, and professionals to the broader public. In truth, many of my colleagues would disagree, favoring instead to view Wikipedia as “fake news.” I am interested in doing what I can to continue to build bridges that provide valid insight and empirical knowledge to this encyclopedia. To that end, I hope that my efforts are respected on par with the actions of a moderator who, in good faith, is inhibiting the advancement of knowledge conveyed in this article. Thanks for your time and consideration. 2601:282:4000:5FF2:B4AF:3073:B746:A047 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 10-FEB-2019

Extended content
Clarification requested   A diff of the change in question was not provided. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you! Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I will leave the decision about this request to an uninvolved editor of course, but will add a few additional background details and try to clarify the reasoning behind the revert a bit more. The given source is an "in-press" article pre-published online (just a few days ago) before a formal publication in the journal itself. This does indicate that the given article does not necessarily reflect established encyclopedic knowledge, but new research that has not been sufficiently discussed by other academics yet. This also raises concerns about undue weight. Note: I am not assessing whether the article is reliable or not. Regarding trivial facts: Statements like "Examples of symbols with ideological value include the Christian cross or the star and crescent symbol of Islam." qualify as "water is wet" information that just bloats the contribution without presenting any significant new details. A statement like "Individuals and organizations use symbols carrying different forms of value to influence others and accomplish their objectives." is simply redundant - a basic definition of symbols and their purpose is already given in an existing section ("Concepts and Definitions"). Other parts of the added content also just re-phrase already existing content or present it from a slightly different angle, but do not provide anything substantially new. GermanJoe (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• A final point of clarification: "moderators" in this sense do not exist on Wikipedia. All editorial disagreements should be discussed here among interested editors and will be decided based on consensus (or in case of COI reviews by an uninvolved volunteer editor). Thank you for following Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guideline though. As mentioned on some of the previous IP talkpages, I'd suggest that the OP uses a wider range of third-party publications to contribute as a topic expert without WP:SELFCITE concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply #2 10-FEB-2019

With respect to the claims requested to be added there are two sections which were added then deleted. The first point below pertains to the first addition (in the lead section) while the second point deals with the second section (the Symbolic value paragraph).

1. Not necessary: Information added should be necessary in the sense that it should be expressing something which is needed for understanding in the article. In the example text, the claim that symbols "represent categories of social construction with ascribed meanings" is simply a re-wording of the claim which comes immediately before it, that symbols "indicate, signify, or are understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship." This added text repeats what is already stated, as is therefore unnecessary.
2. Possibly necessary: Just before the Symbolic value paragraph is one where Tillich's own research into religious symbolism is included. I question whether excluding the COI editor's text suits the article where Tillich's material is allowed to remain. Presenting Tillich's own findings, which were informed through a lense of religion, seems questionable when the article has several modern, researcher-oriented sources to choose from. In the end, I would favor keeping the newer text over Tillich's research, but before it can be added, local editor's such as GermanJoe need to be persuaded, through discussion, of its importance.

Regards,  Spintendo  02:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

• Thank you for the review. To move forward constructively, my main concerns are: 1) overlapping content that is already present in some form elsewhere in the article 2) secondary details and examples, that add little encyclopedic value and should be trimmed. A suggested addition should focus on substantial new information that is directly relevant for an encyclopedic succinct presentation of the topic. Of course I realize that especially the first point is easier said than done (and may need some structural changes in the entire article), but new information needs to be better integrated into the current content, or the previously criticized article problems (see archive) will get worse over time. 3) If at all possible, the inclusion of other third-party sources would help to alleviate self-cite concerns and to present a broader overview of established mainstream knowledge (and minority views in due weight). Maybe Tillich's section could be trimmed and/or merged in related sections? I completely agree that all noteworthy views need to be presented in due weight, not only the recent addition. I'd be glad to discuss this further to improve the article. GermanJoe (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Hi again. COI editor here. To begin, thank you Spintendo for your constructive suggestions and commentary. I see the point you make about the definition of symbols I inserted. Although I believe there are important differences that relate more to matters of the nature of symbols and how they are constructed between the existing text and the definition I inserted, these issues are perhaps best reserved for another time. Again, thank you for taking the time to provide another perspective on this matter.
• To GermanJoe, I'm all for civil discourse, but admittedly, engaging in a discussion about what should or should not be included in a Wikipedia article is new territory for me. I'm not sure what else I can say to defend the merits of the reference I have inserted. I assure you, the three types of symbolic value I inserted as part of my original edit are noteworthy contributions and extensions to the material in this article (and to our knowledge about symbols in general). Although the three forms of symbolic value might appear trivial to you, they simply do not to others interested in this topic (if they were so intuitive, again, this review article simply would not have been published in such a noteworthy journal). Regarding your second point, I believe the examples themselves are what make the ideas germane and accessible to a diffuse audience. They can be modified of course (and I'm happy to rework them a bit), but easy examples are the things that make more difficult concepts (such as ideological, comparative, and isomorphic symbolic value) understandable to a broad and generally naive audience. Regarding your third point, I'm happy to add additional content with references to other studies and authors who have devoted considerable effort towards understanding this topic. In fact, part of the problem with the content presented in this article is that it appears arbitrary and unfounded. For example, there are no citations to published studies in the most critical first section of this article, leaving the reader (or perhaps just me) with the impression that the descriptions of symbols in the first paragraph are just hot air. Further, the structure of this article is somewhat ad hoc and random. For instance, the first and fourth sentences are related yet separated structurally. They also say very similar things and make similar points (to your point one above). The example of a red octagon evoking in the mind an image of a stop sign is at worst culturally contingent and nonsensical and at best more akin to describing a mental association than a symbol. The list of issues goes on and on, but I will stop there. Although i am willing to add a number of edits here and there with references to relevant literature to elevate the quality of this article, I must admit that I do not have the desire to become an expert Wikipedia contributor. Thus, these edits will likely be somewhat minimal, if you would like me to try to make them. Regarding the reference I have already inserted, unfortunately, the definition I proposed in my original edit is the work of the authors who proposed it in the Annals article (thus, it simply cannot be attributed to another set of studies or authors). Similarly, the identification of the three forms of symbolic value is a contribution only made through the review of the literature presented by those same authors. Thus, these contributions cannot be attributed to other researchers.
• Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:4000:5FF2:D858:7526:286B:3B25 (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have tried to trim your suggested section a bit while keeping the substantial information in. This section could be added before the "Paul Tillich" section:

Symbolic value (first version)

Symbols can carry symbolic value in three primary forms: Ideological, comparative, and isomorphic. Ideological symbols such as religious and state symbols convey complex sets of beliefs and ideas that indicate "the right thing to do". Comparative symbols indicate answers to questions of "better or worse" and "superior or inferior". Examples of symbols with comparative value include a prestigious office address, fine art, or prominent awards. Isomorphic symbols blend in with the surrounding cultural environment such that they enable individuals and organizations to conform to their surroundings and evade social and political scrutiny. Examples of symbols with isomorphic value include wearing professional dress during business meetings, shaking hands to greet others in the West, or bowing to greet others in the East. A single symbol can carry multiple distinct meanings such that it provides multiple types of symbolic value.

References

• Changes made: the mentioning of specific research is sort of redundant. Ideally all content in such an article should be based on research, attributed in a citation. I have also trimmed some self-evident phrases and replaced the specific religious symbols with a more general explanation. It would be great if the other 2 terms could also be explained without lengthy lists of examples (in an encyclopedic context this approach is not ideal), but I appreciate that such terms may be difficult to clarify completely without them. In a second later step it might make sense to merge this section with "Concepts and definitions" (somehow), but let's look at it as stand-alone section for now.
• Please let me know what you think about the tweaked version. I still believe that it is too early to use the given source, but if other editors don't object we should work on a compromise. I also agree with your criticism about the article's current structure - there is certainly room for improvement. Regarding your concerns about the unsourced "first section": that is actually working as intended. The entire first "lead" section should only summarize content from the article's main body. As such a summary the lead usually doesn't need references, but depends on properly-sourced later sections. Of course if the first section does not sufficiently summarize the article, that's a problem (see also MOS:LEAD for the general concept). GermanJoe (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your speedy response. The edited symbolic value section is enhanced and streamlined in my opinion. Thank you for taking the time to make the edits. Although I am completely comfortable with your edits, I have taken the liberty of following your lead and merged the sentences for comparative symbolic value into one sentence to streamline a bit more. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to combine the two sentences for isomorphic symbolic value. Here are my changes:

Symbolic value (second version)

Symbols can carry symbolic value in three primary forms: Ideological, comparative, and isomorphic. Ideological symbols such as religious and state symbols convey complex sets of beliefs and ideas that indicate "the right thing to do" based on the meanings ascribed to them. Comparative symbols such as prestigious office addresses, fine art, and prominent awards indicate answers to questions of "better or worse" and "superior or inferior" based on the meanings ascribed to them. Isomorphic symbols blend in with the surrounding cultural environment such that they enable individuals and organizations to conform to their surroundings and evade social and political scrutiny. Examples of symbols with isomorphic value include wearing professional dress during business meetings, shaking hands to greet others in the West, or bowing to greet others in the East. A single symbol can carry multiple distinct meanings such that it provides multiple types of symbolic value.

References

• Thank you for clarifying the intended purpose of the lead sections. This is good to know also more generally, as I am a frequent consumer of Wikipedia content. I am happy to insert the above symbolic value section or the one you edited if you would like, just let me know. And thanks again for your timely responses to this issue.

• I have adapted my last version to include your streamlined change about comparative symbols, and added this version to the article - no need to go through Wiki formalities again, as we seem to agree for the most part anyway. Of course further suggestions and edits to improve the article are always welcome. I hope you'll consider contributing as topic expert in other articles as well with a broader range of sources. Thank you for the constructive discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)