Talk:Community of practice

/Archive 1

Untitled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice#CITEREFWenger_et._al2004 is not a good ref link JaapB (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of discussions up to November 11, 2009

For further information on any of the following topics one must visit /Archive 1 .

This article is of key interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community.

This page was nominated for deletion, but the nomination was revoked. In the early creation of this page it was discussed that CoPs should be broken up into specific types of CoPs. It was decided that this was not the best approach as describing a particular type of CoP only explains a particular use of a CoP.

The only external link found thus far that fits the Wikipedia criteria is Etienne Wenger's homepage.

The structure of the article has been debated and what is there now is simply the best to date. This is the opinion of the currently active collaborators.

A section contrasting CoPs to Project Teams was added and removed, but because the differences were deemed important the note, Contrast with Project team was added to the see also section.

The idea of duality, reification and participation as well as legitimate peripheral participation have been judged essential. The role that CoPs can play in KM is also critical. The 7 actions Wenger proposed for cultivating CoP's are considered crucial.

A section on future and possible uses may be added.

The argument about collocated vs virtual Communities of Practice could be bought out more clearly.

Wenger 2004 should be Wenger 2002.

Buzzwords are still being dealt with. At this moment an answer from an editor stated that the article does indeed still contain too many buzzwords. Do we remove them or parenthetically define them? We were referred to request advice/help from a copy editor. The request has been made.

Expanding and Defining Terms and Buzzwords

I think we should perhaps give brief examples/definition of the different 'benefits of social capital'. While most are self-explanatory, 'leveraging the best-practices' is definitely not. Do we need to cite a brief example for all, or just those that might not be readily understood?Chawt (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget you can check out the Social capital wikipedia entry too. It is a start class article.

Mecha ant 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha-ant (talk • contribs)

Removed several sections (Wenger quotes) that were buzzword-heavy. Removed unattributed section text about Organizational learning. Please feel free to add back the sections LATER WORKS and ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING once the information can be attributed and verified.--Kchorst (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replace the section on 'later works' as this is the only part that talks about LPP and dualities - see the summary above "The idea of duality, reification and participation as well as legitimate peripheral participation have been judged essential."

I don't think we can simply dismiss these as 'buzzwords' as they are (depending on which view you take) the mechanisms that make Communities of Practice work. legitimate peripheral participation has a section all of its own although dualities (in the sense that Wenger used the term) does not.

Perhaps somebody should write one.

Compo (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the later works section again simply because the terms within it are not defined or clearly linking the early works to the present work. While the text in the section may be essential, important, and true, the contents I removed do not include definitions, nor explanations of what the dualities mean or how they apply to CoPs. As one example, "reification" has many meanings (none in the article, and several to link to within wikipedia)..if it's important, which is the one that Wenger refers to? My editing approach is to have the text be clear first, then added to the article. If it is so essential, it should be correct and complete to the average wikipedia reader, no? --Kchorst (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kchorst "The idea of duality ... [has] been judged essential". Please do not delete something that others have agreed as essential because you do not think they are well enough explained. If one were to remove everything that was not well explained from Wikipedia there would not be very much left. Things that need improvement are there to be improved, removing them simply leaves a lacunae. If something needs improvement, improve it don't take the easy option and delete it.

Compo (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

References

I have tried to update / fix malformed references and remove references that were not cited. I have also added and introduction to the section on the development of CoPs

Compo (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dualities / Buzzwords

To end the removal / reinstatement of the section that includes a reference to dualities, I have created a page to clarify the term Duality_(CoPs)

Compo (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and try to think of other editors before you make changes - Chawt has just made 16 separate edits, including the deletion of the sections on dualities that were previously identified as "essential". If one editor just hacks out things they consider to be buzzwords, all it leaves are lacunae for other to find and fill in. If the same thing happens repeatedly, then the task becomes impossible.

Compo (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated 'later work section' again. The explanation given by is Chawt "it is FULL of buzzwords/jargon and it is impossible to understand as none of the terms are explained." In response to similar comments, I have created a whole new page duality to explain these terms. This section refers to Wenger's 1998 work which marked a major change in the way that CoPs were described. The theme was agreed as important by other editors. Simply deleting a whole section followed by multiple other edits is not the way forward.

Compo (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Buzzwords' tag

I think that we have a reasonable job of cleaning up this article. I propose that we remove the 'Buzzwords' tag now. Does anybody have any objections to this? Compo (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also would be good if it was not ranked a stub-class article. Mecha ant 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha-ant (talk • contribs)

OK the buzzword tag has been removed Compo (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, go talk to someone at the relevant WikiProjects to see if they'll re-evaluate it and maybe move it up from stub-class to something higher.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a reference

I don't know how to add a reference to Wenger's new book that extends Wenger (2002) using concepts from Wenger (1998) to the realm of technology mediated communities:

Etienne Wenger, Nancy White, and John D. Smith, Digital Habitats: 
stewarding technology for communities (Portland, OR: CPsquare, 2009)

http://isbn.nu/9780982503607 Smithjd8 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithjd8 (talk • contribs)

Adding mention of 'communities of influence'

There is a particular kind of community of practice which some (including myself) are referring to as a 'community of influence'. I think it might be reasonable to mention this somewhere in this page and would appreciate other contributors' views. I can offer references, including a number of journal articles and a recently published book, though these are all by me and my co-authors (the book was published in May 2011 by Radcliffe, title: "Communities of Influence: improving healthcare through conversations and connections"). I think one might start by adding a sub-entry on this page (which already mentions communities of interest, distinguishing them from communities of practice). Should I ask a reputable colleague to write and sign the text rather than doing it myself? If I do it myself and my name appears in the references, is it likely to be deleted? Or does one just try and see what happens?! Grateful for suggestions from more experienced wiki editors. Alison Donaldson (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Alison Donaldson

Hi Dr. Donaldson, seeing that this book and the concept of "communities of influence" are both very new I think it would be best to 1. wait and see the kind of impact it gets in the field, and 2. that the data be added by someone who is neither a co-author of the book or has been asked to add it by one of the authors. In order to include a concept we need to show that it is notable (which means that it has been the topic of substantial coverage in third party sources) and that it is not given undue weight in relation to the main topic of the article. In this case the topic of "communities of practice" is a very well known concept with a very large body of literature, and the relative weight of the communities of influence and communities of interest in this article should be relative to the relative size and impact of the literatures. If you could point me to some other literature apart from the one co-authored by your self that uses the concepts then I would be better able to form an assessment of how to weigh them. My initial judgment, not having heard of any of the two concepts you mention, but being somewhat familiar with the literature on communities of practice, is that it is probably of too marginal relevance to include in the article as of yet. But this judgment could be changed if you point me to sources showing that the concepts are well established in the literature. The relevant policies to know about are the policies regarding weight, notability and conflicts of interest (I don't think conflict of interest necessarily applies here, but it is good to know what the policy says). Best regards. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the prompt and helpful response. Unless somebody else has a different suggestion, it does sound sensible to wait and see if 'communities of influence' gets taken up in the literature. By the way, two of the three co-authors have met Etienne Wenger (I haven't personally) and we have alerted him to the publication of the book. Let's see what happens... Best wishes, Alison Donaldson (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Alison Donaldson

Congratulations with the book, and I wish you the best and hope the books gets a whopping impact in the field. Perhaps when a couple of reviews come out the concept will merit its own article, where it wouldn't have to be weighted in relation to its relevance to the topic of communities of practice. Also you are quite right that someone else might have a different opinion - I am in no position to decide whether to include or not include mention of the concept or not, what I gave you was my personal judgment which may well vary from those of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

I believe that we should talk about how Wenger and Lave coined the term community of practice. "People usually think of apprenticeship as a relationship between a student and a master, but studies of apprenticeship reveal a more complex set of social relationships through which learning takes place mostly with journeymen and more advanced apprentices." They coined it through the examination of apprenticeships. Gbmaruggi (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Citation template

The citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read. Is there any reason for it? WP:CITET Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes: the page seems to be largely a loose pile of original research, synthesis, and personal essay. That last is readily apparent by the bloated "further reading" list, clearly the bibliography from someone's class paper, who likely appeared here only to share their enlightened state with the world without bothering to learn how citations work in Wikipedia. If up to me, I'd simply remove everything that's not explicitly supported by the four references. Anyone else want to clean it up before I get bored?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, "the citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read"? Are you talking about the usage of Harvard referencing? Or do you mean something else? – Tea2min (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a phenomenon I've seen in a few W'pedia articles. Unable to prove that the page doesn't deserve the template, much less to make suitable repairs, the "editor" claims the template makes the page esthetically unappealing and removes it. But credit to Volunteer1234: those removals are almost always done without any attempt at discussion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)