Wikipedia

Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/Archive 5

< Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Vspriet in topic Quality of Life
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Rate_enhancement_strategies

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies is a little ugly and also the quoted numbers don't massively match up with Speech_generating_device#Rate_enhancement_strategies because of the different sources used - I propose making Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization a separate section, although there are definate overlaps, and also bringing in some of the sources from Speech_generating_device#Rate_enhancement_strategies to bulk out the section and match the numbers up. Anyone think this might cause issues? Failedwizard (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean about "ugly" but hey, whatever!! I agree that it makes sense to have the same numbers in both articles: the key is to agree on what the best sources are and go with those. I don't in theory object to making the rate-enhancement section a separate section again, but I do have some concerns about the content in the SGD article: Some of it is sourced to conference proceedings which are generally not considered the highest quality sources; Also, for the summary AAC article it is better to use more secondary sources: as an example, Dasher is a supercool project and I am personally fascinated by it. Somewhat irrelevantly, I don't know of an AAC user who actually uses it. More importantly, I am struggling to think of secondary sources about AAC that give it much/any mention. But I may be wrong, but we also need to think about weight issues. --Poule (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool - have made the move (and some other content has been added more-or-less inspired by the peer review, although I'm not sure the content did what I intend it to). Normally I'd support the journal over conference issue, but it's easy to miss that a lot of the SGD research is done by the computer scientists (in fact, the conference papers in the SGD article are all computer science) so they get their usual exception on this issue.* Also bear in mind that the AAC article references organisation websites [1]], and newsletters [2] (all of which I do support being in the article) - so peer reviewed conferences are possibly not the least solid sources, regardless of discipline.

. *This is a footnote because it's not aimed at Poule, who I expect is familiar with the discipline difference, but to general lurkers who might find it useful) Computer science as a field is one that has both journals and conferences, but the big conferences are often more prestigious than the small journals and vice versa - the normal justification for this is 'It's because our field moves so fast', which was a good answer in the 1970s but is looking less fabulous these days - Moshe Vardi got himself into all sorts of trouble in 2009 when he challenged the status quo [3] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [4] (which ironically, appears to be a journal publication) Failedwizard (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy with the general thrust of this, but not with the sourcing. Computer scientists don't get a pass on reliable sourcing rules, most especially on a potential FAC about a non-computer science topic. I'm not sure at all what the "usual exception" is that you are talking about. Can you point me a link about this exception? My review of discussions at WP:RSN suggest no such exception.
In addition, some of these sources are quite old: if there isn't something from better sources that has been published since some of these conferences - one of them was held 2002, another in 2007, then there is also the issue of undue weight.
Let's look for better sources to show that this information is significant and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article about AAC going to FA. --Poule (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Um, I thought I had pointed you to a couple of links... "Moshe Vardi got himself into all sorts of trouble in 2009 when he challenged the status quo [5] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [6] (which ironically, appears to be a journal publication)" exception in the sense of academia by the way, not wikipedia... I'm really confused by this to be honest - I understand these to be peer-reviewed procedures of work presented to academic conferences, and I'm also pretty confused by the idea of 2007 being old... Easy way to find out is to ask the question at WP:RSN, which I'll do now.Failedwizard (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I should have searched before asking the question - my review of discussions at WP:RSN suggests conference proceedings are discussed here, here and here and all of those mention Computer Science as an exception, or at least a case worth considering. Failedwizard (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your links: I see various editors at RSN stating that full papers presented at high quality computer science conferences with full peer review, should be considered reliable sources. At least one of the conferences you cite, CSUN, is an assistive technology conference, not a computer science one.
At many assistive technology conferences, there is only very minimal peer review in selecting presentations for the conference. In addition, the "proceedings" are in fact a collection of the abstracts/proposals submitted 6 months to a year before the conference for the selection process, not the full papers actually presented on the day. This is the case with the CSUN ones at least.
In contrast, having done a bit of more sleuthing I'd agree that both the Patel et al and Black et al look good. The Patel paper appears to have been published in an ATIA journal, and the Black et al one is not an abstract but the full paper, written by experts in the field (and at a computer science conference to boot). I'll fix up the citations for these.
This Higginbotham article from the AAC journal in 2007 [7] looks like it might have useful info. I imagine there are others too, if we look. --Poule (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you so much for cleaning up the references - looks much nicer now, I think the 'are conferences reliable sources outside computer science' question is not one we are likely to agree on any time soon - In an effort to get on to more productive things (I'd like to go back to the animation above for a start) I've dropped the CSUN reference, so I think we agree that all the currently referenced conferences/journals are fine, and we can continue thinking on a sources by source basis for a while longer. While dropping the reference I also returned the text to the vocab section. The reasoning is that in the vocab section it's marked as research work, and it's clear that this is developing work for improving vocab - in the history section it implies that future AAC innovations mainly involve vocab and I think that's running a little close to Wikipedia:WEIGHT. Worth checking higginbothem though - and possibly Black had something, can't remember of the top of my head...Failedwizard (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So clearly ([8]) that compromise didn't work out. How about, as a different compromise, the current version ([9]), which has both a small mention in history (I've made no edits to that section at all) and an overview in Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization - for all the reasons I gave in my previous talk post ([10]) and because the two paragraphs are now very different anyway - only one reference originally added to Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization appears to have made it to history... (PS - the new higginbotham and and cook references don't go anywhere in the history section, so it would be great if you could have a look at them) Failedwizard (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As you will have noticed, in my previous edit I summarized the content you had added in the history section, and deleted other parts of it. Perhaps I should have explained more clearly why before, but I didn't. I'm sorry and here goes.
  • The first sentence is not verifiable from the citation given. There nothing about bottlenecks, names etc in Higginbotham at least as far as I can see.
  • I summarized the information from coming from Ashraf and Luo and Patel. All the references are still there. As I mentioned before conference proceedings are weak references due to lack of peer review, but two of these three directions are also mentioned in Higginbotham, which provides some secondary, non-conference proceeding support for the significance and notability of these new directions. I deleted the life-logging sentence, because it gives undue weight to a highly experimental approach which has been tried by one research group, with a single case subject, reported in conference proceedings and lacking secondary support for its importance.
  • I moved the information to the history section because your (quite reasonable) argument above was that you didn't want the impression that all AAC innovations involved vocabulary. Well now the "future directions" part of history has been expanded, and includes hardware, software and vocabulary. I don't see that the argument holds anymore. We don't have "future research/direction" in any other sections, for example about access etc. Why would vocabulary be an exception?
Thanks for pointing out the non-functioning links. I think I've fixed them. --Poule (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So regular readers of this talk page will know I tend to be very happy to let the article develop in ways that aren't my choice. However, I'm increasingly feeling that my opinions are not been taken seriously, and that it's in the best interests of the article that I start standing up for myself. With this in mind, I've put back the text in question (and have made a number of changes to address concerns raised above). I'd like us to reach a compromise, but if that's not possible I'd like us to go to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard (I'll take a revert as a yes) - that way we can get on with things like finishing the scanning examples and dealing with some aspects of the history while that's being taken care of by wikipedia's processes.
To deal with the feedback point-by-point
  • "The first sentence is not verifiable from the citation given" Yep - there was a issue there caused by the compression of the material and the wrong source had been left in - have replaced and also replaced the word 'bottleneck' for 'problem' so as to closer match the source.
  • "All the references are still there" Um... the version after [11] has 172 refs, but the version before [12] had 176...
  • "As I mentioned before conference proceedings are weak references due to lack of peer review," I understood that was still under discussion in this very thread, I think we disagree very fundamentally here but just to be clear on a couple of bits, *if* we are requiring peer review then we should look at the conferences in question, which are ASSETS, IUI, and SLPAT.
  • ASSETS - Peer reviewed [13] (acceptance rate 37% [14])
  • SLPAT - Double blind peer reviewed [15] (can't find acceptance rate)
  • IUI - Double blind peer reviewed [16] (acceptance rate 29%)
  • "I deleted the life-logging sentence, because it gives undue weight to a highly experimental approach which has been tried by one research group, with a single case subject, reported in conference proceedings and lacking secondary support for its importance." Um, yes I would expect a research paper to be experimental... and as mentioned the conferences are peer reviewed, also I can see two separate users mentioned in the text - in any case it turns out that there is a secondary source for this one. [17], which I've added with page numbers.
I hope this answers any concerns :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for changing the reference, but I don't see anything about programming names etc in the Reddington and Black article either. The article is more about timely access to social conversation, which is not really surprising because their approach is really at the utterance, interactional level.
  • I don't know if you've ever been involved in peer-reviewing articles for conferences and journals? Or made to submissions to either or both? I have done all of the above, and can assure you there is absolutely no question that the peer review is much, much more rigorous in journal articles. It doesn't matter what the acceptance rate is, it doesn't matter whether things are double blind. And more to the point, arguments about all this don't matter, because per policy and guidelines, WP requires the highest quality sources available, and conference proceedings don't make the grade, though apparently a few editors would make exceptions for computing conferences. But another main factor is the undue weight: hundreds of posters and papers are given at conferences, and hundreds of single case subject studies are done, as you no doubt know. Not every conference presentation deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article; that's why the secondary support is necessary -which you have found in the Newell reference- for which congratulations. However, I couldn't find anything about Lifelogging or NLG on the page or chapter you cited, which is all about the past history of AAC. I'm guessing you meant p. 67. Am I right?
  • It's fine for you to stand up for yourself, but you do need to address the arguments. Why have you returned the section to the vocabulary section, despite my comments above about why this is not appropriate. As far as I'm concerned this is the major issue, but you just did this without any comments or discussion. If you were trying to reach a compromise, why didn't you simply expand the version in the history section, where much of the information already was, including 3 of the conference references you have offered, rather than reinserting your preferred version, yet again, in exactly the same place?
  • I'll be honest that, personally, I'm very much inclined to give up on this whole thing. It has become very questionable whether it is actually worth the trouble. I've no doubt you are absolutely editing in good faith, but as your comment above suggests, you seem to see this as a dispute situation, where you have to fight your ground, rather than a collaborative venture. A classic case in point was when, despite my specific request to wait, you "voted" to go back to FAC on a date when you knew I wouldn't be available.[18]; there have been other situations too, which have led me to believe you would be happier if I just went away. I don't doubt you have a lot of good knowledge and ability to bring to this article, but then so do I. I don't feel that you have respected my opinion or the work that I have done, or the background knowledge and experience of AAC (and Wikipedia) that I have brought to this article. Obviously you feel the same, for which I am sorry.
  • I'm going to give it one final go at something that I think is an appropriate compromise, bearing in mind the issues of article structure, sourcing, undue weight, and what I have been able to verify from new sources you have provided. Hopefully it will work for you. --Poule (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I notice you've been using some of the sources under dispute in the history section, I'm aware that's against your philosophy and I appreciate that. However I do think that we've reached a stage of circular arguments, and in order that we can continue our development of the article we should probably hive this off someone where we can get other editor input - I'll put as balanced a viewpoint as I can on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, as a gesture of good faith I'll leave the paragraph out while that rumbles on, but If I had to express my philosophy on this in a sentence it would be that I think that readers who come to the article looking for information on the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary of AAC should be able to find all the information they need in the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary section without having to hunt though the whole article, even if that does involve a small amount of repeated content. Failedwizard (talk)
Posted at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Augmentative_and_alternative_communication - it's good to get that out of the way, will start looking at the last of the scanning files shortly (got a GA running as well) :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think your description of this dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is accurate. This is not about conference proceedings but rather about your insistence on keeping a not particularly well-written paragraph with verifiability and undue weight problems, in one particular position in the article. [19][20][21][22]
Let's look at the history of this. The article's peer reviewer suggested the history section be expanded with some information about future directions. We both agreed with the suggestion and you placed some preliminary material in the vocabulary organization section as a temporary measure (Your words: "I don't think its the history section is ready for it yet so it's waiting for it's time in the vocab section"[23]). See also [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication&diff=460652636&oldid=460647171] Yet when I do the research to expand the history section to cover the topic of future directions/research in a broader fashion - including vocabulary- you simply continue to reinsert the original material back in the vocabulary organization section. Right from the start I included 4 of the 6 sources you proposed. Over time, I did the research to find secondary sources (and you found one) to back up some of the weaker conference sources you provided, and finally included a fifth of the 6 references and solved the undue weight problem I had pointed out about using unsupported conference proceedings[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augmentative_and_alternative_communication&action=historysubmit&diff=465128957&oldid=464298978][24][25]. Instead of thanks, it is a revert back to your preferred version in the vocabulary organization section. Other miscommunication:
  • You agree to delete the CSUN conference proceedings, but remove only one of two.
  • You don't appear to have even examined what I had done, because you twice claim[26][27] that I have deleted all but one of the references you added (see above).
  • You admit to having included the wrong citation for a particular sentence (mistakes like that happen quite easily, so no problem)[28] but then replace one citation with material doesn't contain the material either.[29]
  • But most importantly, you don't or can't explain why now you think this particular material needs to duplicated and should stay in the vocabulary organization section when you originally stated it was a temporary measure. You've argued above that people should be able to find everything they want to know about "the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary of AAC" in that section. Well, the current "vocabulary organization" section doesn't actually contain all information available about the history/outcomes/symbols/vocabulary. It has information about vocabulary organization. And why on earth should this one section cover future directions/research, but not any other? For example, what about the "access", "high tech" sections? I just don't think the argument makes any sense. But what I notice, troublingly, is that the section you wish to retain is about British-based research. The Good Article reviewer to Speech generating devices twice noted the preponderance of British-based material in that article (even going so far as to mention it as a POV problem).[30][31]. This is amplified by problems with factual accuracy when edits to the SGD article claimed that the first SGD was British, which was simply incorrect.[32]
Failedwizard, you've got many skills and have done lots of good here at Wikipedia. I truly appreciate all the time and trouble you've taken, and the push you've given to the development of several of these articles. We all have our faults and make mistakes, and none of those that you or I have made have been serious. I appreciate that you have not reinserted the section yet again. --Poule (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So I think we should now wait for other editor's opinions - for reference to other readers - in the paragraph in question it is true that of the five references, three are from the UK and only two are from the US. It may way be the case that I'm more likely to have run across UK-based research (I live in the UK), but I feel I'm editing from a global perspective.Failedwizard (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

For more of an update - this is the response from the reliable sources people: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences - in short they weren't massively impressed but they also don't raise any objections to either academic conferences in general, or the disputed three here. I'm going to take some more advice at DRN and work out a sensible next move. I'd like to reopen the discussion here and see if anything has changed. How are we feeling about the disputed paragraph at the moment? Failedwizard (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I haven't changed my opinion at all, because as noted above, the sourcing issues were never the major problem. I think you summarize the results of the RSN well: they weren't particularly supportive about the use of academic conferences, but in any case as you are aware, two of the three conference proceedings you inquired about (and one you did not, CSUN) are used in the article already. With secondary sources to back them up, I didn't have any problems with them. The one not used - Black et al.- is the "Workshop" proceeding which was particularly questioned, and for whose content I could not find secondary support. All to say, my primary issues about your paragraph - listed above- remain the same, and have not been addressed. In fact, the RSN responses, quite incidentally, support several of the concerns I have.Poule (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So the reason I took a break from this is because when we have "Black et al.- is the "Workshop" proceeding which was particularly questioned, and for whose content I could not find secondary support." compared with your previous comment [33] "Black et al one is not an abstract but the full paper, written by experts in the field (and at a computer science conference to boot)" then I think the conversation should probably stop... Fayedizard (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Augmentative and alternative communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augmentative and alternative communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Augmentative and alternative communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augmentative and alternative communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Life

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a lot about the AAC. In general but I must emphasize the Quality of life section. I made a minor change to this section, but I will definitely come back to add more. The whole purpose of the emergence of AAC was to give these individuals the opportunity to communicate. In order to give them quality of life, and not be in a mental prison. There is so much more to this one little section. I would like to add faces with smiles, and maybe a small video of someone actually communication. Thoughts? Vspriet (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)VSpriet

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication/Archive_5&oldid=1066184079"