Talk:No Doppelgangers

The notability of this concept

Dicklyon has questioned the notability and has proposed a merging, with the argument, see [1]:

I can find no evidence of notability of that theorem of Pask; Pask himself passes notability, I think, though the evidence needs to be made clear in this article by citing independent sources about him. (Dicklyon 05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I however think there is substancial evidence of the notability. We are here not talking about a concept you or I have thought of. The notability of the No Doppelgangers concept is based on the notability of Gordon Pask.

Now I wonder who Dicklyon came up with the idea that Pask himself passes notability. If that was so, he would have never write and publiced it in the first place!? - Mdd 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. It has to be established by references to independent reliable sources on the subject. When I place a notability tag on an article, it's to remind editors that that has not been done yet, and should be a priority. It doesn't always mean I've tried and failed to do it myself; sometimes I've looked, sometimes I haven't; sometimes I think it will be hard, sometimes easy. Dicklyon 22:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited?? If Gordon Pask is notabale and any article about his work is at least a little notable. I think there is no rule about Notability being inherited or not. But there is the rule of no original work. This article, which I like in it's current form, seems to fit the criteria. - Mdd 23:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you re-read WP:NOTE and WP:NOTINHERITED. Dicklyon 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If a proof is found or published after an eminent man's death surely it should be published? Yes, its mind stretching, peculiar, memorable if not applicable seeming - at first -all the better. Users can develop and append criticisms. Let them- use the strengths of Wiki. This posted at Talk:Gordon_Pask. --Nick Green 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am checking with ex- doctoral students but I think the first proof was published posthumously. It would be nice if we could do right by Pask. Von Foester called him a genius in the Pask Festschrift. He's just had an exhibition of multimedia work in Edinburgh (see Exhibition, Pask archive etc) and his archive is due to be opened at University of Vienna in November with a session (at EMCSR 2008 major European biennial conf) led by Ranulph Glanville who will launch a collection of Pask's papers he has co-edited. He talked about "No Doppelgangers" from the late seventies with his students and colleagues but we were all pretty perplexed so Pask (1993) and Pask (1996) is kind of a mystery unraveled. The duration proof is in the middle of his last peer-reviewed paper (along with many other treasures). Actually Mdd, you did something on de Zeeuw who was Pask's colleague/collaborator when he worked on Interactions of Actors as prof of Andragology at U of Amsterdam. Does any of this help?

No Doppelganger could be merged into CT. It applies- but only as component of kinetic Actor support of Conversation (said Pask) and I thought it worth a separate entry and given the richness of the theorem (edict or clause- he called it all these things) producing physical differentiation and its peculiar potential cybernetic rigour, the incommensurability of Actor time vs commensurability (see quote in No Dopps) of Conversation durations one can only hope more research is stimulated to tease out some of the finer applicable distinctions. My piece at The Cybernetics Society gives a wider look at his later work. Pask's assertions. Hopefully the new collection of papers will assist us draw e.g. "for every force there is a orthogonal force" and his work on analogy, dependence, contradiction and innovation to a wider audience. Pity to hide such a rich legacy.--Nick Green 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

@Dicklyon. Thanks for mentioning WP:NOTINHERITED: I noticed that is not a rule but an argument one should not use. Now I can tell you to read WP:ITSNOTABLE: Instead of saying "Non-notable", provide specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability.

I think this discussion should not be about the Wikipedia RULES. It should consider the specific reasons. Now Nick Green is providing us a lot of specific information. I wonder what your specific opinion is about that? - Mdd 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE. It suggests Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Now go back and look at the top of this discussion, where my edit summary is quoted as saying "I can find no evidence of notability of that theorem of Pask; Pask himself passes notability, I think, though the evidence needs to be made clear in this article by citing independent sources about him." But that was for the Pask article; on Doppelgangers, my edit summary on placing the tag said (call for references to independent sources to establish notability). I can expand if that's not clear enough. This is not a deletion discussion, and I have not argued specifically that the topic is not notable (though I am prepared to do so in a deletion discussion if it comes to that); all I'm asking is that you add citations to the article, to independent sources about the subject; independent in this case specifically means in addition to those references by Pask himself or others too close to the concept to serve as evidence that the concept has become notable. If you have since added such evidence of notability, please so point it out here and we can move on. Dicklyon 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something has to be done here. But there seem to be little I can do here:

• I can't find the term "No Doppelgangers" in Google or Google BETA in relation with Gordon Pask
• The recently added references doesn't seem to be independent of the subject
• A main source seems to be the Gordon Pask (1993). "Interactions of Actors (IA), Theory and Some Applications": An incomplete 90 page manuscript from 1992. The copyright status of this maniscript is rather unclear to me, because it doesn't seems to be publiced formally. I believe that the copyright laws of the Netherlands in such a case states, that one could not cite from such a source. I don't know how this is with English/American law.

Allthough I appreciate it very much that specialists in field, like Nick Green, write about these particularly specilized subjects, I don't quite see, how this article can remain in it's current state. One way to find out is to propose this article for deletion. Then we can let the Wikipedia community decide. But is this what Nick Green wants? - Mdd 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be just a waste of everyone's time. Let's just merge it as I suggested. Agreed? Any objections? Dicklyon 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pask (1996) tho published posthumously contains the first short and stricter proof and was peer reviewed. There is a further international conference in November which will have a special session on Pask's work see homepage Cybsoc (3rd Heinz von Foerster Congress at Univ of Vienna). I'd like the notability objection removed and keep things as they are but the only objection I can muster to merging it with Gordon Pask is it is a very important detail in what is largely now an overview of his later work. So if you still insist merge it with Gordon Pask- alternatively the Cybernetics Society will doubtless be happy to host the page. It is a potentially fundamental and powerful theorem for a strict new cybernetics not yet widely known, appreciated or understood. Though clear once understood, Pask is not the easiest of writers to understand. His doctoral students have not yet published anything on it, as far as I know. Hopefully the next few years will see a change there but a full cybernetic coherence theory won't come overnight, given the difficulties of phase space that Pask describes and No Dopps implies.--Nick Green 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick, please review WP:NOTE, and it you think it's notable per these definitions, just point out one or more published sources that are reasonable independent of the subject and discuss it. Dicklyon 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dick, it may be that the first published proof in a peer reviewed paper (Pask 1996) was posthumously published although he mentioned it many times (from late seventies onward when I joined him) in his lectures and talks to his research students. With the recent increase in interest in his work something may come out but I don't know anyone who is preparing to apply it yet. The Cybernetics Society will be happy to host but appending it to Gordon Pask might do if you really think it should be moved. Pask was about as highly regarded in his sphere as a man can be but we are all scared of misapplying his work- which is not easy to fully grasp. If No Doppelgangers is a work of pure genius, as it could well be, then it must stay as it is.--Nick Green 00:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no position to have an opinion on any of that, just want to see WP:NOTE respected. If you can't cite reliable secondary sources, then we shouldn't keep the article. Dicklyon 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)