Talk:Stigmergy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Second Paragraph[edit]

The second paragraph of this entry was previously marked as a quotation, but without referring to any source. I googled parts of the passage and could not find anywhere else on the web that includes this passage. I am going to assume that it was a mistake to use the blockquote layout and remove it - please add the appropriate reference (or mark this entry as plagiarizing) if someone finds the original source. Leejasonc 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stigmergy and Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia really is an excellent example of stigmergy. It's a fascinating concept when you think about it. ~ Rollo44 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as stigmergic?[edit]

Jondron (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) the issue of whether or not Wikipedia editing (section on applications) is stigmergic or not is open to argument. The original concept explained self-organization in relatively dumb agents and continues to apply in human stigmergy in, say, stock or money markets, discussion forums and forest trails. However, though there *are* patterns of emergence in Wikipedia (e.g. through the use of wikitags) the act of editing does not display the same self-organizing properties that make it a valuable concept in natural and other human systems. Arguably, it is simply a mediation between editors that is more akin to dialogue. It is a sign-based system, like all written human communication, but that does not make it stigmergic.[reply]

I don't think the agents being unintelligent is a key part of stigmergy. I think Wikipedia is an example of self-organisation, because most of the time, the decision to make an edit is not the result of direct communication. Most of the time, I make an edit simply because I come across an article and see an opportunity for improvement. I suppose this fits better with the definition of sèmatektony than stigmergy, as the whole article can hardly be thought of as a "sign". PJvanMill (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stigmergic behavior in social movements[edit]

"New governance shall be based on systems..." is not encyclopedic; it's prognostication and violates WP:FUTURE. The content of the paragraph might, barely, be admissible if it were better attributed, but the string of citations in the middle of the paragraph leave it unclear whose ideas these are. The section as a whole might also violate WP:NOT#OR, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the field to say for sure. --- Rmdickson (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Türkiye'de darbe teşebbüsü ile gündeme gelen GÜLEN CEMAATİ de stigmergic bir örgütlenmeye örnek gösterilebilir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.246.214 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By December 2013 Gulen Movement (Hizmet Movement) tried a stigmergic state coup in Turkey. As it has various kinds of world and country wide private and public embeded organizational plots were made operational, state coup attemp was nearly successfull. After the democratic elections held in March 2014 (Local Elections) and August 2014 (Presidential Election), attemp of stigmergic state coup was defeated and exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.246.214 (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Governance sources[edit]

I just reverted a couple edits. 219.78.31.85 added mentions of [self-]governance in the lead and elsewhere. While the article could use some work and the governance perspective could probably use to be fleshed out some more, the source used to add the content here looked to be pretty unreliable blogs/personal sites. @219.78.31.85: do you have other sources you could use? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of 'Social Media' and 'Society' segments[edit]

While I don't want to post any kind of argument for or against and have some sympathy towards the segments in question, I'm pretty sure they violate both Non-Neutral Point of View and try to make Wikipedia into a medium to determine the future, which obviously it can't be. A more skilled editor might be able to keep some of the good points of those segments while cleaning up the language, as I wouldn't want to just wholesale cut them out as some of the things have merit, but I don't believe that editor to be me. Sorry if this isn't the best or proper way to address this in advance. DamienGranz (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered content and moved the tag from the top down to the "human" society bit. -- Callinus (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph was removed because the article linked was recommending debt jubilee not stigmergy and the paragraph itself referred to consensus, not stigmergy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneEdenWallach99 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stigmergy. 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) 02:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stigmergy. 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) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uneasy with stopping at this point, even overnight[edit]

   ...and if i could, i'd happily continue touching up and explicating logic all night. My ongoing internal comments are not enuf in the long run, but i hope i can make convincing that the text i found must be misrepresented or fundamentally unsound, and my expectation is that the attribution of the relevant source has been at best reacklessly left as one previous editor honestly quoted it, but an intervening editor has ignorantly or maliciously attributed more insight and less instinct to worker ants than the presumably sound sources would countenance. I'm not qualified to rewrite it in a version worthy of long-term retention, but the present text seems to deny the observations, and even plausibility, of the phenomenon rings of ants following their collective scent trails in a closed loop until they -- in effect -- starve to death. I'm not insisting it's a sick joke rather than ignorant skepticism, but it's vandalism in effect if not in intent. ... Well, of course there **are** anecdotes that seem to suggest Romans witnessed Vandal tribesmen vandalizing well-executed murals, as if expecting to eat the animals convincingly portrayed in them....
--JerzyA (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stigmergy&oldid=1207703751"