User talk:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 13/ Power

= WEIRD Psychology References = Hi, when going through the references list I noticed that a lot of the references for the WEIRD psychology section are repeated in the list, I was wondering if it would make it cleaner if there should be just a single reference used multiple times? Or at least differentiate each reference to indicate which page of the article was used, because at this point most of the references in the 60s are exactly the same. Please let me know your thoughts. Edgeofdawn (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't write this paragraph but I agree that it would look cleaner if the references were not repeated multiple times. I don't know if they want to do it themselves or not, should we change it? AmelieZ (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 10 November 2020 (UT


 * Hi, I did write the paragraph and the article i have used and based most of the article on is actually an online article from the Nation Centre of Biotechnology Information, thereofre there are no pages on the actual article. I do agree that it is a bit confusing but at the same time there is nothing else I can add to it as there are no page numbers to identify the different parts. I have in some cases added the different sub-sections of the article that I took the information from as it does help in terms of organizational purposes. Thank you for bringing it up.User:Ethan.dawson101 (User talk:Ethan.dawson101 • contribs) 12:10, 10 November 2020 (UT

= Article structure =

Hello! I have changed the structure of the article so that anyone can talk about the different forms of power in the disciplines chosen this week and not only one. Please tell me what you think about this!
 * Hello! I will have to admit that, in my opinion, the general categorisation of the different types of power gave the page a structured and coherent look, showing the distinct link between the page and the lecture. It is true, however that in the case of a contribution covering two categories, the division becomes quite difficult. Perhaps we could bring back the four categories and add a fifth one in which contributions covering two types of power are placed? Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I look at it, the new titles seem to only work for the categories covering two types of power, as in all other cases it is just a second repetition of the category title, with a single sub-category.
 * Hey! I think we should wait and see until we've got more contributions before choosing how to categorise them. It'll be easier to decide the best option that way. Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I think that structuring the articles by the distinct disciplines, rather than the different types of power that were identified in the lecture is easier given the wide variety of disciplines that we approached, especially as reading through the submissions, many of the disciplines are related to multiple types of power. However, I think providing cohesion with the different forms of power is a great idea, so I included the different types in the introduction. I think it would be great if we could also add what type of truth we are addressing within our specific contributions as well.

Verysmallroom (Verysmallroom • contribs) 14:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I do like how the titles are organized now and I completely agree with the choice to organize the different sections by discipline and not by type of power. However, in an attempt to get better cohesion i feel like we sacrifice the more precise language that is needed in this particular issue. As I previously noted that, before changing the structure, the different contributions containing the specific type of power in the title or at the beginning of the paragraph manage to better focus on the problem and later on write a clearer and more understandable paragraph were the issue of power is really pushed to the front and dealt with more in depth. So I have gone through most of the different contributions and as I readd through them I added some of the specific power that was being described, but using the categories or notions that have been stated in the introduction.Ethan.dawsson101 (Ethan.dawsson101 • contribs) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

= Power in Education = Hi! MacabreRoses it appears we worked on the same theme but after reading your sandbox I'd say we have not discussed the same things within education (I would say your part is more specific). So I just added my part as a general overview in the education section and made a reference to what you wrote right below. Let me know it it is okay with you :) Lmbs2506 • 11:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Lmbs2506, I think both of our contributions work well together and complement each other, making the page look well coordinated. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

= Introduction = Hi! I wrote an introduction for this article. I hope it is clear enough and that is introduces well the subject. Feel free to change it up! AmelieZ (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for writing and introduction, I find it to be a good addition to the page. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have added some more to the original introduction that was on the page to round it out a bit more and introduce a few more of the topics that are dealt with in the entire article. Ethan.dawson101 (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

= References = Hi all, I was wondering about our references and whether we should try at this point to have them in the same format in the references list? When reading up on Vancouver-style referencing here, it appears that there is a certain format we all need to follow. Do you think it is worth going through our reference lists to tidy them up or do people find that the lists are ok as they are? Please let me know your thoughts! Edgeofdawn (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would definitely agree, I think to get the referencing right we have to do it wikipedia and then copy the source code onto this sandbox. I'll start doing some but it might be worthwhile for everyone to go over their citations because it might be difficult for other people to find the exact thing you cited! Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t mind going through whatever is left and needs touching up tomorrow but yes, in the meantime it would be nice if everyone has touched up their own at least with the doi visible! Edgeofdawn (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will look through them and see if there are touch ups needed! AmelieZ (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

= Power in Language = Not sure who wrote the section on language but I've noticed it's lacking citations. I'm not sure if you're currently in the process of adding them but definitely don't forget to add them to the quotations as well! I tried looking some of them up but couldn't seem to find the source you got them from? Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was in the process of adding them! Thank you for checking though

= Indirect Power in Medicine - Citation Bias = In your last paragraph maybe you could give an example of the serious implication of citation bias and how consequently it harms certain groups of people (based on gender/ or race) Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! I'll definitely provide an example of the serious implication of citation bias although I'm not sure I'll be able to find something regarding how it harms certain groups of people based on race/gender because it's more about whether the references used supports the journal article. Bfevidal (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understood. I just thought in the long term this practice could lead to some subtle forms of discrimination. By the way, there seems to be a problem with your reference n°60...

=Power in Bias Recognition= Hello! I have just changed some of the references of this article to fit the Vancouver referencing style, I hope that's all right. Also, it seemed that your first and second reference were citing the same article so I contracted that to a single reference. If this was a mistake on my part and you would like me to change it back to how it was, do let me know. Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

=Power in the media= Hi! I wrote the first part on the media and I think our articles go well together and they do not contradict the other one. For me, your paragraph was clear and easy to understand! Also, I noticed that some of your references didn't seem to work: the link was not accessible... If that is okay for you, I will juste change that so it is easier to look at them and goes with the others. AmelieZ (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

=Power in Mathematics= Hello, I liked the idea you presented of the direct power within mathematics being held within its universality. While reading it I also thought about the ability mathematics as a discipline to go beyond may other powers that affect many other disciplines. For example, many developing countries have much lower rates of education, thus much lower rates of literacy than developed European countries. Another example could be the fact that in the scientific fields, the scientific lexical field varies depending on the language spoken, thus making collaborative work between scientist of different countries harder than between mathematics. However, precisely because of this unreality, mathematics can past many other powers that could affect its practice and teaching. Thus, the true power, and something that could be expanded by in this section, is in the power that mathematics holds in terms of communication. Ethan.dawson101 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)