Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cultural Evolution

	Cultural Evolution NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cultural Evolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cultural EvolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionTemplate:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionCultural Evolution articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cultivate a network of university-based leadership committed to using the Wikipedia Education Program (WEP) Model I suggest one of our goals as a project is to cultivate a network of university-based leadership committed to using the Wikipedia Education Program (WEP) Model to strengthen the network of articles that fall under the interest of Cultural Evolution. This would provide a broad base of continual engagement on these important articles, and also provides valuable service-learning experiences for students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustinEirdosh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC) DustinEirdosh (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current page Cultural Evolutionism obviously needs to be either completely changed and renamed, or perhaps more likely a disambiguation with a new page called simply "Cultural Evolution". Which do you think is the better move?DustinEirdosh (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is the significantly better page of Sociocultural Evolution which is perhaps a better starting point? Is there any reason to disambiguate cultural evolution from sociocultural evolution? -DustinEirdosh (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this slightly awkward disclaimer in the lead of sociocultural evolution says:

(Note, this article focusses on that use of the term 'socio-cultural evolution' to refer to work that is not in line with contemporary understandings of the word 'evolution'. There is a separate body of academic work which uses the term 'cultural evolution' using a more consensus Darwinian understanding of the term 'evolution'. For a description of this work, based in the foundational work of DT Campbell in the 1960s and followed up by Boyd, Richerson, Cavalli-Sforza, and Feldman in the 1980s, go to Cultural evolution or Dual inheritance theory.)

In other words it's a very detailed discussion of some outdated theories with as I see it only little relevance to the modern field except as historical background. So I don't think it's a very good starting point.

I think we're all agreed we→ need an article for the modern understanding of cultural evolution as a phenomenon and as a field of study, preferably at cultural evolution. We can easily exploit the excess of jargon around this subject to maintain a separate article for the historical social/sociocultural/unilineal/multilineal/neo/Spencer/Morgan/Steward/White evolutionism with disambiguation notices at the top of each.

Whether we base that article on the existing cultural evolutionism or Dual Inheritance Theory articles, or just start from scratch, is another question – as has been discussed at length in the CES working group mailing list. Joe Roe (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think remove the link to 'cultural evolutionism' page and make a new Cultural Evolution page based on ideas of social transmission. from here, have disambiguation from different uses of the word (like historical theory of progressive change of culture (the sociocultural evolution page) and then links to sub-topics within the cultural evolution or extensions of cultural evolution theory (like Dual Inheritance Theory or a page on cultural niche construction and transmission through artifacts or environmental changes). I'm not sure how to relate to the page that is being developed as 'Cultural Evolutionism'. It seems to be referring to something different and not another approach to the same thing.

I also would suggest changing 'Dual Inheritance Theory' to 'Gene-Culture Coevolution' I know that DIT is a term that was used more at first, but i think i see 'gene-culture coevolution' more used now and it also, as a title for the theory, communicates the concept more immediately, i think than ' Dual Inheritance Theory'. Karl Frost (talk) 14:32 GMT, 15 April 2016

As I suggested earlier, I think it better serves our interests to locate a Wikipedia discussion of Darwinian-inspired theories of cultural evolution within a broader historical and philosophic context. In a work in progress, I write the following:

The emergence of a discipline or subdiscipline represents a moment of divergence within the ongoing, multilinear process of scientific evolution. Proponents employ boundary framing processes to construct new intellectual niches. Boundary framing includes “the embellishment and reconstitution of relevant aspects of the past” (Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994, p. 195), including the elaboration of a “conventional foundation story” and the establishment of a canon--i.e., “a privileged set of texts, whose interpretation and reinterpretation defines a field” (Connell 1997, p. 1515, 1512). Canons legitimate certain authors, assumptions and concepts while delegitimizing and excluding others. They provide a shared language, identity and sense of cohesion to participants of newly delimited intellectual networks.

I think the above paragraph defines what should be our goal for the Wikipedia page. We are attempting to construct a new intellectual niche for theories of cultural evolution by elaborating a conventional foundation story and establishing a canon. Darwinian theories of cultural evolution did not arise de novo, but from a complex and ongoing intellectual history. I for one, would like to see that history be a central concern of the CES and the Wikipedia page. Thus, I would suggest using the existing Sociocultural Evolution page as a starting point. The discussion there is superficial and has some glaring mistakes, but it could easily be reworked into a conventional foundation story, one which clearly differentiates theories of progress/development from theories of cultural evolution properly so-called.

The reason for the mistakes in the article and the awkward disclaimer that Joe Roe notes, is that the philosophic underpinnings--essentialist versus populational/or frame-invariant versus frame-relative thinking in Sober’s (1980) terminology--of these two sets of theories has not been discussed. Explicitly discussing these issues would:

1) remove the ambiguities in the current article.

2) allow us to further delegitimate theories of progress/development by adding a section which explicitly discusses their shortcomings and clearly identifies the source of those shortcomings.

3) serve to further legitimate populational perspectives on social change by clearly differentiating them from the former, and suggesting how they can and have been used to overcome the shortcomings of developmental theories.

4) move us closer to having a shared language, identity and sense of cohesion for CES.

Finally, I would reiterate that addressing theories of progress and development is not just an historical but very much a contemporary concern. Explicit and implicit versions of these theories still persist in many disciplines. And theories and/or ideologies of development are even more prominent in the political and cultural sphere. One of the reasons for their persistence is this that most social theorists do not understand the underlying philosophical issues. For example, some Ecological Modernization theorists believe that simply rejecting determinism or recognizing agency means that they escape charges of essentialism and developmentalism when, in fact, developmental theories are not deterministic in the first place. The Sociocultural Evolution page makes the same mistake. Likewise, some current attempts to revive Marxian theory in relation to environmental issues deny that Marx was either an essentialist or developmentalist. And, as I have discussed in my work with Thomas Dietz (McLaughlin and Dietz. 2008. GEC 18:99-111), essentialist and nominalist theories still represent a major obstacle to theorizing the human dimensions of climate change. At any rate, that’s one vote for combining old and new theories of evolution into one page. Paul McLaughlin 66.67.50.220 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A final thought. In terms of structure and coverage, what I have in mind is something very much like the History of Evolutionary Thought page which begins with a link to the Sociocultural Evolution page Paul McLaughlin 66.67.50.220 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the creation of a new 'Cultural Evolution' page for CE as a field of study as differentiated from a set of evolution based viewpoints. This page might explain the distinction between cultural evolution and cultural evolutionism (as non-synonymous). I suggest also make this point on other closely related pages (ie Cultural Evolutionism) and link back to the CE entry. As an overall project I suggest the creation and hyperlinking of any "gap" pages rather than trying to cram everything into a CE page. Obviously suggest off-site links to more in-depth academic stuff such as hosted by the CE Society. Andy Lord 91.84.7.29 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a very short Cultural Evolution page for review - its just some partially thought out explanation, and incomplete references so that others can correct and complete it. AndySLord (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can use this Project Talk Page, until a CE page goes live. Nudge the habbit to using Wikipedia for Wikipedia issues, and use email for other CES stuff. AndySLord (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note on the logistics of starting a cultural evolution article: as @AndySLord: just found, submitting an incomplete draft to the main article namespace is likely to get shot down very quickly, because editors outside the WikiProject will be looking for a new article that substantially expands on sociocultural evolution (which cultural evolution currently redirects to).

I'd suggest working on a draft at Draft:Cultural evolution (and I've taken the liberty of moving Andy's draft there as a starting point) first, which we can then move to article space when it's reasonably developed. The other advantage of this is that it will then be eligible for WP:DYK, which will get us a lot of visibility. Joe Roe (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, much appreciated: we could keep the overall project talk here and move the specific page talk there. AndySLord (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone reading this page? Why do people create projects on super niche topics... join Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Culture , which have 3-4 semi-active members. Nobody will contribute here except the initial creators, for a few years until they move on. Prove me wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in LGBT culture

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]