Talk:Models of communication

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nouha Mihoubi, Anisha.1015 (article contribs).

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Models of communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 09:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Last updated at 2024-03-19 17:45:45 by Phlsph7

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:[edit]

  • Some page ranges are so wide as to be useless
    I'll see what I can do about that but this may take me a little bit longer.
    No problem, might be useful to go through and see what needs page numbers versus where the chapter will do. Citation 17 is a good example of what I mean.
    I added more specific page numbers for various sources. I hope I got the most problematic ones.
  • "Some constructionists" is a bit weasel like, maybe name one or two?
    Done. The original sources did not give examples of constructionists so I had to add additional sources.
  • "Example of a model of intrapersonal communication showing the different steps involved in the process." This caption is insufficent to explain the complex image, I assumed the explaination would be in the text, but it's not.
    The second paragraph in this section gives a general description of intrapersonal models of communication. But I agree that this is not sufficient. I expanded the caption to give a rough overview but the model is too complex to be discussed here in detail.
    Perhaps it makes more sense to include it in the prose? Or find a less complex example? Also, see below.
    See the discussion of Barnlund's model.
  • This is sort of plagarism: "In this way, the sender "exploits another animal's ... muscle power".[46]" as the citation (46 here) is itself citing someone else. You need to cite the original source (Krebs and Dawkins 1984, p. 381) and where you found it (in Ferretti, Francesco...) See: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
    Done.
    Thank you, this was a biggie.
  • Charts, continued: I'm mildly concerned about WP:OR on some of the charts, I'm not about to flag the incredibly simple ones (like the helix), but can you drop a citation on the complex ones? For example: "Westley and MacLean's expansion of Newcomb's model. (from XYZ book)", ideally with the page, but really just anything to indicate that the source isn't your brain. I'm guessing you turned the questionable graphics of a textbook into something actually readable, but a brief mention of which textbook would make me feel a lot better about it. Newcomb's model is in citation 83, and I'll note here any others I happen across.
    Done. The great majority are just vector versions of diagrams found in books, usually with added colors to make them more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Westley and MacLean's expansion of Newcomb's model. — what are X' and fBA? I'm assuming X' is the actual message transmitted and fBA is something related to feedback loops, but you explicitly defined the other symbols so can these two be defined too?
    You assume correctly. I added the corresponding clarification.
  • "The fault of linear models is that they understand communication as a linear flow of messages from a sender to a receiver." — According to?
    I attributed this and the following claims.
  • I cannot even begin to parse the Barnlund chart.
    It is explained in more detail at Barnlund's_model_of_communication#Interpersonal_model. I guess the issue is similar to the one we had with the image of the intrapersonal model. In both cases, a proper explanation of the model may be too detailed for this overview article. I see two solutions. (1) We try to give a rough characterization and provide a wikilink to the article where this is discussed in more detail. (2) We remove the images. I'm in favor of (1). I added the corresponding wikilinks in the meantime. In this case, we (or better, the readers) have to accept that this article only gives a taste of a bigger topic discussed elsewhere. The readers may not fully understand what they see but they get a general impression and this familiarity may make it easier for them to understand the model when they see it next time. What are your thoughts? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for Barnlund's model it might be best to just remove it, it's not adding anything but confusion currently. I don't know about the other one, you might be able to explain it well enough. Your call, I'll pass it either way. Reread the links up above, and ping me? ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argenti Aertheri: I removed the image of Barnlund's model and tried to simplify the explanation of the intrapersonal model. Thanks a lot for all your helpful feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit notes[edit]

"The process as a whole is very complex, which is why models of communication only present its most salient features by showing how their main components operate and interact." This sentence is entirely correct, but feels "off", change the bolded to "the"?

Done.

"Models of communication serve various functions. Their simplified presentation helps students and researchers identify the main steps of communication and apply communication-related concepts to real-world cases.[7][8] The unified picture they provide makes it easier to describe and explain the observed phenomena. It can guide the formulation of hypotheses and predictions about how communicative processes will unfold and show how these processes can be measured.[7][9] One of their goals is to show how to improve communication, for example, by avoiding distortions through noise or by discovering how societal and economic factors affect its quality.[3]" I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out what the bolded pronouns are referencing.

Done.

"or that one should greet people when they greet oneself" Change to: or that greetings should be returned?

Done.

"According to Robert Craig, this implies that communication is a basic social phenomenon that cannot be explained through other factors, like psychological, cultural, or economic or other factors"

Done.

"This response can itself produce new stimuli and act this way as a form of feedback loop for continued intrapersonal communication."

Done.

"For example, Wilbur Schramm holds that this relationship informs the expectations they the participants bring to the exchange and the roles the participants they play in the exchange" - I think it's clearer with those swapped.

Done.

The use of the word "orientations" regarding Newcomb’s model matches the source, but reads oddly due to the more usual meaning of the word. He also, more rarely, seems to use "attitudes", maybe change one or two to clarify what "orientation" means in this context?

I added a clarification for the first one mentioned.

"Gerbner's model was first published by George Gerbner in his 1956 paper Toward a General Model of Communication." — maybe change to "George Gerbner first published his theory in his 1956 paper Toward a General Model of Communication."

Done.

"One of its innovations is that it starts not with a message or an idea"

Done.

"In Gerbner's example, "a man notices a house burning across the street and shouts 'Fire!{{' "}}." — not a required part of the manual of style, but it does make nested quotes easier to parse.

Done.

"For Barnlund, communication is also circular because there is no clear division between sender and receiver as found in linear transmission models." I think that addition makes it clearer, but either works really.

Done.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-blocking by User:Phlsph7[edit]

The "owner" of this Wikipedia article appears to be blocking corrections to the article. Most recently he has removed corrections by alleging copyright violation, without actually reading the cited source. I request appointing a more mature guardian of this Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:748F:CA76:201D:D370 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding since Wikipedia does not appoint owners or guardians to articles and no edit block is in place. Copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia. This means that it is not acceptable to copy-paste text from a copyrighted source or closely paraphrase that text, see WP:CV and WP:PARAPHRASE. If you think that this Wikipedia policy is not relevant to your addition then you can use the talk page to explain your point. If you do so, I would strongly suggest that you change your tone to avoid insulting editors in the future, see WP:UNCIVIL. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove of the tone but agree that the proposed version specifying the model designer's perspective is a better reflection of the source and is highly relevant to the article. Notwithstanding, the whole article needs fundamental improvement because it suffers from self-contradiction - either the truth of communication is known, or it is unknown/in dispute. If it is in dispute, then a model cannot be a simplification, because a simplification assumes knowing the truth. If on the other hand the truth of communication is understood and beyond dispute, then there is no reason to use the word "model", it would suffice to use the word "simplification". As it stands, a significant portion of the article confuses "model" with "simplification", and that confusion is alas reflected in some of the sources. 37.5.242.34 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you attempt to address the problem. However, the new proposal still suffers from the same problem. It might be helpful to take a close reading of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, especially the discussion in the section "Example". Copy-pasting a sentence from a source and changing one or two words is usually not acceptable. If you are unsure about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can always suggest changes on the talk page rather than adding them directly to the article. I tried to add your idea in a different form, which I hope addresses the point you were most concerned about.
Models of communication are usually presented as simplifications in the reliable sources, including the source from which you copied the sentence. Since Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, it is not our responsibility to present the something entirely different because what we personally believe is right or wrong. If righting wrongs is your goal, then publishing articles in high-quality journals would be the way to go, rather than introducing personal ideas to Wikipedia articles, see WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of your amendment. However, the general problem remains that the sourced statements contradict each other, and the Wikipedia article does not assist the reader in resolving this contradiction. (On the one hand, the Cobley & Schulz reference employs the concept of model and theory in the conventional and scientifically usual form, which means there is no known truth, only models and theories and hypotheses; in contrast, the other cited sources implicitly assume that the process of communication is a fully known reality, and therefore models, theories and hypotheses are not necessary, it suffices to make simplifications of the known truth, and these simplifications are labelled "models" presumably to make the researcher sound more scholarly.) Surely we would not accept a Wikipedia article which says "Reference 1 says that the capital of France is Paris, and reference 2 says that the capital of France is Vichy." Both statements on France are correct in certain contexts, but the Wikipedia reader would be left confused whether Paris or Vichy was or is the capital of France. We should do better than this for the communications article. What is your suggestion? (Let me predict: do nothing and refer the problem to some Wiki chat page which never leads to anything... Been there, done that.) 37.5.242.3 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that we are making progress at least on one front. It's normal for different sources to describe their topic in slightly different ways. This is not automatically a problem and does not need to involve a contradiction. For this specific case, even if you are right that there is a contradiction, this is far from obvious and would require a detailed interpretation.
My suggestion is to find a reliable source that explicitly discusses this contradiction. This way, the information can be included in the article. But without a source, there is not much we can do since a non-trivial interpretation of whether or not a contradiction is involved would be a form of original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following Phlsph7's suggestion, I have read the multi-author work "Theories and Models of Communication", De Gruyter publishers, edited by Cobley and Schulz (2013), to find out what communication researchers nowadays mean when they say "model". I have compared this 2013 source with the cited Ruben 2001 online encyclopedia, which references only older works, 1950s/1960s.

Briefly, the result is that communication researchers (as of 2013) tend to use "model" in the usual scientific manner, i.e. a model is a representation of reality, whereas a theory is an explanation of reality. It is therefore not sufficient to say that a model is a simplification of reality, as per the encyclopedia entry by Ruben 2001, as this definition is not found in the 2013 book. I am amending the Wikipedia article accordingly.

Details: The book contains 18 chapters by different authors and is fairly recent (2013). The term "theory" is used 803 times, "model" is used 535 times, "hypothesis" occurs 9 times, and "simplification" occurs only once. Of the 18 chapters, five chapters offer explicit definitions for "model". (The other chapters use the terms "model" and "theory" sporadically without explicitly explaining what they take these terms to mean.)

The five definitions converge on the central idea of a model being a representation/ picture/ figure/ diagramme/ design, only the first chapter contradicts itself somewhat by stating at one point that a model is similar to a theory.

Here are the five definitions, quoted literally:

Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz chapter 1, p7/8 "we can describe a model as a simplified picture of a part of the real world. It represents characteristics of reality, but only some of them. Like a picture, a model is much simpler than the phenomena it is supposed to represent or explain... a theory is supposed to represent or explain the phenomena to which it refers... in this volume, both terms, theory and model, are used interchangeably"
Robert T. Craig in chapter 3, p46/47: "Although the terms model and theory are sometimes treated as equivalent, this usage occludes an important distinction. A model is a representation of a phenomenon. An empirical-scientific theory is an explanation of a phenomenon...Insofar as a theory must represent the phenomenon of interest in some way, it can be said that every theory includes a model or at least has a conceptual form that can be modeled. However, not every model is a theory because not every model provides a principled explanation for the structure or process represented."
Richard L Lanigan, p64: "Models are abbreviated, usually diagrammed, presentations of theories. While the pictorial presentation is a useful visual aid to comprehension, it is critical to remember there is a large body of published research that explains the conceptual content of the model."
Gabriele Siegert and Bjorn Rimscha, p130: "media business models are not so much about daily business activities, but a fundamental concept of how the business can operate, what interfaces it offers for other industries, and what trade relations and financial interactions render it potentially successful. They can be described as structural design of the relevant flows of information, services, and, finally, products, and include an account of the necessary business activities and their reciprocal importance"
Davide Bolchini and Amy Shirong Lu, p399: "To provide a coherent perspective on the various facets of the notion of channel, we introduce here a tripartite model (Fig. 1), which serves two aims. First, it provides a synthetic view to conceptualize the complexity of what a channel is at the proper level of granularity and relevance for understanding modern communication. Second, it offers a perspective to illustrate how the notion of channel has been conceived and analyzed in different ways by some of the most famous communication models" 31.221.219.0 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look at Cobley & Schulz 2013. However, none of the passages you cite contradicts the idea that models simplify and some even support it. This characterization is quite common in reliable sources besides the ones mention so far. For example, see [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I slightly adjusted the original formulation to more closely reflect the terminology in Cobley & Schulz 2013. It's usually not a good practice to remove reliable sources from an article just because they don't support one's preferred view. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your step is retrograde: nobody is disputing that models often "simplify" (the technical term is "reduction"). The reason for removing Ruben 2001 is that it is out of date compared to Cobley and Schulz 2013, given that the Ruben 2001 webpage cites literature only from the 1950s and 1960s. If you wish to retain Ruben 2001, please first explain to me why Ruben's non-academic, non-peer-reviewed private online comments are a reliable source for Wikipedia. (On a personal note: it appears that you like arguing on Wikipedia without taking the time to read the discussion, let alone the sources. Unprofessional.)46.6.174.166 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Communication_and_Information. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]