Talk:Communication theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's important to provide the various definitions of "communication" as defined by various prominent researchers in the field, such as Julia T. Wood and Steve Duck.

Conforms to all of the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia? Why move it, exactly?

• I don't have any great suggestions. It seems the article is too academic for whomever is acting as editor. See Sociology for an example of what they're looking for in form and formatting. As for the content of this article, it's dead-on-accurate, but I don't know that that is what the editors are looking for. Downchuck 02:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC) It seems to me this article is very much in line with other Wikipedia entries on the Social Sciences. Only the evaluation guidelines seem out of place, and even there, they are necessary for a critical understanding of Communication Theory. Are the editors upset with the density of the article or the content? Perhaps a different style of prose is all they are requesting, one more optimistic, less esoteric. Downchuck 03:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think that everything after evaluating theory should go. That's just general theory or social theory discussion and I don't think it is relevant to comm theory. The first part is good but could be expanded. Rauh 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Mapping the Theoretical Landscape" is certainly relevant Downchuck 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right Downchuck, that should stay. This is a large deletion on the page content and I'm somewhat reluctant to go ahead. Whoever added the part we are removing is anonymous and from this discussion page we are the only ones interested in it. What do you say, go ahead and massively edit it? Rauh 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm the anonymous author--it got moved from a different heading at some point. I'm more than a little disappointed to see it cut down. Strikes me that someone looking for an article on communication theory would find value in the evaluative section, even if it is redundant. But I'll post it locally and point students toward it there instead. Halavais 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] needed article

It would be great if someone who is familiar with communication theory could write an article discussing "receiver" in the comms theory context. I've had to remove links to "receiver" from this article (and several others) using the word in that context because the existing "receiver" article is a disambiguation page. Getting a "receiver (communications theory)" article to add to the "receiver" disambiguation would be really neat. -- Mikeblas 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

since the field itself appears to be fairly to really very badly defined (IMHO), i inserted a receiver (Information Theory) instead. -- Kku 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leibniz?

The Leibniz reference is intriguing, but needs development. Unless someone wants to provide some context for this claim, I think it should be removed. Vault 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A "slippery" article

this article doesn't seem to fit a professional standard of academic writing. Use of first person plural and adjectives such as "slippery" make it sound more like a college lecture rather than an academic article, much less one that adheres to the style of an encyclopedia. Communication Theory is an abstract concept, but therefore deserves a straitforward approach so as the definition, not the nuance, maybe more easily understood by the reader. I would argue that the use of such adjectives gives a biased connotation on the subject.