Talk:Science communication

message: I find the section truly unnecessarily wordy. Does anyone disagree? And if not, does anyone else want to make it more to-the-point before I try??-Tesseract2(talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagining science's public

message: The words "science policy" really jumped out at me. That would be ethics and politics. Deciding what our ethical and political goals are going to be is not a scientific question - or at least not an empirical question. Is there some science experiment you can do which will tell you who to vote for? Of course not.
Another one that jumps out is "Rejected superstitious beliefs." Highly ambiguous. Are all religious views except atheism and all metaphysical views except naturlaism-materialism "superstitious beilefs?" That would not be science - that would be begging the question wearing the false cloak of "science." --2610:E0:A040:E0F5:41FA:3CB3:308E:C9BD (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical and political issues 

message: I would like to propose some changes to the Science Communication page. Although I find it interesting I feel that we could do a lot to improve it for the intended audience and indeed ourselves. I should mention I am a Science, Communication and Society master’s degree student and am going to use this as part of an assignment I have been set. In my opinion the basic structure of the page could be improved. I intend to help with this process by adding a section based around the Public’s Engagement with Science particularly focussing within the UK, primarily focussing on The Bodmer Report. However, as part of this I would like to relate this to any such movements/reports which may have taken place globally. Therefore, I wonder if anyone may be able to help me with this or have some pointers or suggestions which I may be able to include within this section? I would also like to change the image of Newton’s cradle to something which is more relevant to the subject so again if anyone has any suggestions please go ahead and let me know. 
With regards to my earlier comments about the structure of the page some suggestions may include the history of science communication, methods and theories such as the deficit model which doesn’t appear on the page, a more structured list of key science communicators. Adding to this I think a section on the deficit model will fit well after the section I propose to add. Led90 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggested changes... 

message: I am proposing to add a section giving a general overview of the ways in which science is communicated to the public. This will be quite a broad overview but this is currently missing from the page so I feel it is worthwhile adding it. I will be covering three main methods of communicating science, which is mostly based on the work of UCL lecture Karen Bultitude. These areas are: print, face-to-face and online. Other contributors may feel it worthwhile to go more in-depth with each of these areas, for example, by adding some more information about science journalism, science festivals, the rise of Citizen Science and so on. My intention at this point, though, is just to give a basic picture of methods of communicating science to the public. I am also a Science, Communication and Society master’s degree student Wordnerd21 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods of communicating science to the public 

message: I'm currently planning to add a selection on the Science Communication page on the popularization of science in the 19th century. Rather than write about the history of science through the ages, I was looking to highlight the importance of science and culture in the 19th century by giving a brief summary of the history of science (I recognize that there is limited wiki pages on this and I would like to edit these at a later date), then by splitting my section into two paragraphs: one on the more social groups of science, and the second paragraph on methods of publication and accessibility. In doing so, I think it would provide a good foundation for this page and would add to Wordnerd21's broad overview of the communication of science.
Codyhenault (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularization of science 

message: Hi there. As part of an educational assignment, my group and I just added a new section about the effects of twitter on scientific communication. Just wanted to give the admins and editors a heads up. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgruhin (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Subtitle Added 

message: The page needs some major work, and it might make sense to rethink what's important and relevant. Is anyone opposed to overhauling and revising the headers? I'm also concerned that this page reads like a term paper. Phrasing is not neutral toned.Smojarad (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New directions (2019) 

message: Wide overlap. fgnievinski (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Unnecessary. 2001:8003:9008:1301:21D0:D945:43A0:166E (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose I would say these are not the same thing. SciComm is the act of accurately communicating science conducted by scientists; popular science is the general public interpretation of science that may or may not reflect how it is communicated. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks!   SoloBear89 21:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Popular science]] into [[Science communication]]