Talk:Kenneth Craik

message: Kenneth H. Craik is a living emeritus faculty member of the psychology department at the University of California, Berkeley.  Would he need to meet notability criteria to justify inclusion of a disambiguation link, even if only to an unwritten page? --Alousybum (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He died in 2012:  --Arno Matthias (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation with Kenneth H. Craik at UC Berkeley 

message: A good deal of Craik's work (especially The Nature of Explanation) was an exploration of epistemological and general philosophy of science views. In it he proposes a theory very like Coherentism as an epistemological standard for science that predates Quine's and Ullian's web of belief metaphor by a couple decades. I could go on, but he was criticizing the logical positivists long before it became in vogue and dedicates a good chunk of the book to the philosophy of Physics. 
Finally, with regards to Philosophy of Mind, his computational metaphor (which has become mental models) is reminiscent of the arguments laid out by Turing in his approach to giving a rigorous account of intelligence. While their approaches were different their conclusions were quite similar and his influence has been felt across the cognitive sciences for quite some time.
Mdpacer (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion to include role as a philosopher 

message: I ran across a copy of Craik's The Nature of Explanation recently and become fascinated by this prescient genius, who died so young yet did so much.
Surprised to see the stub oldid=598613229 (as the article existed before I started in).  I've resolved to help get this man the credit he deserves (according to reliable sources, not me).  (I've asked one such reliable source for copies of paywalled published papers that I might mine for some inline cites). The article text is coming up for a total rewrite and major expansion, to the extent the sources allow and my good judgment dictates. 
My plan of action is designed to help me learn some nuances of citation, as well - one reason I picked this out-of-the way stub, with no pre-existing article citation conventions or recent editorial activity. Here's where I'm at and what I'm up to: 
I'm working first on the Bibliography - see article History for painstakingly documented efforts so far.  I'm a stickler for using ISBN and DOI in book and journal citation templates, and Google Books and Web archives when available. The idea is to avoid link rot, so this article will be useful for years to come without excessive manual maintenance, other than routine off-topic deletions (esp. of tangential references with no immediate relevance to this man's life and work) and vandal reversions.  
I want to try short-form note (WP:SRF) format for a multi-column Notes section [e.g., Craik 1943, p. 51) automatically hyperlinked to relevant Bibliography entries (with all the ISBN, DOI, archive apparatus), to avoid clutter and still keep Notes specific to a particular page of a source.  As Craik is both philosopher and psychologist, I think specific page number references are important, as many reliable sources cite specific pages of his dense monograph for different purposes.
Please bear with me for just a few more days at most if you're dying to help now. Comments, additional references, photo in Wiki Commons, suggestions, etc.  always welcome here.  I'll be out of the way very shortly.  But do what you will, whenever, however - this is Wikipedia and I don't own this article, not even for a minute. We all do, forever.  Thank you. Paulscrawl (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Paulscrawl, thank you very much for this incredibly extensive listing of references for Craik.  I had no idea there was so much available on him.  I also was quite enamored of the man when I first learned of him and read his book, and I am very happy that the article has become so rich in information, and also that the book is now available for all to read in Google Books.  Spalding (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in progress: 1. References (done) 2. Expand using shortened footnotes citation style (next few days)