Talk:Community of practice

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice#CITEREFWenger_et._al2004  is not a good ref link JaapB (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think we should perhaps give brief examples/definition of the different 'benefits of social capital'.  While most are self-explanatory, 'leveraging the best-practices' is definitely not. Do we need to cite a brief example for all, or just those that might not be readily understood?Chawt (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Expanding and Defining Terms and Buzzwords''' 

message: I have tried to update / fix malformed references and remove references that were not cited.  I have also added and introduction to the section on the development of CoPs
Compo (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: To end the removal / reinstatement of the section that includes a reference to dualities, I have created a page to clarify the term  Duality_(CoPs)
Compo (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dualities / Buzzwords 

message: I think that we have a reasonable job of cleaning up this article.  I propose that we remove the 'Buzzwords' tag now.  Does anybody have any objections to this? Compo (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also would be good if it was not ranked a stub-class article. Mecha ant 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK the buzzword tag has been removed Compo (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, go talk to someone at the relevant WikiProjects to see if they'll re-evaluate it and maybe move it up from stub-class to something higher.-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'Buzzwords' tag 

message: I don't know how to add a reference to Wenger's new book that extends Wenger (2002) using concepts from Wenger (1998) to the realm of technology mediated communities: 
 Etienne Wenger, Nancy White, and John D. Smith, Digital Habitats: 
 stewarding technology for communities (Portland, OR: CPsquare, 2009)
http://isbn.nu/9780982503607 
Smithjd8 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a reference 

message: There is a particular kind of community of practice which some (including myself) are referring to as a 'community of influence'. I think it might be reasonable to mention this somewhere in this page and would appreciate other contributors' views. I can offer references, including a number of journal articles and a recently published book, though these are all by me and my co-authors (the book was published in May 2011 by Radcliffe, title: "Communities of Influence: improving healthcare through conversations and connections"). I think one might start by adding a sub-entry on this page (which already mentions communities of interest, distinguishing them from communities of practice). Should I ask a reputable colleague to write and sign the text rather than doing it myself? If I do it myself and my name appears in the references, is it likely to be deleted? Or does one just try and see what happens?! Grateful for suggestions from more experienced wiki editors. 
Alison Donaldson (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dr. Donaldson, seeing that this book and the concept of "communities of influence" are both very new I think it would be best to 1. wait and see the kind of impact it gets in the field, and 2. that the data be added by someone who is neither a co-author of the book or has been asked to add it by one of the authors. In order to include a concept we need to show that it is notable (which means that it has been the topic of substantial coverage in third party sources) and that it is not given undue weight in relation to the main topic of the article. In this case the topic of "communities of practice" is a very well known concept with a very large body of literature, and the relative weight of the communities of influence and communities of interest in this article should be relative to the relative size and impact of the literatures. If you could point me to some other literature apart from the one co-authored by your self that uses the concepts then I would be better able to form an assessment of how to weigh them. My initial judgment, not having heard of any of the two concepts you mention, but being somewhat familiar with the literature on communities of practice, is that it is probably of too marginal relevance to include in the article as of yet. But this judgment could be changed if you point me to sources showing that the concepts are well established in the literature. The relevant policies to know about are the policies regarding weight, notability and conflicts of interest (I don't think conflict of interest necessarily applies here, but it is good to know what the policy says). Best regards. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations with the book, and I wish you the best and hope the books gets a whopping impact in the field. Perhaps when a couple of reviews come out the concept will merit its own article, where it wouldn't have to be weighted in relation to its relevance to the topic of communities of practice. Also you are quite right that someone else might have a different opinion - I am in no position to decide whether to include or not include mention of the concept or not, what I gave you was my personal judgment which may well vary from those of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding mention of 'communities of influence' 

message: I believe that we should talk about how Wenger and Lave coined the term community of practice. "People usually think of apprenticeship as a relationship between a student and a master, but studies of apprenticeship reveal a more complex set of social relationships through which learning takes place mostly with journeymen and more advanced apprentices." They coined it through the examination of apprenticeships. Gbmaruggi (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: The citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read. Is there any reason for it? WP:CITET Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: the page seems to be largely a loose pile of original research, synthesis, and personal essay. That last is readily apparent by the bloated "further reading" list, clearly the bibliography from someone's class paper, who likely appeared here only to share their enlightened state with the world without bothering to learn how citations work in Wikipedia. If up to me, I'd simply remove everything that's not explicitly supported by the four references. Anyone else want to clean it up before I get bored?Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, "the citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read"? Are you talking about the usage of Harvard referencing? Or do you mean something else? – Tea2min (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a phenomenon I've seen in a few W'pedia articles. Unable to prove that the page doesn't deserve the template, much less to make suitable repairs, the "editor" claims the template makes the page esthetically unappealing and removes it. But credit to : those removals are almost always done without any attempt at discussion.Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation template