Talk:Stigmergy

message: The second paragraph of this entry was previously marked as a quotation, but without referring to any source.  I googled parts of the passage and could not find anywhere else on the web that includes this passage.  I am going to assume that it was a mistake to use the blockquote layout and remove it - please add the appropriate reference (or mark this entry as plagiarizing) if someone finds the original source. Leejasonc 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Second Paragraph 

message: Wikipedia really is an excellent example of stigmergy. It's a fascinating concept when you think about it. ~ Rollo44 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigmergy and Wikipedia 

message: Jondron (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the agents being unintelligent is a key part of stigmergy. I think Wikipedia is an example of self-organisation, because most of the time, the decision to make an edit is not the result of direct communication. Most of the time, I make an edit simply because I come across an article and see an opportunity for improvement. I suppose this fits better with the definition of sèmatektony than stigmergy, as the whole article can hardly be thought of as a "sign". PJvanMill (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as stigmergic? 

message: "New governance shall be based on systems..." is not encyclopedic; it's prognostication and violates WP:FUTURE.  The content of the paragraph might, barely, be admissible if it were better attributed, but the string of citations in the middle of the paragraph leave it unclear whose ideas these are.  The section as a whole might also violate WP:NOT#OR, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the field to say for sure. ---  Rmdickson (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigmergic behavior in social movements 

message: I just reverted a couple edits.  added mentions of [self-]governance in the lead and elsewhere. While the article could use some work and the governance perspective could probably use to be fleshed out some more, the source used to add the content here looked to be pretty unreliable blogs/personal sites.  do you have other sources you could use? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance sources 

message: While I don't want to post any kind of argument for or against and have some sympathy towards the segments in question, I'm pretty sure they violate both Non-Neutral Point of View and try to make Wikipedia into a medium to determine the future, which obviously it can't be.  A more skilled editor might be able to keep some of the good points of those segments while cleaning up the language, as I wouldn't want to just wholesale cut them out as some of the things have merit, but I don't believe that editor to be me. Sorry if this isn't the best or proper way to address this in advance. DamienGranz (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of 'Social Media' and 'Society' segments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stigmergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104125931/http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~rad/courses/cs266/papers/beckers-alife94.pdf to http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~rad/courses/cs266/papers/beckers-alife94.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stigmergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://forms.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002764/znw00107000018.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211203903/http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/ju_burbeck.html to http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/ju_burbeck.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106032517/http://markorodriguez.com/Research_files/collective-model.pdf to http://markorodriguez.com/Research_files/collective-model.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: ...and if i could, i'd happily continue touching up and explicating logic all night. My ongoing internal comments are not enuf in the long run, but i hope i can make convincing that the text i found must be misrepresented or fundamentally unsound, and my expectation is that the attribution of the relevant source has been at best reacklessly left as one previous editor honestly quoted it, but an intervening editor has ignorantly or maliciously attributed more insight and less instinct to worker ants than the presumably sound sources would countenance. I'm not qualified to rewrite it in a version worthy of long-term retention, but the present text seems to deny the observations, and even plausibility, of the phenomenon rings of ants following their collective scent trails in a closed loop until they -- in effect -- starve to death. I'm not insisting it's a sick joke rather than ignorant skepticism, but it's vandalism in effect if not in intent. ... Well, of course there **are** anecdotes that seem to suggest Romans witnessed Vandal tribesmen vandalizing well-executed murals, as if expecting to eat the animals convincingly portrayed in them....--JerzyA (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneasy with stopping at this point, even overnight