Talk:Metadesign

message: * General summary (definition, few examples, history and leading figures)
* History
** It seems like we are co-creating our lives.  Perhaps this is a form of personal metadesign.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.83.227 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General outline for improving the entry

message: I've removed the list of books and articles from the article. Oddly enough, the five references given in the article don't have corresponding entries in the list of books and articles, which reduces the list from a bibliography pertaining to the article to a rather random list of publications (and that's why I use 'bibliography' in quotation marks when referencing this list). Moreover, many of the entries are by John Wood (design theorist), who also is an editor of this and his own article, and that suggests, besides a conflict of interest, that the 'bibliography' was also simply a list of links. For future reference, I'm pasting the 'bibliography' below. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Bibliography' 

message: This article uses style and voice that is not really of the sort a person typically associates with an encyclopedia article. It would be fine for a textbook, a lecture, or a magazine article, but not really for an encyclopedia entry. The intro, for example, seems to be designed to cast the subject in a favorable light and gain the interest of the reader. That approach is excellent and much desired for the aforementioned mediums of writing, but for encyclopedias - not so much. For an encyclopedia entry, the introduction should totally neutral - metadesign could be the best thing since sliced bread, or it could be worse than Ebola - the reader must decide for themselves. Toward that end, then I would change "we" to "people" and add "Metadesign is" at the beginning of the sentence to neutralize and formalize the sentence. 
With regard to the term "methodology" - I would either add some brief (perhaps parenthetical) explanation of methodology as a study of method itself, as this is important both to convey what I gather is the nature of metadesign and to clarify the term methodology for the reader, too many of whom think of it as a term to use when they want to appear sophisticated instead of using "method." I would reword that stuff about defining and creating infrastructures because that conveys no specific, identifiable meaning. (Defining and creating an infrastructure - huh? I'm thinking we're gonna build a bridge or something.) Instead of defining and creating infrastructures it should just go straight to the "practical design-related tools" or even better, "practical design tools" or "practical tools for design" since "design-related" is pretty vague.
The rest of the article seems to talk to someone who is already familiar with metadesign and discusses issues around the subject, such as the possible development of a career fields for practitioners. That would be fine for a magazine article, but an encyclopedia article should describe the subject of the article - what is metadesign? Also, some of the academic style can be dropped. It is not necessary for Vassão to do any arguing on the subject of whether or not some set of four conceptual tools are present in metadesign. Just say that Vassão's approach to metadesign involves the use of four conceptual tools. You can actually leave Vassão out completely and just say that these four conceptual tools are generally accepted as components of metadesign - you aren't publishing a paper, just editing a Wikipedia article. If a particular point is controversial and subject to dispute, then it makes sense to cite where it is coming from, but otherwise, it is not generally necessary to list the name of the source in-line in the text in the manner typical of an academic work.Blcklbl (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We is Too Many People =