About: Peer review/Public sociology/archive1   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Public sociology is a challenging but important topic. Challenging because there are some strong perspectives on it; important for a variety of reasons, including that it has been a major area of debate and/or campaigning within sociology (as well as other social sciences) for some time. My own sense is that the article can be substantially improved. I'd like to hear other views & suggestions how best to do that. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Peer review/Public sociology/archive1
rdfs:comment
  • Public sociology is a challenging but important topic. Challenging because there are some strong perspectives on it; important for a variety of reasons, including that it has been a major area of debate and/or campaigning within sociology (as well as other social sciences) for some time. My own sense is that the article can be substantially improved. I'd like to hear other views & suggestions how best to do that. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
dbkwik:speedydelet...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • Public sociology is a challenging but important topic. Challenging because there are some strong perspectives on it; important for a variety of reasons, including that it has been a major area of debate and/or campaigning within sociology (as well as other social sciences) for some time. My own sense is that the article can be substantially improved. I'd like to hear other views & suggestions how best to do that. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) This article is what I'd describe as C-class. It seems comprehensive, with an OK prose, but it suffers from several problems: 1) insufficient referencing (majority of paragraphs, not to mention individual sentence, are missing inline refs) 2) MoS issues: "Public sociology today" section is too long, needs to be broken down with subsections; there are notable terms that are not redlinked (primarily names of individuals) 3) The section on applied sociology needs to be better tied in with the article, and likely split into its own article; it also tries to talk about "sociological practice" and "clinical sociology", which only adds to the readers' confusion 4) Categories probably need more attention (is it really a sociology paradigm?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC) I agree that the article confuses differing terms. I would also venture to say that Clinical and Applied sociology are also different from one another, though the terms are frequently linked and conflated. All could be subsumed under the term "Sociological practice", which currently redirects to this Applied sociology subsection. Currently, the Applied sociology subsection contains little information so, if split, would be a stub article. I'm not opposed to that action, but wonder if it might be an interim solution to move this page to "Sociological practice" with all three as subsections of that main article? Meclee (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software