Sunday, November 1, 2009

Startling Concept Essay but Bemusing Background

I believe that the users of Wikipedia will approve my observation that many of the philosophy, arithmetic and concept articles are really of good quality. One can learn from them. It is very difficult to learn and imbibe the actual meaning of concepts in the field of sciences. You have to read again and again the same thing and as many elaboration on a concept in order to fully appreciate the meaning behind the concept. Some of the articles in these categories on Wikipedia are worth praising.

However, today I came across an article on Open System and Closed System which covered the definition for different field of knowledge. I was really impressed by the opening lines. I reached this article while I was trying to search for Reinhart Koselleck, a theorist in History. But this article has studied the relevance of concept of open system and closed system for all the sciences. Before, I read further, as it is a practice with me, I tried to check the discussion and also the edit history. There was no discussion as such. However, in edit section, I found that it was a fresh article which was just started in the month of April 2009. The writer is one Nbaig. I tried to check the User link. I found that the same article appears there also. Similarly, in the Discussion section of the User, I found that he was well received by one Marcel Douwe Dekker but again below his invitation and welcome message the article again reappeared. It is surprising. Should the Wikipedia veteran Editors look into this incongruity!? It must be taking unnecessary space on their server. I have yet to read the whole article but this feature has diverted my attention.

Open and closed systems in social science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  1. Hi, Next time just leave me a message and I clear it for you right away, if I can.

    Best regards, Marcel Douwe Dekker

  2. Dear Marcel Douwe Dekker,
    I believe that you have taken it as a general exchange of thought and opinion. No offence is intended. I explore Wikipedia and this blog was developed to maintain a record of my opinion. I myself act as editor and consider myself as the part of the team.
    One more thing, I am not the only one who is maintaining dedicated blog on the contents of wikipedia.
    I join you on wikipedia.

  3. Yes, I do think a blog and the possibility to comment is a general exchange of thought and opinion. Now you did wonder here "should the Wikipedia veteran Editors look into this incongruity!?" and you called my name. Instead of keeping this philosophically I just reacted by removing the problems at hand.

    Now back to you question: I normally welcome two or three new Wikipedia users a week, who make interesting new contributions in the field of systems theory. I often don't keep track on the things they do on there own user page. But if it gets mentioned I normally do look into it. So it seems you are making the exception here.

    One way or on other. I am grateful you mentioned this.

    Marcel Douwe Dekker

  4. Mdd,
    It is ok.

    I appreciate and honour your standing as a veteran and platinum Editor. It is really great that you maintain a standard in helping the new wikipedians.

    I made a comment and you may approve that it has to be relevant. I referred your name without knowing your standing among editors. It is only later read your talk page.

    Anyhow. I have read your comment and will keep your advice in mind.



Anonymous Writers, Kindly do not waste your time here. If you write promotional messages here, they will never be displayed. Kindly spend your time somewhere else. Your marketing efforts are destroying the pristine nature of Blogging.