Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Values In Design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Some kind of rant, non-encyclopedic. Mikkalai 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Although the phrase results in Google hits, there seems to be no set "values" in design. Perhaps it could be listed as a theory on some design entry. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The article boils down to "There are values in system design. They have to be taken into account. It's hard. We don't know anything about it.". Delete, and start afresh if and only if there is anything informative to say upon the topic. Uncle G 13:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- Yes, there are informative things to say on the topic. See here and here, for example. I can agree with the deletion of the current entry, but I will work on a more appropriate submission. --michael zimmer 15:24, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- IMO the only thing can be said is kind of promotional and boasting stuff. The term implies that the rest of the design doesn't care about any values, and only these smart guys (who coined the term) decided to put (or find) some value into mindless and valueless world of design. Mikkalai 21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "valueless world of design"?? sounds like your criticism is just that you don't agree with the premise of this perspective. that's a POV, but not a reason to omit an entry. that'd be like deleting the entry on postmodernism just becuase you don't agree with the theory. Having an entry on VID is not "promotional" nor "boasting" - its a multi-disciplinary academic field that deserves description. Its practioners don't imply that the "rest of the design" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't care about values - the purpose of the field is make the value-implications of design apparent. Just as scholars of participatory design might be interested in "usability," scholars interested in Values In Design also point to the importance of "autonomy," "freedom from bias," "trust" or other values of moral/ethical import in the design of a technology. Again, I'll work on a new article.--michael zimmer 21:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- IMO the only thing can be said is kind of promotional and boasting stuff. The term implies that the rest of the design doesn't care about any values, and only these smart guys (who coined the term) decided to put (or find) some value into mindless and valueless world of design. Mikkalai 21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research and personal essay unless good, verifiable references are provided, prior to expiration of VfD, that show that at least of three people listed as proponents—Lewis Mumford, Langdon Winner, Thomas Hughes, Donald Mackenzie, Madelaine Akrich, Bruno Latour, Helen Nissenbaum, Philip Brey, Batya Friedman, Lawrence Lessig—actually haved used this term with the stated meaning. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Helen Nissenbaum [1] and Batya Friedman [2] definitely use "this term with the stated meaning." The rest, to my understanding, recognize the political & value biases within technology, but wouldn't be considered direct proponents/conributors of the field, with the possible exception of Bruno Latour. --michael zimmer 23:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better article would be for "Value Sensistive Design" [3] - a perspective that is better and conceptualized alongside fields such as participatory design, computer supported cooperative work, computer ethics or human computer interaction--michael zimmer 23:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- That makes more sense as a term. But we are discussing a different article. "ViD" doesn't look like established discipline. Of course, if a couple of notable persons use this term as term, not as a headline, then OK with me. It remains to be proven, though. The idea under the term is clear, but is the term widely accepted? Mikkalai 02:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Must a term be "widely accepted" to be included in Wikipedia? Is the point to make Wikipedia a place to find entries of only "widely accepted" ideas, or any idea that a person might come across, no matter how obscure or controversial?--michael zimmer 03:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely not: Wikipedia is very explicitly not a place for "any idea that a person might come across, no matter how obscure." Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia within the recognizable meaning of the word. It is a secondary source which documents well understood, well accepted, knowledge. A controversial topic may be encyclopedic by virtue of being widely held or notable; complex belief systems that are held by large numbers of people are covered in detail. Emerging concepts, new artistic movements, promising bands, recently released political books, and "memes on the rise" are not. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and, particularly, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- First, please be more careful with words: "term" vs "idea". The term may be acepted, while the idea may not. Second, wikipedia is for things of notablility, not a junkyard of all possible ideas. But we are discussing the specific article. I claim that the term "ViD" is hardly notable. I can coin scores of such: "virtue in design", "humanity in design", etc., all relecting basically the same idea. the question is: if the idea is notable, what is the notable term for it? Mikkalai 03:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Must a term be "widely accepted" to be included in Wikipedia? Is the point to make Wikipedia a place to find entries of only "widely accepted" ideas, or any idea that a person might come across, no matter how obscure or controversial?--michael zimmer 03:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- That makes more sense as a term. But we are discussing a different article. "ViD" doesn't look like established discipline. Of course, if a couple of notable persons use this term as term, not as a headline, then OK with me. It remains to be proven, though. The idea under the term is clear, but is the term widely accepted? Mikkalai 02:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that this term has currency. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.