Talk:Communication

Communication forms

The article made no mention of drawings or pictures, a very complex form of passing information ("a picture speaks a thousand words"). Text could not communicate what Henry V111 looked like and a sense of his presence to us 500 years later, or indeed, then. Diagrammatic communications are at the core of Civilization. Architecture, Engineering, Science, Medicine all depend on this non-verbal, non-literary language. 2A00:23C7:5F99:1C01:61EF:E4A8:F696:F86D (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the suggestion. I added a short explanation to the subsection "Non-verbal". There would be more to be said but this type of non-verbal communication does not receive that much attention in the academic literature compared to the other types. The history section has more details on pictograms and mentions photography and videos. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Communication studies?

As a discipline communication studies is focused on mass communication between people. I wouldn't say there is a "main discipline" studying communication. 81.77.58.180 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The terms "communication studies" and "communications science" are normally used as umbrella terms to cover scientific research into communication. For example, see Danesi 2000, p. 59 (Science studying all the technical aspects of communication) and Gill & Adams 1998, p. vii (The title 'Communication Studies' covers a vast area of interest and embraces many different disciplines, including journalism, telecommunications, social psychology, physiology, linguistics and semantics.). Communication studies is not restricted to mass communication. For example, most of the models of communication discussed in communication studies are general models and only a few are restricted to mass communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence

"Communication is usually understood to be the transmission of information."

Minor quibble but I have to say I find this unnecessarily vague and borderline WP:WEASELish, staring that some undefined group of people "understand" something. The three dictionary definitions all refer to it as a "process" or an "act" of transmission. Therefore I'd suggest rewording to something along the lines of "Communication refers to the process of transmitting information" or similar. This matches the sources and I also don't think it contradicts the following lines about the definition being disputed - as I understand it from the following sentences and the body, this dispute concerns what's included rather than the fundamental definition. This looks an excellent article generally though, so kudos for bringing it up to such a good standard. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for raising this point. The weasling is intentional since there is some controversy. For example, from Dance 1970 "This essay examines multitudinous definitions of ‘communication’ in the light of the meaning of ‘concept’ as reflected in the literature of the philosophy of science. The examination produced 15 main themes from the definitions." and from Reisinger 2010 "The term communication is difficult to define because it has been used in a variety of ways for different purposes.". Some theorists explicitly attack the transmission-view but it is still the definition most commonly found. Weasling is not ideal but we can avoid the danger of NPOV, which is probably a good deal overall. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Ah OK, thanks for the response. Can we maybe state is a bit more simply then as just "Communication if usually defined as..." rather than "Communication is usually understood to be"? The current wording makes it sound like some sort of great scientific fact, which mere mortals such as struggle to understand. But in reality it's just a matter of semantics. Most people define it that way, and that's what the sources say, but we can still nuance it with "usually" per your good points above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Done. The previous formulation was my attempt to avoid WP:ISAWORDFOR but I agree that the new formulation is more accessible to the general reader while also avoiding to state the definition in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry for acting without saying stuff Cleter (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Business Communication in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tannaman12 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tannaman12 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a featured article, and a poor choice for a student editing assignment, imho. Ping Brianda. I will add a notice about this at ENB. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing bad ping: Brianda (Wiki Ed). Added a note at ENB. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it could be difficult for a new editor to make non-trivial contributions without being reverted. Focusing on underdeveloped articles about less important topics is probably a better way to get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agree with this, and replied to the concern @Mathglot over at the ENB. Appreciate the ping. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)