Talk:Graphicacy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Thanks for the interest and feedback. I'm happy that the context now seems OK. Yes, it's a pretty new concept and growing but there is stuff out there about it. But maybe the crucial stuff won't be revealed by Googling it. Much of the research about graphicacy is in the Education literature. I've included a few references from various journals and books from that area. |
Thanks for the interest and feedback. I'm happy that the context now seems OK. Yes, it's a pretty new concept and growing but there is stuff out there about it. But maybe the crucial stuff won't be revealed by Googling it. Much of the research about graphicacy is in the Education literature. I've included a few references from various journals and books from that area. |
||
The Wikipedia original research stuff says "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Because the Roth et. al. reference I've now included is published by Springer, I think would be universally regarded as a highly reputable and appropriate source. However, it is very recent so I can certainly understand the query and appreciate the scrutiny. |
The Wikipedia original research stuff says "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Because the Roth et. al. reference I've now included is published by Springer, I think would be universally regarded as a highly reputable and appropriate source. However, it is very recent so I can certainly understand the query and appreciate the scrutiny. I've also cited some pretty well respected journals. |
||
Encarta defines graphicacy as "Understanding of symbols and diagrams: the ability to use and understand such things as symbols, diagrams, plans, and maps" and attributes its origins to [mid-20th century. <graphics, after literacy]. There are certainly references to it dating back to the |
Encarta defines graphicacy as "Understanding of symbols and diagrams: the ability to use and understand such things as symbols, diagrams, plans, and maps" and attributes its origins to [mid-20th century. <graphics, after literacy]. There are certainly references to it dating back to at least the 1970s as you can see from the examples I've added. However, maybe Encarta would not be considered a sufficiently authoritative source? [[User:Albertus Pictor|Albertus Pictor]] 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 06:03, 12 October 2005
Hi Guys,
i've provided more context that I hope will make this more accessible. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if more clarification would help. I'd like to do a fair bit more later down the article to flesh out this concept more fully.
- The context problem seems to be taken care of, but it still kind of looks like something you might have made up. If not, please provide references. --Trovatore 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Original research?
This article needs to use references because as-is, it seems like original research. I've looked around on Google, and it seems "Graphicacy" is a word that is not clearly defined by any authoritative resource. --Quasipalm 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the interest and feedback. I'm happy that the context now seems OK. Yes, it's a pretty new concept and growing but there is stuff out there about it. But maybe the crucial stuff won't be revealed by Googling it. Much of the research about graphicacy is in the Education literature. I've included a few references from various journals and books from that area.
The Wikipedia original research stuff says "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Because the Roth et. al. reference I've now included is published by Springer, I think would be universally regarded as a highly reputable and appropriate source. However, it is very recent so I can certainly understand the query and appreciate the scrutiny. I've also cited some pretty well respected journals.
Encarta defines graphicacy as "Understanding of symbols and diagrams: the ability to use and understand such things as symbols, diagrams, plans, and maps" and attributes its origins to [mid-20th century. <graphics, after literacy]. There are certainly references to it dating back to at least the 1970s as you can see from the examples I've added. However, maybe Encarta would not be considered a sufficiently authoritative source? Albertus Pictor 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)