Talk:Social capital/Draft

Social capital

Current talk page

1

Ready Now?

Once again, interest in adding to and editing this item has flagged and it has been nearly two months since there has been any activity. Is it ready to approve now? There is an outstanding call for illustrations, but no one seems to have come up with anything. Personally, I haven't a clue how to visualize social capital. Any ideas? It looks like there are many possible related articles, only some of which have made it to the Related Articles pages. This seems to indicate approving only the main page at this point.

Roger Lohmann 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add to this article (having just added some wikilinks), and my only misgiving about giving it approval concerns the first paragraph, which seems to me to give an impression of learnedness that is more appropriate to a contribution to an academic journal than to an encyclopedia article.

A minor problem is that it is drafted in a mixture of American English and British English. If you could make a ruling about which version to adopt, one of us could put that right.

Nick Gardner 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the original metadata page I created indicated AE, I think we should stick with AE. Will you make the conversions? Roger Lohmann 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The illustration does not have to be complicated, it should just provide some context. An example of the kind that I think might be useful is here. One could use overlapping circles or other visualizations for the individual items, and we could turn it into a series of illustrations to be included in all of the concerned articles in a way that highlights the one on whose page it is, but links (like the CZ:Biology Week banner) to the other Capital (economics) articles. --Daniel Mietchen 11:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Daniel's example, and if it is considered to be helpful to the reader, I have no objection to its insertion (perhaps on a Tutorials subpage?) Nick Gardner 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing that's wrong with the suggested graph is that it is completely inconclusive (like many such illustrations). It says only that all forms of capital are related. (Well, duh. Isn't that why they all have the word capital in the term?) Are those meant to be causal links? Or just signs of connection? I still agree that in theory an illustration might add something, but I don't think this one does. Roger Lohmann 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with the description is it has no content. What "individual items" would be pictured by those overlapping circles? Venn diagrams are a mathematical formalism. But how does it apply here? What "series of illustrations" should be included? That's where the suggestion breaks down, I suspect, and why no one has followed up with any examples: I know of visualizations of trading, markets, third sectors, etc. but I don't "see" social capital illustrated; nor apparently does anyone else. If you want illustrations, Daniel, you're going to have to supply them. It's a good idea, but it appears we lack the inspiration. Roger Lohmann 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't buy that a concept cannot be illustrated. I have difficulties supplying illustrations because it's not my specialty, but I had another look around and found things like this organizational chart (which would have to be simplified) or the depiction of social capital in research on slides 103-107 of this presentation to be a useful starting point. --Daniel Mietchen 13:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's hope someone will read this and agree with you that your examples show something worth presenting and come up with some usable illustrations. In which case, I certainly have no objections. This is (broadly) my area, and my point was (and is): 1) I agree that all concepts can, in principle, be illustrated. 2) This one hasn't been (that amazingly complex CI map, notwithstanding); 3) I personally can't visualize the social capital concept and don't have the graphics skill to do so; 4) No one else has risen to your call, and we don't have an illustrations department on call; 5) That all just means, it's a good idea, but who is going to do it? BTW, I didn't see the point of slides 103-7 at all; I just see pretty pictures done by somebody's marketing department.

The real question now is, is this an important enough point that we should wait with approving this article until someone comes up with something? Roger Lohmann 14:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of this approval (and I can't anyway), but I think the handling of illustrations merits some further thoughts, for which I have started this forum thread. Hope to see you there. --Daniel Mietchen 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Look at the illustrations in insurgency. If you strip out the specific counterinsurgency force, especially in Kilcullen's three pillars, I think you get close. I'm willing to redraw that to something more specific. It's probably more political social capital, and I'm not as insistent about graphics as others. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You see some sort of a connection between the Kilcullen chart and social capital that I'm afraid I don't understand. Has anyone other than you drawn this link between counter-insurgency and social capital? Or, are we getting into original research here? Roger Lohmann 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Look at the illustrations in insurgency. If you strip out the specific counterinsurgency force, especially in Kilcullen's three pillars, I think you get close. I'm willing to redraw that to something more specific. It's probably more political social capital, and I'm not as insistent about graphics as others. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You see some sort of a connection between the Kilcullen chart and social capital that I'm afraid I don't understand. Has anyone other than you drawn this link between counter-insurgency and social capital? Or, are we getting into original research here? Roger Lohmann 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)