Talk:Metaknowledge

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic

I tagged this article for buzzwords. An opening like:

Metaknowledge or meta-knowledge is knowledge about knowledge. More precisely speaking, meta-knowledge is systemic problem and domain-independent knowledge which performs or enables operations on another more or less specific domain-dependent knowledge in different domains/areas of human activities.

makes me really wonder whether this is an article in search of something to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's such a buzzword that the journal Science thought it necessary to define the broad topic https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1201765 Generalist1 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this subject rather relates to advanced fields of scientific research. Among others, it is used in the publications of the renowned world scientific centers as the Harvard and Stanford Universities, and emerge always more frequently in such scientific and engineering branches as artificial intelligence, cognitive science, socio-cognitive research and other interdisciplinary and systemistic studies. The above citation represents the socio-cognitive perspective of the TOGA meta-theory being developed in the Italian National Research Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment (ENEA) since about 1990.

Knowledge has many definitions, therefore also meta-knowledge can be interpreted in different manners, anyway, its notion is the result of the connection of the meaning of prefix meta- with knowledge.

Maybe this concept requires explanations from another perspective yet. By the way, many strictly scientific terms present in Wikipedia are not comprehensible for many Wikipedia users (?).

The present article seems to be inuitively comprehensible (not buzzword) and I suggest to leave its interpretation and improvement to the field specialists. --Adam M. Gadomski 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Directory Project Links

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article?

This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14 years ago! Generalist1 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed stab at improving this article.

I prepared a re-write for review User:IntelligentComputer/Metaknowledge to boost it out of the stub class. If there are no objections, I will post a final update in a few days. Warren Jones User:IntelligentComputer, 27 Aug 2010, 12:00 EDT

—Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentComputer (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why your recent papers on (a) "stored purpose machine intelligent project" are relevant to this article. I would need further evidence that it's a notable concept before it was listed anywhere on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what I think was the offending reference to Stored purpose, and the para on Minsky suggestions about knowledge consciousness over multiple agents now stands on his own following the para on cycorp. I suggest future comments reference specific paragraphs.

I had omitted a paragraph relating to the metaknowledge issue of Universals versus particulars. I added this and related references to Plato, Aristotle and Newland.

Note that portions of 2 of 11 paragraphs cite work of which I was co-inventor --IntelligentComputer (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC). In particular the context solution to the Universals versus particulars question. There aren't a lot of folks doing work in this area and moving forward, I think all edited material should be cited. I invite any and all alternative references and solutions as well as discussion regarding if objective work from machine intelligence should be part of metaknowledge discussions. If a consensus thinks material is not material or neutral, as per the COI guidelines, it won't be in the new article. Hopefully, we will soon get this stub off the face of wikipedia![reply]

Any additional comments? --IntelligentComputer (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you (Warren Jones) were an author of two 2010 references to the added sections. "Stored purpose" is not my only objection to the added material; the redlink was just what caught my attention. If you did the research, we really need a third party saying it's important. I'd take Minsky's word as an AI expert, even if metaknowledge is not exactly his field.

As for new research in general, I think we need to wait until the research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, or described in the news media. It would be best if we would wait until the research is critiqued in a peer-reviewed journal, to determine its weight in the field.

That being said, there should be something more to add to the article, or it should be redirected or moved to somewhere more appropriate ("theory of knowledge")? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why I have deleted the TOGA metatheory

The TOGA metatheory is completely unknown on the four best universities:
http://search.cam.ac.uk/web?query=TOGA+metatheory => no results
http://www.harvard.edu/searches/?searchtext=TOGA+metatheory => no results
http://web.mit.edu/search.html TOGA+metatheory => no results
http://www.yale.edu/ TOGA+metatheory => no results
Vikom (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again, after 5 years. We should remain vigilant. 85.193.242.133 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metaknowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051119163215/http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/cogarch0/common/prop/metaknow.html to http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/cogarch0/common/prop/metaknow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]