Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "Verdict Rationale" with value "A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-53|c1]]</sup> and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-67|c2]]</sup> Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of ''group'' as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-52|c3]]</sup> Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c4]]</sup> it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]</sup>". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 2 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


    

List of results

    • Modification:Sciento-2017-0012  + (A consensus has emerged after a long discuA consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-53|c1]]</sup> and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-67|c2]]</sup> Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of ''group'' as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-52|c3]]</sup> Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c4]]</sup> it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]</sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]</sup>)