Jump to content

Talk:Innovation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition Innovation

[edit]

Hi,

when you defined Innovation with respect to the OECD manual, you put 'Edison et al' as a reference (8). However, it would be more sensible to put there the original reference from Crossan & Apaydin, 2010 p.1155 there.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.131.255 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of innovation

[edit]

Innovation is crucial because it provides users with new utilities. Its importance stems from the fact that it may have an influence not only on the individuals but also on the whole organisations/companies and societies. Shouldn't we introduce a new section - "the effects of innovation"? Here are some good, systematic sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3911 or https://books.google.pl/books/about/Innovation_and_Market_Value_The_Case_of.html?id=cqJoDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

DoktorDawid (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Innovation. 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:

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) 04:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) you guys rock af [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ www.lapag.net
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Innovation. 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:

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) 09:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of material on China - really not sure why it's been deleted.

[edit]

I don't understand this [1] deletion of material. The claim is that it doesn't pass the "weight" test. It's a new article (2019) but it's already been cited, and the authors are widely cited, and the journal is certainly respectable. The material fits the section. OsFish (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a campaign to add Hasmath's opinions to as many Wiki articles as possible. See the contributions of User:Socpol, User:Chinapol, User:IvoryTowerII, User:Megaiken, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2D - no 3D ..

[edit]

Ounly all .. ~

176.59.199.237 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article overview / lead paragraph / title issue

[edit]

I think the title of this could be: Innovation (business), as it clearly doesn't cover all of human innovation or an overview of the concept. It doesn't cover cultural innovation or medical innovation for example. The definitions used in the first 2 lines refer to business only because they are taken from business-related sources. Wikipedia should not be in the game of re-defining english. Either way - changing the title or the content - or maybe splitting the article; it is not coherent as it is. 78.149.120.57 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please find some sources to back up the existence of such a thing as "cultural innovation" as a type of innovation (as you are suggesting), as opposed to sources talking about "cultural aspects of innovation" or "integration of culture and innovation". Also, medical innovation still falls under the definition given in the lead, as it results in new products and services, and is ultimately motivated by the same things. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image "too small to read"?

[edit]
Innovation adoption of several common household items in the U.S.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the image on the right saying MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, not useful in an article, too small to read. What do you mean? It's not too small to read, like with nearly any other chart just click on it. Does the font display differently for you? Prototyperspective (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Special:Diff/1283515607) It was in section Diffusion. It's clearly useful. If that's not a font issue, then even the guide how to make charts WP:HCGWA has charts that need to be expanded to full width like "A plot of Hermite polynomials" or "Population chart in SVG"; not sure if you even need to tap it on mobile; this is a normal useful chart and I'd like to readd it. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right, it's illegible, especially on mobile. It also doesn't meet WP:WATERMARK. The article is better off without it. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails in article space are supposed to be illustrative aids. They cant perform that function if they are unreadable at thumbnail size. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you tap on the image on mobile, it becomes perfectly legible. With CC 4.0, can't we just remove the logo and attribution, given that attribution is given on the commons page? I think the image is useful. OsFish (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you tap on the thumbnail at MOS:PERTINENCE you will say "oh yeah, its a helicopter". Throughout MOS:IMG the purpose of thumbnail images is as direct illustrative aids, they are not intended to be links to further information (and having to follow links to understand why its there is generally against consensus re:. MOS:JARGON, WP:EASTEREGG). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you and MrOllie are saying this. It's illegible, especially on mobile. It's a normal chart like most other datagraphics on Wikipedia which are some of the most useful info in WP articles. And the small watermark in the corner is not a problem either since it does not hamper [its] free use per that policy. Also you ignored what I wrote so I'll just repeat it: even the guide how to make charts WP:HCGWA has charts that need to be expanded to full width like "A plot of Hermite polynomials" or "Population chart in SVG"; not sure if you even need to tap it on mobile; this is a normal useful chart. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The chart is not wonderful as a thumbnail, and, yes, pretty much illegible on mobile. Hopefully some better way could be found to present this information. But to say "The article is better off without it" is an exaggeration. The graphic itself is excellent, it's just our thumbnail technology that's failing, so maybe scale it up with upright=1.8 as described in MOS:UPRIGHT. The appeal to WP:WATERMARK is just absurd because it is not something which "would hamper [its] free use". If the "Our World in Data" logo really bothers you for stylistic reasons, take advantage of the CC-BY licensing and white it out. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tested it on mobile and it displays perfectly fine on my device. In the Wikipedia app, one can even read all of it clearly without having to tap on it. Maybe there is some issue for some devices (it's an svg)? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to the image is a little different. Innovation happens all around the world, but that image is only about take-up of innovations in one country that accounts for about 4% of the world's population. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it's still useful. The problem is that data for other countries doesn't seem to exist. It should be replaced with or complemented with an image about the world, rather than one large country. It's quite rare to see an ideal image anywhere on Wikipedia so why only allow for the best most ideal chart when this one is also interesting, relevant, insightful and useful? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL arguments are not usually reasons to keep something. Looked at what else we can do with the graph. The thumbnail is illegible, period - its not a mobile problem. So maybe just a word link instead of thumbnail? That brings up another problem, its in the wrong section. That whole section is about the S-shaped diffusion curve. The image shows other curves. There is no reliable sourcing as to what curves it illustrates and how it relates to S-shaped diffusion curves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say why something is useful or useless I didn't just say it's useful – it's valuable there and because it shows some actual data on the diffusion of innovations which is something you may want to see in a section about the the diffusion of innovations. The thumbnail is illegible, period Well it could be enlarged but that would make the image possibly too prominent there. Regarding your , period conclusion: nothing suggests images that need to be clicked on desktop to be useful should be removed. its not a mobile problem yes, like I said on mobile it displays just fine without having top tap the datagraphic. a word link instead of thumbnail a thumbnail shows which kind of content there is and allows seeing it at a glance, an interested desktop user can then easily enlarge it. S-shaped diffusion curve Not the section title, maybe create subsections in it. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Innovation&oldid=1283622151"