This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest removing "sousveillance" from the first paragraph, as sousveillance is the exact opposite of self-monitoring. It means monitoring the monitors---looking outward at others, not inward at the self. Markstock ( talk) 16:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Stesmo You reverted the spam link which my employer paid me to add to this Wikipedia article. Could you please look at this again? Obviously I am biased, but there are only a handful of authorities on the subject of this Wikipedia article and my organization Consumer Reports is one of them. This is a free guide in consumer language and we are providing this as a nonprofit public service, hopefully without causing a disturbance, and hopefully in accord with Wikipedia's WP:EL policies and customs. I do not want to press the issue with you, but if you have an objection with this source then please voice it. After getting word from you, I will take the source to WP:RSN for other opinions, and if neither you nor others voice an objection, then I will insert it again.
I know Wikipedia's WP:COI policies and I would like to share this information in a way that pleases everyone and which does not make people feel like they are arguing with a robot, as you might have felt when you removed the link. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Dreamyshade I added a link to a source of information in this article. You said it was out of scope. I wish to give an opinion about the scope of this article.
Obviously the article should cover what reliable sources called "quantified self". The problem is that no one has yet written the definitive guide to "quantified self", and more importantly, a range of terms are used to describe the same concept. Wikipedia articles should not judge sources by what they call a term, but rather by the extent to which they are talking about the same base concept. So for example, various sources use the terms "personal informatics" and "quantified self" to mean the same thing, so sources talking about either should be appropriate here, even though there is no source which explicitly equates the two terms. Wikipedia decides these things with merge discussions.
Right now, the content of this article is probably best called "personal health informatics", and there is no Wikipedia article by that name. The reason why that is a preferable name as compared to "quantified self" is because almost all of this article is about the quantified self movement as it relates to health. Health is a subset of the main concept, but the main concept is not covered here broadly at all.
In the future, I hope that this article is expanded more broadly, and that health becomes a subset of it. Other concepts in quantified health are tracking personal spending (mint.com, Apple Pay/ Google Wallet statements and graphing), counting the number and types of relationships people have (Facebook for friends, Twitter, linkedin for work, tinder/dating sites), and tracking a person's travel (Google Maps, Foursquare, all GPS tracking). Right now, this article does not discuss any of these things because the companies doing these things are not marketing their services as personal data for consumers even though it is the same concept.
I appreciate your looking over this article. There is a major social change here and this is a very popular article - I want it to have the highest quality and best information, and not only be restricted because the well-funded health industry appropriated the term quantified self even though the concept at the heart of this Wikipedia article is ubiquitous. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just because there's a new name for this old phenomenon and practice of self-sensing, computerized self-monitoring, doesn't mean previous work should be deleted or removed from the entry. Nike wasn't the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.14.121 ( talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in trying to make these statements more precise and better supported by references, to help with better defining the scope of the article:
Other names for using self-tracking data to improve daily functioning [1] are “self-tracking”, "auto-analytics", “ body hacking”, “self-quantifying”, self- surveillance, lifelogging, sousveillance, and Humanistic Intelligence. [2] [3] [4]
The term Quantified Self is used interchangeably with Personal Informatics.
References
So it looks like "auto-analytics", "lifelogging", and "sousveillance" are not supported by the current references for that sentence, and "humanistic intelligence" needs more support. If I google "personal informatics" with "quantified self", I see that "personal informatics" seems to be a term used mostly in academic work. Here are a few results:
These sources could support including "personal informatics", "personal analytics", and "life-logging" as other terms. I tried googling "auto-analytics" with "quantified self", and that brought up some reasonable sources as well:
I can't find strong sources that say that "sousveillance" or "humanistic intelligence" are other terms for quantified self, but I found an interesting source that could be useful for providing context for quantified self: "Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality" (2015): "The notion of the quantified self derives from a core concept of agency and sousveillance, in which the motions of the body are willingly recorded by a participant in the body's activity. Yet there is a much longer heritage of using rational metrics to measure the activity of the human body, only by outside agents" - it goes on to describe Taylorism and the use of quantification in workplaces as a growing pattern.
Dreamyshade ( talk) 11:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Back in 1996 I travelled to San Francisco, California, and visited with Kevin Kelly (the person who coined the term "Quantified Self") and others at WiReD Magazine's headquarters while I was wearing my quantimetric self-sensing apparatus pictured here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QuantimetricSelfSensingPrototypeMann1996inset.jpg
This is an apparatus I'd been wearing constantly more or less 24 hours a day from 1994 to 1996 sensing heart (ECG), brain (ECG), video (EVG==ElectroVisuoGram), respiration, skin conductivity, and numerous other quantities, streaming live to the Internet, on the World Wide Web.
Recently I confirmed with Kevin Kelly in email correspondence that (1) he remembers this visit taking place; and (2) that what I was doing back in 1994-1996 was Quantified Self.
Specifically, Kevin Kelly wrote back:
"I believe we met in the Wired offices around this time [1996]. You were wearing your gear as usual."
and
"You most definitely were doing the quantify self back then."
Accordingly, I believe it was wrong that this picture, and its associated description and its links to references, etc., was deleted.
Simply because I called it something else ("Quantimetric, Self-Sensing, Sousveillance") does not make this body of work any less an early example (perhaps the earliest example) of Quantified Self.
Glogger ( talk) 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The first cite links to a page which begins with this paragraph:
I am working on a book whose working title is The Quantified Self. For a long time I thought it would be a section of a larger book, called The Macroscope, but this "section" has absorbed more and more of my attention, and I’ve finally admitted that it will be a book of its own.
Is that why this article title is in title caps? I can't myself see any other acceptable reason. — MaxEnt 22:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, most people are more likely to track blood glucose and pressure, not levels of hormones like insulin and cortisol as stated in the intro. I really hope I'm wrong, since it would be awesome to cheaply be able to track insulin (alongside blood glucose). If I am correct though, we should re-write that part. Myoglobin ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Tracking function's transformations from sensation, emotion, mentation, meaning, awareness, consciousness and maybe even a self and observation, 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Arnold 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) [1]
References
This term currently redirects here. I wonder if it is not more popular than quantified self? Maybe this article should be renamed? Or are those concepts related but separate, and that redirect should be made into a separate article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata manages interwiki links among various languages of Wikipedia.
Currently this English Wikipedia article is matched to d:Q1337542 in Wikidata. From Wikidata, anyone can navigate to various other language Wikipedia articles.
There is a conflict because there is a private organization called "Quantified Self" then there is the general concept of the Quantified Self. The organization seems to be making a claim to leadership or general authority over the concept. The resulting problem is that the Wikidata item variously describes both the organization and the general concept, as do I think some of the other language Wikipedia articles. Also, visibly here in English Wikipedia, there is the application of a Wikidata infobox which presents the organization, when here the content is about the concept.
I hesitate to just delete the infobox here because the confusion remains in Wikidata and other languages of Wikipedia, but also, I do not see how to quickly untangle this, or send a multi-lingual alert to the problem, or how to log this as an conflict which could recur either here again or which may become systemic with infoboxes. I like the idea of Wikidata infoboxes, and an article like this one on quantification would be a good place to address problems.
For now I am making this note and taking no further action. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest removing "sousveillance" from the first paragraph, as sousveillance is the exact opposite of self-monitoring. It means monitoring the monitors---looking outward at others, not inward at the self. Markstock ( talk) 16:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Stesmo You reverted the spam link which my employer paid me to add to this Wikipedia article. Could you please look at this again? Obviously I am biased, but there are only a handful of authorities on the subject of this Wikipedia article and my organization Consumer Reports is one of them. This is a free guide in consumer language and we are providing this as a nonprofit public service, hopefully without causing a disturbance, and hopefully in accord with Wikipedia's WP:EL policies and customs. I do not want to press the issue with you, but if you have an objection with this source then please voice it. After getting word from you, I will take the source to WP:RSN for other opinions, and if neither you nor others voice an objection, then I will insert it again.
I know Wikipedia's WP:COI policies and I would like to share this information in a way that pleases everyone and which does not make people feel like they are arguing with a robot, as you might have felt when you removed the link. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Dreamyshade I added a link to a source of information in this article. You said it was out of scope. I wish to give an opinion about the scope of this article.
Obviously the article should cover what reliable sources called "quantified self". The problem is that no one has yet written the definitive guide to "quantified self", and more importantly, a range of terms are used to describe the same concept. Wikipedia articles should not judge sources by what they call a term, but rather by the extent to which they are talking about the same base concept. So for example, various sources use the terms "personal informatics" and "quantified self" to mean the same thing, so sources talking about either should be appropriate here, even though there is no source which explicitly equates the two terms. Wikipedia decides these things with merge discussions.
Right now, the content of this article is probably best called "personal health informatics", and there is no Wikipedia article by that name. The reason why that is a preferable name as compared to "quantified self" is because almost all of this article is about the quantified self movement as it relates to health. Health is a subset of the main concept, but the main concept is not covered here broadly at all.
In the future, I hope that this article is expanded more broadly, and that health becomes a subset of it. Other concepts in quantified health are tracking personal spending (mint.com, Apple Pay/ Google Wallet statements and graphing), counting the number and types of relationships people have (Facebook for friends, Twitter, linkedin for work, tinder/dating sites), and tracking a person's travel (Google Maps, Foursquare, all GPS tracking). Right now, this article does not discuss any of these things because the companies doing these things are not marketing their services as personal data for consumers even though it is the same concept.
I appreciate your looking over this article. There is a major social change here and this is a very popular article - I want it to have the highest quality and best information, and not only be restricted because the well-funded health industry appropriated the term quantified self even though the concept at the heart of this Wikipedia article is ubiquitous. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just because there's a new name for this old phenomenon and practice of self-sensing, computerized self-monitoring, doesn't mean previous work should be deleted or removed from the entry. Nike wasn't the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.14.121 ( talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in trying to make these statements more precise and better supported by references, to help with better defining the scope of the article:
Other names for using self-tracking data to improve daily functioning [1] are “self-tracking”, "auto-analytics", “ body hacking”, “self-quantifying”, self- surveillance, lifelogging, sousveillance, and Humanistic Intelligence. [2] [3] [4]
The term Quantified Self is used interchangeably with Personal Informatics.
References
So it looks like "auto-analytics", "lifelogging", and "sousveillance" are not supported by the current references for that sentence, and "humanistic intelligence" needs more support. If I google "personal informatics" with "quantified self", I see that "personal informatics" seems to be a term used mostly in academic work. Here are a few results:
These sources could support including "personal informatics", "personal analytics", and "life-logging" as other terms. I tried googling "auto-analytics" with "quantified self", and that brought up some reasonable sources as well:
I can't find strong sources that say that "sousveillance" or "humanistic intelligence" are other terms for quantified self, but I found an interesting source that could be useful for providing context for quantified self: "Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality" (2015): "The notion of the quantified self derives from a core concept of agency and sousveillance, in which the motions of the body are willingly recorded by a participant in the body's activity. Yet there is a much longer heritage of using rational metrics to measure the activity of the human body, only by outside agents" - it goes on to describe Taylorism and the use of quantification in workplaces as a growing pattern.
Dreamyshade ( talk) 11:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Back in 1996 I travelled to San Francisco, California, and visited with Kevin Kelly (the person who coined the term "Quantified Self") and others at WiReD Magazine's headquarters while I was wearing my quantimetric self-sensing apparatus pictured here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QuantimetricSelfSensingPrototypeMann1996inset.jpg
This is an apparatus I'd been wearing constantly more or less 24 hours a day from 1994 to 1996 sensing heart (ECG), brain (ECG), video (EVG==ElectroVisuoGram), respiration, skin conductivity, and numerous other quantities, streaming live to the Internet, on the World Wide Web.
Recently I confirmed with Kevin Kelly in email correspondence that (1) he remembers this visit taking place; and (2) that what I was doing back in 1994-1996 was Quantified Self.
Specifically, Kevin Kelly wrote back:
"I believe we met in the Wired offices around this time [1996]. You were wearing your gear as usual."
and
"You most definitely were doing the quantify self back then."
Accordingly, I believe it was wrong that this picture, and its associated description and its links to references, etc., was deleted.
Simply because I called it something else ("Quantimetric, Self-Sensing, Sousveillance") does not make this body of work any less an early example (perhaps the earliest example) of Quantified Self.
Glogger ( talk) 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The first cite links to a page which begins with this paragraph:
I am working on a book whose working title is The Quantified Self. For a long time I thought it would be a section of a larger book, called The Macroscope, but this "section" has absorbed more and more of my attention, and I’ve finally admitted that it will be a book of its own.
Is that why this article title is in title caps? I can't myself see any other acceptable reason. — MaxEnt 22:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, most people are more likely to track blood glucose and pressure, not levels of hormones like insulin and cortisol as stated in the intro. I really hope I'm wrong, since it would be awesome to cheaply be able to track insulin (alongside blood glucose). If I am correct though, we should re-write that part. Myoglobin ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Tracking function's transformations from sensation, emotion, mentation, meaning, awareness, consciousness and maybe even a self and observation, 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Arnold 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) [1]
References
This term currently redirects here. I wonder if it is not more popular than quantified self? Maybe this article should be renamed? Or are those concepts related but separate, and that redirect should be made into a separate article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata manages interwiki links among various languages of Wikipedia.
Currently this English Wikipedia article is matched to d:Q1337542 in Wikidata. From Wikidata, anyone can navigate to various other language Wikipedia articles.
There is a conflict because there is a private organization called "Quantified Self" then there is the general concept of the Quantified Self. The organization seems to be making a claim to leadership or general authority over the concept. The resulting problem is that the Wikidata item variously describes both the organization and the general concept, as do I think some of the other language Wikipedia articles. Also, visibly here in English Wikipedia, there is the application of a Wikidata infobox which presents the organization, when here the content is about the concept.
I hesitate to just delete the infobox here because the confusion remains in Wikidata and other languages of Wikipedia, but also, I do not see how to quickly untangle this, or send a multi-lingual alert to the problem, or how to log this as an conflict which could recur either here again or which may become systemic with infoboxes. I like the idea of Wikidata infoboxes, and an article like this one on quantification would be a good place to address problems.
For now I am making this note and taking no further action. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)