 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
someone should put a sample Mind Map image in this article. I would, but I am a real amateur at this stuff.
- Wish I could help there but I'm new too: anyway, Someone else removed my line in the Pensieve entry about software that attempts to do what a Pensieve does, marking it irrelevant. Fair enough, given no further context, but mind mapping was actually what I was specifically thinking about. Now I'll grant, the software for mind mapping is generally... er... well it's 1990's shareware, that's just been my opinion (I haven't seen the specific software at the link on Mind mapping page). But the concept, using a tool to collect and organize thoughts, is very close to a Pensieve. Are these two topics close enough to link, or if not, why not? - Paul Kroll
"Mind map is copyright of Tony Buzan." This is plain wrong. He either has a patent for something related to mind mapping or trademark rights for the term "mind map". Copyrights only cover actual works, i.e. books he has written, software he has developed etc. Somebody with a clue should correct this.
- I'm not sure where that bit about copyright was seen. A word or phrase can't be copyright. What I've seen all over the Buzan-related sites is indeed a claim to registered trademarks - on "Mind Map", "Mind Maps", and "Mind Mapping" - belonging to the "Buzan Organisation". These sites don't necessarily belong to said organisation, so some claims may be wrong (erroneous), but I presume that Buzan and his organisation have trademarked at least one of these terms.
- That being the case, this Wikipedia entry would seem inappropriate - a bit like having the information on vacuum cleaners in an entry entitled "Hoover".
- In my experience, "mind map" and "concept map" are synonymous. Concept maps have been around for a long time, although I don't know when the descriptive phrases were coined (I would like to find time to research this!). I don't think there is the slightest possibility that the concept of "concept map" or "mind map" were invented by Buzan. However, Buzan may well have invented the concept of destroying the concept by restricting it to hierarchical structures as in all the examples of "Mind Maps" that I've found on the commercial sites ( as well as the freeware "Freemind" which I've trialled and found excellent, provided that you want to draw hierarchical structures and NOT more general concept maps).
- Trademark law does not permit registration of words descriptive of the product. For a trademark on "Mind Map" to be valid, it could not therefore refer to what is commonly called a mind map or concept map. It seems to me that Buzan's trademark(s) would be valid precisely because they do not describe mind maps, but that would hinge on legal detail that is beyond my capability or interest.
- This trademarked "Mind Mapping" seems to represent simultaneous commercial appropriation and vandalising of a valuable public concept, and should not be promoted in Wikipedia.
>> This is a valid legal point. The mind map is a trademarked product of the Buzan organization. There is no clear legal definition of a mind map. Other non-trademarked diagrams do have clear definitions. Based on this point, it would seem that the mind map is completely inappropriate for wikipedia.
Alternatively, the entry could simply read, "The mind map is a trademark of the Buzan organization, used to promote a radial graphic that is perported by the Buzan literature to have been intuitively adopted by numerous "geniuses" because it harnesses the otherwise "untapped 99% of the brain's mental potential" (The Mind Map Book, ((Buzan and Buzan 1991))" Arnold >>
- I intend working on an entry for "concept map(ping)", but I'm new to Wikipedia and have a lot on my plate, so it may not appear soon. If someone else can do it sooner or better, I'll be very happy!
- It would be nice to include links to genuine concept mapping software (not restricted to hierarchical structures).
- A few years ago I trialled "TheBrain" http://www.thebrain.com/ and found it excellent. Unfortunately the trial version is time-limited and crippled and the product is associated with a defective business model (high price, low volume, for software that has a potential market of everyone on the planet with access to a computer.)
- Google Directory http://directory.google.com/Top/Reference/Knowledge_Management/Knowledge_Creation/Concept_Mapping/Software/
- lists a few concept mapping programs. Some seem to be inferior (and even more expensive) compared to TheBrain, and I am not motivated to download the trials. I am downloading IHMC CMap Tools http://cmap.ihmc.us/ to test. This looks VERY promising, being network-enabled (link concept maps across web or other networks). I'm not clear on their business model. The software seems to be fee-free, but I find the license difficult to read and it may be restrictive in ways that I don't understand. It is a large download (25.9) but I am open to the possibility that its extra features will justify this.
- Richard Jones 04:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I added a hand drawn image of a mind map. Strictly speaking, a mind map should have a central image, with images throughout. I do like the computer version, and think it appropriate to keep it there. Oliver Y
The claim that Buzan came up with idea in 1971 is dubious. He has a chapter on Mind Maps in the first edition of his book Speed Reading, published in 1971. It seems very unlikely he came up with the idea, developed it enough to include in a book, wrote the book, and had it published, all in 12 months. I have heard, though can't cite, that he was developing the idea while at university in Vancouver. Lutin
- Agreed; the claim that he came up with it in 1971 would be dubious if we were making such a claim in the article. However, we're perfectly within our rights to simply report what Buzan has claimed himself: that he came up with it as he started to write that book, which was published in 1971. If we have conflicting information we should add it. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
External links
I deleted a whole bunch of links which provided no extra information but simply went to commercial mind-mapping software providers. No mercy for wikispam!
Actually, techically, as the mind map is simply a trademark, it could also be considered as spam. Oliver Y
- The mind map is not simply a trademark. Only the mark "MIND MAP" is associated with a trade. The process isn't pantented, if that's what you're thinking. — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I have added an external link about the rationale behind mind maps and a comparison with other note taking styles. The quotes are taken directly from the prime source (The Mind Map Book) by Tony Buzan. http://geocities.com/buzanguru/MindMapping1.html
- As the entire article is already about explaining mind mapping, a poorly-written Geocities page about the same thing is redundant. Further, the page is blantantly promotional, making the link verge on spam. If you can offer a good reason to include this link in an encyclopedia, please do; I'll remove it later otherwise. — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
You are right. I think the quotes could be useful though, as they are correct. I checked. I also altered the "popular with managers" and "used by millions of students" portions. According to research (and ask around a bit) they are advertised, and taught as part of seminars, but generally not adopted as a technique. Other graphic organisers are more common and powerful. Considering that note taking is their main purpose, and that note taking is used so widely this is an important point. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12028392&dopt=Abstract The efficacy of the 'mind map' study technique. Farrand P, Hussain F, Hennessy E.
I deleted the statement claiming that the more brain reflecting principles you follow, the more effective the mind map. There is no evidence for this, but evidence for the contrary. Also, the principles do not reflect what science can actually tell us about the brain.
(according to this research (The efficacy of the mind map technique) Farrand et al 2001)
Lets try to keep the spam at a minimum! Or banish it altogether.
Mind mapping versus Concept mapping
I reverted the language contributed by 144.214.237.193 from the following paragraph because it is uncited and substantially non-NPOV (italics to show removed text):
- The idea is closely related to that of concept map, which originated in academic literature in the 1960's. The two techniques are distinct in that the mind map rationale is supported by pseudoscience and mind myths, whereas the concept map theory has had consistent support from rigorous psychological research.
The "rigorous psychological research", though possibly existing, isn't cited. Since this isn't a comparative article, I think it's inappropriate to talk about the legitimacy of concept maps when they have their own article. Given a source, I'd be happy to see this information included at concept map and let the See also link here at Mind map speak for itself. As for the claim that mind mapping is only supported by pseudoscience, this rightly belongs in the article only if a good source is provided. — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Saxifrage
The mind myths link should clear up this point for you. There is a well supported reference (and some interesting reading:).
Cheers
Juniper
- I'm afraid that still counts as not having any citation. Though the Mind myths article is interesting, there's no verifiable source that unconditionally shows that mind maps are based on mind myths and pseudoscience. I was concerned about this lack of link, not the lack of a definition for mind myths. I would change it to say that Sergio Della Sala says or claims that mind maps are based on mind myths, but I have no evidence for even that weak statement. Failing that, or new evidence being included in the article that demonstrates a connection, there's really nothing citable that can be salvaged from that section of text and it should be removed. I'll do so in a few days if you haven't responded. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Saxifrage I've had a re-search and rearranged the section. I treated the mind myths common knowledge as a quote instead. Cheers Juniper
- I see the Buzan quote you added in a different section, but there is still no justification for the assertion that mind maps are based on conjecture, pseudoscience, and "mind myths". Since that's no improvement over the wording I reverted before, I'm going to revert it again for the same reason (lacking citation).
- If you would like some help in crafting a wording that is more appropriate while still meeting Wikipedia's standards for citations, why don't you post a suggested wording here and I (and whoever else would like to help) can help you work it into shape? — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:41, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
No, on reflection I think you're correct, Saxifrage Cheers Juniper
Its definitel critical research, but certainly the researchers only set out to find out the actual efficacy, rather than to be critics. Best regards D.Right
- The meaning of "critical" in this context has nothing to do with negativity. See Critic for the meaning of "critical". — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Saying that mind mapping is superior to a concept map, or vi subversa, is like saying that an orange is superior to a banana quercus robur 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, but for the purpose of meaningful learning and understanding cognition, mind maps are bananas. DoctorDog 04:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Definition of mind map
I think an important feature that distinguishes the mind map from other forms, is the multicoloured or polychromatic feature with an image at its centre. The "theory" of a picture is worth a thousand words, the use of the left/right brain myth (images and words) and the assertion that colour stimulates the mind are essential key features of mind mapping. I am open to discussion on that one, as always though:) Cheers Juniper
- OK, I agree. Paranoid 11:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)