|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Just want to mention that maybe the title Complex Networks is more proper than Complex network.
assortativity hyp. link is shoving to the article about assortative mating in biology. This two thigns dont have anything in common except name therfore I will move this hyper link. If I find a time I'll write an article about assortative mixing!
- replaced ambiguous " real world" terminology with specific examples and links
- copy edit for tone, clarity, redundancy and continuity
- separate out content made redundant by copy edit and move to central article
- temp link for "hierarchy" until a more specific network-theoretic one is created
- temp link for "clustering" until a more specific network-theoretic one is created
- wikify and link related content
Any comments or feedback? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with classifying random networks as non-complex or simple. And the literature on the subject doesn't either. Indeed, just as an example, the main reference on the topic, the review by Albert and Barabási in Rev. Mod. Phys. vol. 74, 2002, includes random graphs as the first example of complex networks. These networks are indeed complex in the sense that any process taking place on them would be embedded in an extremely complex topology, and thus in great contrast with lattices, which even when they might be high dimensional, they would still be regular. Tariuk ( talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am adding a criticism section, unless anyone has serious objections. There has been relevant criticism of the methods used to characterize degree distributions as power laws. In particular, these criticisms show that contrary to popular belief, the degree distributions of many real-world networks (e.g. weblogs) do not follow power-law distributions. The power-law fit results from erroneously using least-squares regression on the log-transformed data. The importance of this lies in the fact that generative models are used to link preferential attachment to these networks explicitly, via the (incorrect) argument that the degree distributions of the model and the data are the same.
This is not, of course, a criticism of complex networks as mathematical objects, which doesn't make sense. But in a page largely about the application of complex network theory to science, it is important to point out those misapplications, particularly when they lead to widespread erroneous beliefs. Octochimps ( talk) 08:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Given recent criticism of "scale-free" and "small-world" networks (e.g., doi: 10.1002/bies.20294, or the editorial and Keller's essay in Nature's 2007 "Connections" collection) as a conglomerate non-predictive toy-models, it would be fair to have at least one sentence to say about that.
I am happy to start a Criticism section with content, where the points of criticism are briefly summarized along with relevant literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 ( talk) 13:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: for the moment at least, this is an article about the networks, not about the people who study them or about the sociology of the field. Criticism of the people or of the field is certainly reasonable, but it should be in a separate place or article from discussion of the science. Fox Keller's article in particular was explicitly not a criticism of the networks, but a criticism of the approach physicists have taken to studying them. If there are specific widely-held misconceptions or scientific errors in the field, those would be appropriate to put in this article. ("It is widely claimed that X is true, but in fact Y." Stuff like that.) But I agree with the previous editor who thought that vague criticism of the type "not everyone likes everything in this field" is not appropriate. Nog33 ( talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems a very odd section to have. It also lacks Paul Erdős and Alfréd Rényi, who may not be currently active but co-authored one of the most cited papers in complex network science. Also needs Béla Bollobás (Scholar search reveals two relevant books each with thousands of citations) and potentially more! My personal feeling would be that this section should be removed. -- Ts4079 ( talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about merging and spinning out network-related articles including this one at Talk:Social network#General network domain cleanup. Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Complex Networks (company) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)