Talk:Document

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OTHER

Authorship

A small group of people in Xerox research solicited and compiled input toward a broader definition of document. This posting is the result, and we hope that you will agree it is more comprehensive. Much of our work revolves around understanding, producing, and converting documents to more usable forms, and helping other people in business, government, and education do the same. Naturally, further improvement is possible and we will watch this definition evolve with great interest. We feel that illustrations would further enhance understanding and are looking for suitable uncopyrighted material. We do take some pride in the role that Xerox has played in the evolution of the document in recent times but have attempted to be relatively unbiased.

Michael Allers, Paul Austin, Venkatesh Rao

Xerox Innovation Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paustin14580 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, I don't like it. BenB4 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted the Xerox commentary/banner in line with normal comment/discussion styling, rather than as the territorial claim to Wiki content which its previous formatting suggested. Advertorial content is, as far as I understand it, against Wiki guidelines and the spirit of Wiki. That is the basis on which I make my donations. Does Xerox donate and does it do so on the same principles?

I would be grateful if anyone could provide clarification of why this article is seen as "within the scope of WikiProject Law". The word Document is in general usage and is not merely if at all a specific legal term. I cannot see a justification for its inclusion in WikiProject Law, as the implication is then that it is only about that specialised field. If Xerox wishes to contribute to articles in Wiki regarding forensics, and forensic documents on the other hand I would see that as helpful.

LookingGlass (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert the article to the pre-Xerox version. While I have no doubt that Xerox's staff were trying to be helpful, they ended up introducing what appears to be original research. If references can be found for the material, then it can of course be reinstated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested reader, this is the article with the Xerox group contributions prior to being reverted. Diego Moya (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to make more coherent. Please see my remarks later down this page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great start, but could we clean up the language a bit? I'd like to see the proper use of "its" instead of the contraction. Thanks ~ Ole Juul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.58 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

documentation

in a joint venture agreement between a landowner and a developer,it was agreed that the developer shall undertake the documentation and marketing of the property of the landowner, now if their is a buyer of the property can the developer sign the deed of sale for the transfer of the said property to the buyer directly or is the landowner who is to sign the deed of sale because the title to the property is still in his name and not the developer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.5.92.186 (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Functional Documents: PDF files, PostScript files, XML files, Email

I don't agree with the naming of "PDF files, PostScript files, XML files, Email as "Functional Documents" - every "thing" performs some function. Maybe active documents? --AndriuZ (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comando2

commando 2 hacked plase leave comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.63.240 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed lead, more of a dictionary

Anyone else see the lead as too detailed and going into a more dictionary-esque definition instead of the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is? Curtiswwe (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below on which I would be grateful for your views. For me this article makes a great start and is a much needed article. I believe it is something lying at the root of all modern knowledge and self-knowledge . LookingGlass (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and for that reason changed it. Is it ok now? Please see my remarks further down.

This word, document, cries out for disambiguation

Given the polysemy of the word "document", I think an article needs to disambiguate the word into the multiple senses. Elcidia (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you elucidated on that. For myself I think I may feel almost precisely the opposite. Please see my other comment here on which I would be grateful for your views. LookingGlass (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article is coherent now. I think I clarified 3 things:

a. The term in its modern usage in the "Computer Age.

b. The term in its common usage as text and markings on paper (or some other transmission material)

c. The term in its formal usage as evidence in court.

All three stem from the same origin, and are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO the article is now intuitive to read, and more clear. Does anybody agree? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A great start !! - The history of the historical record

I am here looking for almost precisely the information this article seemed to me to be seeking to consolidate: the history (and the historical record!) of documentation itself i.e. the history of the historical record which is in a large part the history of the 'Document' upon which it is most generally based.

It seems to me that there are several stages/phases that our knowledge of history falls into and these align to the history of the Document. I am thinking of something along these lines: (1) Pre-history (geology, biology etc - only); (2) Archaeological record (only); (3) Political records (documentation of the rulers); (4) Plutocratic records (those of the rich or those they patronised - artists, diarists etc); and finally (5) General records (after the printing press?). This article seems to me to provide the opportunity to detail the facts and impacts of the evolution of phase 3, 4, and 5 of this.

It seems to me that we consistently fail to recognize the limitations in our knowledge created from its foundation and, in this case, mistake what we know (very little), with what was (a multi-dimensional and complex reality). The Document itself and its history are pivotal in understanding this. However, the authorship of this article has perhaps skewed it into being an article about printing rather than about the Document. That I find to be most unhelpful.

I would really very grateful for any comments.

LookingGlass (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following my changes, I hope you agree the article is more coherent.

Please see my remarks above in the 'cries out for disambiguation' section. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]