Talk:Green IT

Merge Proposal

This article does not identify any specific project, contains only arguments for green computing and a reference to a recent article. Edits to Green computing seem more useful to the user community than a substantially redundant article. tooold 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've put a lot of work into the Green computing article. I was just about to add the Merge proposal myself, but you beat me to it. — EagleOne\^Talk 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Green IT and Green computing

Since some editors have continued to revert this article without discussion, I've added it to the RfC list. — EagleOne\^Talk 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been more than three weeks since I brought this discussion on RfC Sci. We've had a few outside opinions courtesy of the RfC, but no one has contributed anything since 2007-11-16. The user who originally proposed the merge has declined my request to join the debate (can't say that I blame him, really). Due to the weight of opinions being in favor of a single "green computing" page, and the general lack of response since the 16th, I think it's safe to remove this tag. Note to everyone interested in preserving a separate "green IT" article: please due not revert the page's contants without presenting new information here. — EagleOne\^Talk 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please also note that EagleOne is not providing a neutral reason for the merge, as he is the "main contributor" to the article Green computing, and might simply want to beef up his own article. Green IT and Green computing are two different subjects, in my opinion - Green computing is more of the technical angle of Green technology, while Green IT is more from the business perspective.38.102.73.132 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to see the big difference between computing and IT, but if you are able to argue (with sources) that there is a significant difference, i might support the existence of two articles. At the same time i have to mention that wikipedia has a lot of double information. The fewer the articles, the easier it would be to maintain keep wikipedia updated.

all the best Ga-david.b 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People, this is not how we resolve disputes, by throwing around accusations about other editor's intentions. I've stated my reasoning several times on this very page, and it is NOT to "beef up [my] own article". Do NOT misrepresent my intentions! — EagleOne\^Talk 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you see this as throwing around accusations or misrepresenting your intentions, I thought it was valid that a 3rd party be aware of *possible* intentions, that's all. I said, "MIGHT simply want to...". I apologize if I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and haven't written/edited 500 articles like you. I will be waiting to see what the Request for Comment does to help us resolve our disagreement; hopefully we can come to an agreement that both parties and the greater Wikipedia community are happy with.Kimberlylaura 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

500 articles? No, it's probably well into the thousands by now; I honestly don't keep track of that stuff. Anyways, no matter how new you are, you should be aware of how other people will perceive your comments. I'll be the first to admit that I have room to improve in that area, too. I've made it quite clear that I think this article is, at best, redundant with Green computing, and at worst, junk. So, if I find little-to-no value in this article, how could I use it to beef up "my" own article?

Also, nobody "owns" these articles, no matter how many edits you make. I don't own the Green computing article, even though I've made many edits to it since late September, and I'm OK with that.

And is it just me, or do I detect some slight sarcasm in your post? Specifically, in "I apologize if I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and haven't written/edited 500 articles like you"? — EagleOne\^Talk 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all; sorry you took it that way. I'm not going to argue over details with you, I understand that nobody 'owns' the articles, I'd like to wait for an outside opinion on this. Kimberlylaura 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to RfC. Information techonology (IT) is often used as a synonym for computer technology in Europe. I don't see any reasons for why a single article should bot be sufficent to cover the Green computing/IT area. If not, the Green IT article must be very clear about how it differs from Green computing. In addition the definitions used for IT (and ICT) are often unclear and confusing (as can be determined by comparing Computing and Information technology).Labongo 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion from article authors

The "Green Computing" article uses "Green computing is the study and practice of using computing resources efficiently." as its definition. The "Green IT" article uses "Green IT is the application of environmental consciousness to the computer and information technology industries." as its definition. These are small but important distinctions. Additionally the definitions of "computing" and "IT" themselves (at least in the wikipedia article) are different.

Moreover, we are attempting to add content to focus more on the business side of Green IT. I would be happy to continue to do this, and restructure the article so that the technical side (virtualisation, etc) is presented in summary with links to the Green Computing article for more information. I am not trying to take anything away from the Green Computing article. I am happy to let the two co-exist. I will continue to strengthen my article to disambiguate it. I do not appreciate having this content called "junk". I also do not appreciate people deciding that this should just be a redirect to Green Computing. What's to stop other people from redirecting "Trains" to "Trams" or "dogs" to "puppies" or "Green Computing" to something related but not the same? Amigaguy 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on your talk page, IT is just the application of computing resources to business practices. IT is just a subset of computing. Therefore, this content belongs under "Green computing", not "Green IT". And yes, the article is mostly junk. It was copied mostly wholesale from the cybernomics website, it isn't referenced, and it's woefully incomplete. It's mostly a discussion of how virtualization can be used to offset IT's environmental impact. There's more to green computing than just virtualization, which Green computing makes plain, whereas this article does not. Further, if you do expand this article, you're basically going to be copying from the "Approaches to green computing" section, as anything you can do to "Green" an IT datacenter is really just an application of Green computing methods.

In short, these articles are more than related, they are the same. There's no need to have two articles on the same subject, with the same content. The Green computing article is much more comprehensive, has many more references, and doesn't have any dumb "apples in a basket" analogies, like the one used here to explain virtualization. — EagleOne\^Talk 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose someone outside the editors/contributors of Green IT and Green computing give their opinions on this. Great idea, EagleOne, to submit a request for an outside perspective. I'd just like to make one comment - you shouldn't use words like "junk" and "dumb", as these are insulting and unnecessary. The apples in a basket analogy is useful in helping non-technical readers to understand how virtualization works - I think you'd agree with me when I say the best part of Wikipedia is the range of content - from very specific and technical definitions and information, to more tangible and palatable information for those who are not familiar with the subject. Also, I should mention that in your response you said that people "continually" try and unmerge Green IT from Green comping. According the history, this was done only once by Amigaguy. EagleOne it seems to me that you're simply fighting for the time you've put into editing your own "Green computing" article, which is not in the best interest for Wikipedia or its readers. Kimberlylaura 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I am fighting for the Green computing article, because in my opinion (and according to the standards for article quality on Wikipedia) the GC article is better than GIT, not just for the time & effort that I have invested in them. That should be no surprise to anyone here. Please, Kimberlylaura, do not make assumptions about my real motivations.

As I've noted, the GC article has many references, is more comprehensive, and relies on many sources, and adheres to the Manual of Style, whereas GIT relies on one source (the cybernomics website, a for-profit entity) has no references, and violates many rules of the MoS; therefore, the GIT article is "junk".

How can you improve this article (aside from style fixups, of course)? Add more sources, and more ways to implement Green computing in IT infrastructure. But pretty much anything you can add either is already in the GC article, or it can be added to the article. I can't conceive of anything that would belong in the GIT page that wouldn't also belong on the GC page.

Our job here isn't to explain virtualization to non-technical readers; that's for the x86 virtualization article. And, for the record, the article was actually reverted twice, once by Amgiaguy and once by an anonymous editor. I make no assumptions about the identity of the anon editor; it could've been Amigaguy after his login timed out, or it could've been someone else. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, we should leave it up to other editors' opinions. I will just say one last thing and that is: the subjects are different in my opinion (and I'd like to know who agrees with me), and if the Green IT article needs some reformatting and better sources, then so be it, but so do many existing articles on Wikipedia. This is not a reason to simply merge the article into another topic. If there is merging to be done, I would propose we unmerge "Green technology" and "Environmental technology" (again two different topics in my opinion), and somehow find a way to integrate Green computing and Green IT as two subtopics under Green technology. Also, in line with this, I'd say another option would be to merge the Green computing article into the Green IT one, as "Green IT" seems to me to be the most broad and encompassing choice if a decision must be made for one to be the main topic.Kimberlylaura 18:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberlylaura, exactly how is Green IT broader in scope than Green computing? IT is the application of computing resources to business processes, whereas "computing" refers to all areas and applications of computing, not just to businesses. I don't understand your logic when you say that "'Green IT' seems to me to be the most broad and encompassing choice". — EagleOne\^Talk 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to have misunderstood my point. The style issues are minor and are (usually) easily fixed. The real problem is that any content and sources that you can add to the Green IT article would either be a copy of what's already in GC, or would be easily added to GC. The style issues are minor. I almost regret bringing them up now, since it seems to have derailed the discussion. GC is the broader of the two topics, and we could easily have a separate section in GC for the application of green computing practices to IT. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]