Jump to content

Talk:Information technology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Question

Shouldn't the Internet be on the list of topics, not the World Wide Web? Do people still think the WWW is a synonym for the 'net? --Steinsky 20:30, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They are two different things. WWW is a medium. The Internet is a signal infrastructure and can be considered a medium, if one is really thinking about all the devices hooked up to it (although it is hard to distinguish this medium from all of modern technological civilization, given how many things now have IP numbers and respond on IP ports). EofT
Yes, but which one (or both?) should be here? I'd have put the Internet here, the WWW is just a part of that... -- Steinsky 01:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

it is type of subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.74.15 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We need more on the practice and profession of IT

While the history of IT is interesting, the content in the history is not balanced with any discussion of current practices.There is an entire science of managing information technology within organizations (commercial, government, non-profit). Why is none of the high-level content from that science present in this article? To whit, I'm thinking that we need to describe notions of portfolio management, technology management, support management, organizational structures, legal and ethical issues, and even well-understood roles within the profession. It is embarrassing to think that the profession in which I've devoted my career is represented through such a shoddy article!

I also question whether it is rational to set aside a section just for ICT. While I believe ICT to be an interesting article in its own right, I do not believe that the formation and history of educational curriculum in the UK to be core to the topic of Information Technology. It doesn't do either topic justice. --Nickmalik 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, there is comprehensive table that lists the types of IT and provides links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. It appears under the External Links'\ section. However, External Links is understood to mean links to content outside the Wikipedia. Therefore, this table should be moved. --Epl 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.43.185 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ICT : C stands for communication : singular or plural

What does letter "C" in ICT stand for ? Communication (singular) or communications (plural). For instance, it's singular in United Nations site but plural in the United Nations Development Program. Which form is more accurate?

probably singular is more correct. -- bohan

BULL

The History of Information Technology

I am actually more concerned that ICT appears to be subsumed by IT. In fact each are fundamentally distinct and should be treated separately.

In the global work that we did in this regard on DOT Force (The Digital Opportunity Task Force established by the G8 in Okinawa 2001) meant that we agreed that ICT stood for Information Communications Technologies, and therefore the acronym ICT is plural. As a result, the misleading and incorrect acronym ICTs should never be used. A common error which should be wiped out by education.

Furthermore, ICT actually requires a separate reference page in Wikipedia. Subjects related to ICT include ICT for development etc.

I would be happy to discuss this further. == Atenyi 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that ICT (Information Communications Technologies) should not redirect to IT (Information Technology) page. This is incorrect. it should redirect to [1], perhaps with a header which disambiguate. ICT has a somewhat different meaning in it's most common usage.. I have been reading about what we call "Learning Technologies" in the US - In the UK, and possibly elsewhere in Europe, ICT apparently refers to: The use of computer technologies in the classroom, the study of how to effectively search for and find information (research skills), and studies of how to best integrate Computer-based resources into education. Take a look at

[2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.182.34.36 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Titles and article quality

Considering that most people who work in information technology (and, I assume, most people who write articles about it) are highly intelligent, it's strange how the quality of IT-related articles seems so poor. There's a huge amount of information, but many of the articles provide little context and are need a good amount of wikification.

I'm going to move "IT" to "Information technology" whenever it appears in an article title, and perform minor cleanup in the articles; someone who is more of an expert than I would need to undertake larger cleanup efforts. Paul 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this article is pretty weak for a major category. What is an appropriate tag to use to flag this for improvement? maybe cleanup? I just (partially) patched some seriously messed up formatting and removed a comment randomly inserted in the middle. The section on organizations has a suspiciously plagiarized sound to it... that should be looked into. --DKEdwards 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is the first entry under: WP:VITAL#Information technology. This article is not only "major," but vital. The people who thought up the list of vital articles would like to see all the vital articles reaching featured article status. However, Information technology/Archive 1 is a long way even from good article status. I see a few things I can improve, such as by adding links from the sketchy history section to the extensive articles relating to History of computing and so on. --Teratornis 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is indeed very weak, so let's see what we can do to improve it. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


What are really the applications of IT in the above named industries?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.3.84 (talk • contribs) uly

See Numerical analysis, Scientific computing, and all the links under Scientific computing#Related fields. As computers have steadily improved in performance-to-price ratio (see: Moore's Law), almost every field of science and engineering has become increasingly computerized. Almost all scientists and engineers have at least one personal computer or workstation. Almost all technical organizations of medium size and up have their own data center. You might also pose your question on WP:RD#Computing. --Teratornis 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

added content

I have added some content from elsewhere in WP to provide a starting point for further editing improvement. Hmains 01:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The "especially in large organizations." should be removed. The sentence it suffixes is relevant enough to all organizations to make this phrase misleading.

For some unknown reason the link to Joe Lyons redirects to Joseph Lyons, the Australian Prime Minister rather than the Joe Lyons of the coffee houses... The Australian Prime Minister pre-deceased the production of the Leo... Merlin-UK 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have done a basic simplification/cleanup for this article. Most unnecessary info has been removed. The “duties” section needs to be improved and expanded and the entire article could be longer and more detailed, but it’s a start. -- Mcoff 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Defining Information Technology

Shouldn't IT definition explicitly mention use of internet? Also should it not have base line of amount of information/data being handled?

--Sanpo123 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing, from recently studying Philosophy for school, that the relation may be in a sense that someone in the IT world has their own Philosophy or opinion about the definition, workings and facts of the field. This is a total opinionated answer to the question. Jbloxom7192 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Read WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In studying Philisophy we have a lot of things to be considered and one of it is the Information Technology. How IT related to the Philisophy?

Please relate my post above to this discussion. (Jbloxom7192 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)).

Information is not data

In this definition, the term "information" can usually be replaced by "data" without loss of meaning.

I've removed this statement from the lead. Information is to data as knowledge is to facts, the terms are not equivalent. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IT Specialist term

I would like to create an article on the term "IT Specialist" if possible and correlate it the term IT Professional as well. Can anyone help me get started on how to do it. I find some of the Wikipedia process for creating an article nebulous to say the least. :-)

Just a quick backgrounder, I'm an IT professional that's been in IT services industry and I have published several guides on Microsoft technology and certification.

Sincerely,

Will Jeansonne (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)William Jeansonne, MBA/MS

Watch WP:COI and WP:NPOV, please.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Very Mysterious

I have been undoing vandalism most of the night. I undid the vandalism on the Information Technology page, but when I saved it, The information indicated that I undid my own vandalism. Of course, that is not the case. I corrected the vandalism, But am concerned that there is a glitch it the system. I would not want to be suspected of this silly, childish activity. Terry1944 (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ICT And IT

ICT is communication between 2 or more computers, IT is separate as it can be generalized as the entire industry of Information Technology or it can refer to the fact that the Information on the computers is not transmitted between computers. ICT is also the preferred term for teaching computer Technology at school, Collage Or even at university. I hope this may help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Bate 113.199.169.167 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition "any technology that helps to produce, manipulate, store, communicate, and/or disseminate information" should be clearly separated from the definition of ICT, see Information and communication technologies. It should also be clarified which of the two articles is the most appropriate for the image. Isheden (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

role of information technology in management

i'd request my friends... yes al of you, to please lend your views and knowledge on the proposed topic. 

                              hope you all shall opine on the same.
       i shall duly  provide my insights shortly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.22.34 (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between computer science and information technology?

205.214.198.1 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the respective articles? From computer science: Computer science is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation. From Information technology: is the use of electronic computers and computer software to convert, store, protect, process, transmit, and securely retrieve information. Mindmatrix 14:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular definition

The article starts by saying Information technology (IT) is "the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of infotech". infotech is not linked, but its article turns out to be a redirect to Information technology.

Perhaps it would be wise to divide the material by context: IT as a term in education, in job titles, in business, ... I suspect it has different meanings in different places. What those meanings are, I have no idea – I came here hoping to find out. JöG (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the circular definition has been removed now. JöG (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

It has been suggested that any content salvagable from Information Technology Infrastructure should be merged here to Informtion technology. please discuss.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

if4it

Hello All,

A few weeks ago, I looked at the content on the "Information Technology" page and noticed that the definition was incomplete and that content was, in some cases, inaccurate and that the references were pretty weak, through the article. I tried to rewrite it in a way to clean it up and add multiple solid references to the material so that it was accurate and rich, using multiple references from multiple sites. I enjoyed the process and, over the last couple of days, I tried to add new content to other topics on wikipedia. Today, a person who I believe to be an administrator (MrOllie) reverted all content I submitted on all topics to their original states, tagging the posts as spam, with the implication that I was using reference links to spam. I'm confused because I thought we're supposed to add references to the material. Is this incorrect? In all cases, I looked for multiple solid references on each topic. In the case of the last two topics I worked on, there really was only one, which was common to the original posting. I even spent a portion of today looking for other references that I wanted to try and update the articles with, this weekend. It was when I logged on to do more work on the content that I noticed "all" content had been reverted.

The content that was reverted can be reviewed in the following version link: My added content for "Information Technology"

Can all of you please review and let me know what is wrong (if anything) and let me know what needs to be done to correct any issues? I'll gladly do what I can to help. I guess what I'm confused about is that the administrator reverted back to incomplete or even wrong information rather than just trying to work out a collaborative way to improve the content, even further.

Any assistance is appreciated.

My Best,

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerino1 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to add references to new material, yes. What you're not supposed to do is add ten links to one of your own websites in the process. - MrOllie (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

Thanks very much for the quick reply. Please understand that I try to add reference links to any and all sites I can find that provide solid information for a specific topic. In fact, many of the links that existed before I tried to improve the post were truly spam. Please take a look, yourself. You'll notice that in the case of the topic "Information Technology" I added many sites as reference, not just IF4IT. You'll also notice that the IF4IT provided the most accurate and complete definition for "Information Technology", as well as other related material on the topic. That is a testament to the hard work of many people. (It's my business to know and understand all references on the material.)

In the case of the topics "Build Management" and "Software Management", which I had just started improving or adding content to, I had logged on today to try and improve the content with more references that I found, only to find the material removed. I believe we have a dilemma... You ask that we not use references to our sites, yet, the IF4IT is a growing organization that provides solid and, arguably in many cases, the best content on all things "Information Technology". Like Wikipedia, it is open content that exists for the benefit of the people. Many people work hard to get the material out to the public and the organization's purpose is not to make money. The content is free. I kindly ask that you please take some time to review the content on the site. It's solid material that is not spam and many large global enterprises are not only contributing to it but using it. The glossary, alone, has grown to over 10K terms in less than 4 months and is expected to grow to over 50,000 terms by the end of 2011. I personally don't believe it's wrong to reference the material on any site, if the material is solid and adds true value for the public. I certainly don't have any issues with creating references to other sites for any content I publish on Wikipedia, especially if the references are solid, as you can see from the content I published for "Information Technology".

Please be clear that I understand and appreciate that you're doing your job and I completely respect your intent (especially when taking into account that you're volunteering your own time). My goal is not to spam. I logged on to wikipedia to add value, learn and have some fun while doing it. I can't help it that my domain of expertise is "IT" and that I'm involved with the IF4IT. IT is the area that I can add the most value in.

Also, please know that I understood and was very clear on the fact that "No Follow" was turned on from the beginning of my contributions so I was clear that wikipedia was not an option for link building. Before I worked on the pages, the material in the three topics I touched was incomplete and even inaccurate in some cases. Please know that I genuinely worked to improve it and I'd hate to lose the content, if it can be avoided. If you're open to it, I'd like to work with you to find an appropriate way to handle this issue and provide content that is clear and is appropriately referenced, to your satisfaction. Is there a way that we can work together to find a solution to this, even if it means my running material by you for your review before posting? (NOTE: If it's easier, we can connect via email or phone to discuss.)

PS: Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to all of this.

My Best,

Frank --Guerino1 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that when you add new content to Wikipedia, you reference it to wherever you got the information originally, before you put it on your own site. As a domain expert I'm sure you are familiar with the sources for your information so this should be easy for you. - MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

For clarification: When you wrote "I would suggest that when you add new content to Wikipedia, you reference it to wherever you got the information originally, before you put it on your own site.", were you implying that our site has plagiarized material?

Please understand that the material on IF4IT is original and has been constructed through the efforts of many people's contributions. There are multiple dictionaries in the world, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc. Do you think that they copied terms and definitions from each other when they all came into existence? IF4IT is a "reference" site that provides reference content for the Information Technology Industry. For the wiki content on Information Technology that I contributed, I referenced multiple sources for the material, in some cases, IF4IT was the only possible source, as there were no others.

I'm confused MrOllie. You seem to be arguing a case for incomplete and/or wrong content with weak spammed references over content that is solid, more accurate and has solid references. I'd think that as a gatekeeper for content, your purpose is quality content. Am I interpreting your position correctly? If the issue is your perception of my misuse of referencing to one site out of multiple that I used, then is there a constructive way for us to move forward on this issue? If your issue is your interpretation and perception of quality material from the IF4IT site, then I'm open to your providing better references that we can work with. I'm very willing to work with you but you seem to be providing very one-dimensional answers. I don't know if it's because of something like you're being pressed for time or it's because you're intentionally being short. I'd hate to think it's the latter, as I've done nothing intentional to be uncooperative.

Also, is there a more productive way for us to communicate, possibly offline.

My Best,

Frank
--Guerino1 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not implying that your site has plagiarized material, but obviously you learned these things somewhere - just cite to where you learned them. If your site is really the only source for this information anywhere, that means that that information is your original research and it should not be on Wikipedia. If that is the case, I question your characterization of your site as a 'solid reference'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Your point about using "original sources" would have to apply to Wikipedia, too, wouldn't it? The majority of entries to Wikipedia existed in many encyclopedias, long before Wikipedia ever came into existence. If your argument is that we should take our original content and point it to some other point of origin, then Wikipedia would be violating your rule, as it would have to point to all original sources, in all previous encyclopedias.

The material on IF4IT was learned through means such as long term experience and conventional wisdom in the industry. Most of the material was not documented, in most cases. In very few cases, the material was documented by other sources but in very different ways. In all cases the material on IF4IT is original and published for open use, making it a legal reference.

To your statement about it being our original research, yes, it is. However, regarding your statement that it should not be on Wikipedia if it is IF4IT original research, I respectfully believe that you are inaccurate, as anything can be copied and/or quoted, word for word, if it is properly referenced, which is the point of a reference. If anyone rewrites something in their own words, then it doesn't need to be quoted, unless it violates legal intellectual property rights. I believe that you're right in that the definitions, which are word for word from IF4IT should be quoted and referenced back to IF4IT. However, I believe that you're wrong if you block the definitions because they're, arguably, the most complete and accurate definitions available from any industry source, which is the reason the IF4IT came into existence. As for the rest of the content, outside of definitions, it was all original and I even referenced other industry sources, wherever I could (and even came back to add more when I noticed you had reverted the content).

I believe you have an issue. Since the IF4IT is a public reference, at some point in the future I'm sure others will start to quote and reference it, like they do other reference for industry material, especially since the glossary is the largest and most complete of its kind and rapidly outpacing all others (as is all other content). If others use IF4IT as a reference and you blindly block them, wouldn't that put you in a bit of bind?

By the way, could you kindly publish the criteria you use to judge what is or isn't a reference so that I and the rest of Wikipedia contributors may understand your decision process? It appears (and I may be wrong about it) that you're holding me to different standards than you are other content contributors.

While IF4IT is like Wikipedia in that it is an open and public content source that doesn't make money off of publishing its material, it's unlike Wikipedia because its content is always being scrutinized by experts with experience in the content being published, whereas Wikipedia's content is monitored by administrator's who are not guaranteed to have any experience in the subject matter being published on Wikipedia.

How do we work together to come to an acceptable position on this, where you're not holding me to different standards than you are other content contributors. If you block the material because you have factual criteria that is held for all contributors, then your position is strong. However, if you block the content because of your opinions and you have no facts to support your position, then I respectfully ask that we continue the conversation, possibly with the owner(s) of Wikipedia. In the end, I respect the fact that it is "their" site and they have final decision on whatever they do or don't want to have on their site. However, it is sad if your only reasons for blocking me are based on opinions and inconsistent rules that are held for some contributors but not others. It becomes even more interesting when you consider that IF4IT is going down the same path that Wikipedia has gone down.

Again, I am very willing to work with you to reconstruct the content in a manner that is more acceptable to you. If the issue is that I referenced IF4IT too much, we can work to reduce the references to what you believe to be is an acceptable level. Can we agreeably move in this direction?

Please advise.

My Best,

Frank --Guerino1 (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria I use to judge what is or isn't a reference is wikipedia's sourcing guideline. The Encyclopedia example you cite is not the same, because Encyclopedias are independently written and published and have a strong reputation for fact checking. I don't think that any level of referencing to if4it is acceptable, because this is your own self published site. The guidelines on that are here and here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

As I do not wish to argue with you or become a nuisance, I will leave it at conformance to the section on "Self Publication of References" even though, while I do own the foundation (like Jim Whales owns or owned Wikipedia), I am not responsible for a great deal of its content, as we have many contributors and editors. And like WP, we publish our content openly, for no profit. (I am, however, fully responsible for its vision and its platform.)

I do believe you will have issues when others start to reference the site. IF4IT currently has multiple small, mid-sized and large enterprises that are using us for reference and utilization is growing. I believe it's only a matter of time before its material is referenced outside of enterprises. When that time comes, I believe that blocking it as a source of reference will put the blockers in a very questionable position.

FYI, In your response, you stated that Encyclopedias are independently written and have a strong reputation for fact checking. IF4IT, like Wikipedia is independently written. Please understand that to imply otherwise puts you in a questionable position. As for the fact checking on Wikipedia, while I understand it is not your fault, I strongly suggest you take the time to read some of the references that have already found their way onto the site, starting with those for "Information Technology."

I look forward to future collaboration with you.

My Very Best,

Frank --Guerino1 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:Original research.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

spending map

Wouldn't a Choropleth map (maybe population or GDP weighted) be more appropriate for comparing spending between areas, if that is the goal? Andresswift (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

History

Is anyone able to provide a history of the field and/or the term? FelixKaiser

Thats what came here to ask. That information should really be added to this pathetic article--Greasysteve13 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no origin stated for this term. I had not noticed the term being used prior to 1985, and then only marginally used in 1989. Did this term originate in some marketing think tank? I think these questions do need to be answered to give this article a more authoritative basis--Narara (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone add some real information about historyy of IT. The messages before me was sent in june 2006 but there is still no information about history of IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.190.251 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Map

What figures are the map based on? On the description of the image, I found a link to this file [7]. I do not see a proper plot of this info on the map. Furthermore, those World Bank statistics show statistics of countries and not particular regions. The map shows otherwise.

MikeLynch (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Title

Shouldn't the 't' in "technology" be in upper-case as is the 'I' in "Information"; moreover, this page has a redirection from the page "Information Technology". As IT is an abbreviation, I believe the title should have upper-case initials. Amit Dash (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia a lot of acronyms are expanded into lowercase forms, and should be whenever the topic they refer to is not a proper noun. For example, there's Computer science, Central processing unit, Local area network, and Digital rights management. WP:CAPS is the page which discusses this convention. – Pnm (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

This article has the worst lead sentence since "Abstract art is art that is abstract." Kaldari (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as useless as the definition of Return on Capital Employed on the ROCE page (used to also be the same on the actual article): "a measure of the returns that a company is realising from its capital employed". Clearly written for the benefit of people who already know what it is. Halsteadk (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition in need of revision.

to whom it may concern: 

     My name is Alex Gomes and I am completing an assignment for my Technical Writing course at NJIT.  The assignment is as follows:


Each student is asked to submit a formal proposal document concerning the article to be used for the WISER project. The form of the proposal is left to the student but certain elements must be included (see below). For the WISER project response to this RFP, each student must identify and propose revision to an article that is in need of one of the following: The current definition needs improvement and support by quality, reliable sources. -OR- A specific paragraph or section must be revised to contain additional expert support from multiple sources that are reliable and of quality. 

     I submit that this Wikipedia article has an insufficient definition that could be easily revised to further the initial understanding of the topic at hand.

The current definition reads: Information Technology (IT) is concerned with technology to treat information. The acquisition, processing, storage and dissemination of vocal, pictorial, textual and numerical information by a microelectronics-based combination of computing and telecommunications are its main fields. (Information Technology, 2012)

While the second half of this definition is good, I feel as though the first segment of the definition is entirely worthless. Information Technology is concerned with technology to treat information? Really?!? what does that even mean?? While it is true that information and technology are both very well known words... is it not a well known guideline not to use the word you are defining in the definition?


I submit that the definition be changed to read: Information Technology (IT) is the branch of engineering that deals with the use of computers and telecommunications to retrieve and store and transmit information. (Princeton Wordnet) The acquisition, processing, storage and dissemination of vocal, pictorial, textual and numerical information by a microelectronics-based combination of computing and telecommunications are its main fields. (Information Technology, 2012)

I do realize that my definition also uses the word "information". However, information is very different than just data, and therefore attempting to use a synonym (such as data) for information would lead to misinformation.

The Citation: Princeton Wordnet, retrieved from the web at 4:22 pm on April 7th, 2012 from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=information+technology&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h

AgomesNJITWILL (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. This is my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article and thus hope that I have followed protocol and provided sufficient information to go ahead with the change. I don't quite understand the whole signature with four tildes thing.

I do believe that you have, for the most part (see below), followed protocol; although, for future reference, it would be preferable if you would wait for consent from others before making a major edit (see WP:ME for what a minor edit is). Under the time difference between your and my comment, I would have gone and done the same. Your definition does serve as a better one -- whoever put "treat information" intended that to be defined (rather poorly) in the next sentence.
Every time you make a comment you should put the four tildes down at the end so that you can be identified. For instance, you did put your name after "The Citation", but you did not put down a signature after the "P.S.". If they were made at the same time, the four tildes should come after the PS note; if the two comments were made at different times, you would put down a tilde where you did and after the PS note. This is Madness300 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actual or forecast spending?

The section title Information technology#Worldwide information technology spending implies actual or past spending (by the absence of the word "forecast"), but the table title is "... forecast". Which is it? The article should be consistent. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of the dates for the four phases of IT

Malleus Fatuorum, I'm curious as to why this this reversion of my edits is "right". I'll concede that spaces around the dashes are not required when there are only numbers, eg "1450-1840" (I only included them for consistency with "3000 BC - 1450 AD"), but:

  • Why is the single dash character more correct than –? MOS:DASH does not prefer one over the other (and there are pros and cons to both).
  • Why not put "electronic (from 1940)" (or possibly "electronic (c.1940–present)" or similar) and drop the clause "which began in about 1940". It is succinct and consistent with the date ranges in brackets for the first three phases.

The first point is invisible to the reader, so I don't really care about. But for the latter I do think my version is better. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer my version, as there isn't really a range for the fourth and current phase and it emphasises the scope of the article. But there's so much work to be done that I'd prefer us to be focusing on the stuff that matters. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unstructured formats

The Data retrieval section says:

Most of the world's digital data is stored in unstructured formats ...

but doesn't the term "format" here imply some type of structure? This is especially the case in the plural - if two files are both "unstructured", how is it reasonable to say that they have different formats? What distinguishes one unstructured format from another (ie different) unstructured format? I suggest a re-wording is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The terms "format" and "structure" are not synonymous, so the answer to your question is no, there is no such implication. For instance, two unstructured files may employ different encodings, hence different formats. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case the use of the adjective unstructured to qualify the noun formats is not appropriate - because unstructured applies to the data, not the encoding scheme/format - so the sentence still needs rewording, eg "unstructured data stored in different formats". It may be literally true that the (encoding) formats are unstructured, but (as per your recently added footnote) the word unstructured should modify data not format. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, but it isn't mine. This article is obviously still very much a work in progress, so why not try helping helping rather than griping? Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unstructured and/or in different formats

Regarding this reversion of my addition of the word "and"....

Given that you've already stated, and I've agreed, that "structure" and "format" are not the same thing. Please answer me these questions:

1. Is most of the world's data unstructured?

2. Is most of the world's data stored in a variety of different formats? If the answer to both is yes, how can "Most of the world's digital data is unstructured, and stored in a variety of different formats" be inaccurate?

3. Are "structure" and "format" independent of each other?

If yes, then the word "and" is necessary because because otherwise the second clause implies that the data is unstructured because it is stored in a variety of different formats. If you want to state or imply that the data is unstructured because it is stored in a variety of different formats, then footnote 'a' needs updating or deleting.

Perhaps it should be "Most of the world's digital data is unstructured, or stored in a variety of different formats ..."? Not having a conjunction between the "unstructured" and "format" clauses implies a causation between them that is contradicted by footnote 'a'.

It might help if you could provide some specific examples, then I'd have a clearer idea of exactly what the sentence is trying to say. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. The article says very clearly that " Most of the world's digital data is unstructured".
  2. It doesn't make sense to say that "Most of the world's digital data is stored in a variety of formats", so your question has no meaning. The lack of a conjunction does not imply causality, as you seem to believe.
  3. Obviously, as the article already says.
  4. Specific examples are already given, such as encoding schemes vs. structural organisation, e.g. database or XML schemas.

Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC on unstructured and a variety of formats

Discussion has ended. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the sentence "Most of the world's digital data is unstructured, stored in a variety of different formats" imply that the data is unstructured because it is stored in a variety of formats? But "structured" and "format" are defined to be different and independent. Mitch Ames asserts that the quoted sentence has a misleading implication, and that it should read "Most of the world's digital data is unstructured, and stored in a variety of different formats" (bold for emphasis in the RFC, not in the article). Malleus Fatuorum disagrees and asserts (in the edit comment) that inserting the word "and" makes the sentence inaccurate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a point being missed by both sides. This is not primarily a matter of grammar and semantics, nor yet of logical inference from definition of the terms. The statement is not worded so unambiguously that either interpretation is cogent, compelling every reasonable reader to interpret it identically. Even if it were, unreasonable readers, or readers whose mastery of English is not much better than our mastery of their mother tongues, still might struggle to interpret it defensibly, and if they did, they still could not be sure that they had interpreted it as intended by the author. This immediately implies the proposition(s) to be insufficiently well written or edited. The fact that helpful clues might be inferred from accompanying definitions is no argument, let alone excuse. Clarity and effortless readability are the responsibility of the writer, and should be a point of pride of a competent writer. The sentence should be written with its conjunction in a more explicit form, such as perhaps: "Most of the world's digital data is unstructured. Furthermore, it is stored in many functionally different formats, most of which are non-standard." And if that is not the intended interpretation, it should be re-worded accordingly. Back to the drawing board! That one was easy, as RFCs go  :-) JonRichfield (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Malleus Fatuorum, could you have a go at rewording the sentence some other way, to address JonRichfield's comment. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with JonRichfield's observations, so why don't you have a go? Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know what the article is trying to say. I don't have access to the references that you used, so I can't check them to see what they say. I did originally try to "have a go" at fixing the article, but you reverted me, saying I was wrong. Our discussions (#Unstructed formats, #Unstructured and/or in different formats) do not appear to have helped resolve the problem, hence this RFC. If the general consensus was that your wording was clear and made sense, then I would happily leave the article as it is, but the comments to date suggest that the wording needs to change. However, the comments to date do not agree that my wording is correct either, so it would be pointless to simply re-apply my change. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If you don't know what the article's trying to say then perhaps you ought to consider butting out until you do. That a few schoolkids don't understand something that's self-evident is of no interest to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A format by definition is structured data, since the computer code to output data to the format has to be compatible with the input reading code. The whole sentence is misleading IMO. • Jesse V.(talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    Completely untrue. Consider a computer program designed simply to convert from 7-track mag tape to 9-track mag tape for instance. Whatever structure there may in the data is completely ignored in the conversion of that bit/byte stream, and is completely unknown to the reading program. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In this article the term "unstructured" is poorly defined to the point of being misleading. In the context of Process mining, "structure" refers to a structure of tasks that produce a product or service. So in the context of the citation (Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes by Wil M. P. van der Aalst) a lot of things that information Technology considers structured would be classified as unstructured. Throwing in the concept of "different formats" muddies the water even more. In IT, a format is often (but not always) roughly equivalent to (but not identical to) a structure, but data stored in a bunch of unrelated and incompatible formats is usually considered, as a whole, to be unstructured even if every individual format is structured -- there is no overall structure. And, of course, the "structured" in structured programming is completely different from either. We might as well use the definition of "structure" used by bricklayers. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    That's exactly the kind of nonsense that's kept this article in such a parlous state for so long; I suggest that you refresh your understanding of data structures, assuming you ever had one to begin with. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you refresh your understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your personal attacks do not strengthen your argument. Quite the opposite, actually. I am quite familiar with data structures, and how they differ from process mining structures, and I stand by my statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you consider the wisdom of at least trying to extract your head from your arse; when and if you succeed, maybe we can talk again. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

At least some of there are independent and present different problems: with appropriate hardware, I can move my MS Word documents from floppy to hardware, but converting my WordPerfect documents to MS Word (on the same physical medium) is completely different and independent problem. The article should perhaps explicitly mention examples of these different types/layers to illustrate that there are multiple problems with retrieving data that may be stored in differing formats/structures. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
But we're not talking about "general usage". The article ought to be developed in several different ways, but your obsession with this one particular issue (along with a trivial capitalisation issue) has derailed that effort, so I suggest you write whatever seems to make sense to you. If I were to summarise it simply I'd say that format was physical whereas structure was logical, but hey, there's no reason why this article ought not to return to the ranks of Wikipedia's grey goo, so have at it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
These claims that I'm "derailing the effort" and (by another editor) "stalling efforts to improve" the article are simply not true. There's no edit-war, no disruption to the article, no reason why editors can't continue to work on the article. I changed an article, you reverted, I opened a discussion here - that's how it's supposed to work. Perhaps I'm obsessed with a minor detail or two, but in each case there are several respondents to the RFC who apparently agree with me that the article as it stands is wrong - and none that I can see agree with the wording that you appear to be defending at least as obsessively as I am questioning it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Then I look forward to seeing how you decide to develop the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
MF> "... I suggest you write whatever seems to make sense to you."
Done. I'm not saying it's perfect - per comments by JonRichfield, Jesse V., Guy Macon, it still needs re-writing - but I believe this change is at least a slight improvement until someone can come up with something better. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{main}} case

This issue is indeed taken care of, rightly or wrongly. Cheers to My76Strat, who is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved
 – See RFC below. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding these edits uncapitalising the first letter of the referenced article:

  • The target article titles all start with a capital letter, per normal Wikipedia conventions.
  • There's nothing at {{main}} to suggest that we should not use the capitalisation of the target article - all of the examples are capitalised
  • Numerous other articles use capitalisation (eg, Australia, USA, etc) when they use {{main}}

Would you please explain why you reverted my edit, and point me to the appropriate MOS guideline or policy? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I will point you instead to any basic English grammar book: what follows a colon is not capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What follows the colon in this case is a proper noun - it is the title of a Wikipedia article, and thus should be capitalised to match that article, just as we maintain capitalisation of the titles of references, bibliography entries, "Further reading" entries, "See also" entries. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. In the cases you mention the article title is capitalised because it appears first in the entry; another basic rule of English grammar is that the first letter of the first word is capitalised in such cases. But in the case of {{main}} the article title appears after a colon. Think of it this way. If there was any merit in your suggestion that article titles are proper nouns then the whole title would be capitalised, not just the first letter of the first word.For example the title of this article would be "Information Technology", not "Information technology". Now, can we get back to focusing on something that really matters, like expanding this article to better describe the field of IT? Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The article title is whatever WP:TITLEFORMAT dictates. And the article title - being the name of an specific article - is a proper noun, and thus should be replicated without modification. I've raised an RFC, because we don't seem to be getting anywhere resolving this ourselves. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No. If the article title was a proper noun then it would appear capitalised in the body of the article, which in the case of "data storage" for instance it does not. Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of context. The article title in {{main}} refers explicitly to the article about the subject (not the subject itself). The words in the body of the article refer to the subject itself. The former is a proper noun (name of an article); the latter is a common noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You are, of course, quite mistaken. By your logic, every wikilink in an article should be capitalised exactly as the article title to which it refers is capitalised, which is absurd. And to repeat the point again, if "data storage" really was a proper then it would be capitalised "Data Storage", not "Data storage". Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The visible text for a wikilink in the body text - where a term is used as part of the narrative - follows the normal capitalisation rules (non-caps for common noun) because it is intended to be read as part of that body text. The link is a convenience but does not mean we break the normal English rules in the visible body text / narrative. That's why wikilinks are case-insensitive for the first character, and that's why we have pipes. However the "Main article: ..." text is not part of the narrative (that's why it is formatted differently, so the reader can see it is not part of the narrative) - it is an "abbreviation" for "The article titled 'Main article' is the main article for this topic". In this context it is a proper noun. As to whether it should be "Main Article" - take that up on the talk page for WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'm not going to argue here about what the article title should be, merely about whether we should reproduce it unchanged in {{main}}.
I suggest that we should both wait for some other editors to provide input, since we do not appear to be getting anywhere ourselves. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to take up at WP:TITLEFORMAT, as article titles are not proper nouns, and hence are formatted correctly as they are. My point is that if they were proper nouns, as you contend they are, then the capitalisation would be incorrect. But they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Should article titles included in the {{main}} template - ie appearing as Main article: <article name>, explicitly referring the reader to another Wikipedia article - have the same case as the article title, typically with the first letter capitalised, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Mitch Ames asserts that they should (eg Main article: Data storage device), but Malleus Fatuorum disagrees, saying that it should generally start with a lower case letter (eg Main article: data storage device). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a disagreement about style, and the style should be common to all articles, I've also raised the matter on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is it laid down that style should be common to all articles? Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. One of the reasons we use templates is to provide a consistent look. (Template_Talk:Main#What's the_point?) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to read that again, particularly the final sentence. Have you not noticed, for instance, that date formats are very far from consistent across all articles? Or units of measurement? The only requirement is that articles be internally consistent, not with every one of the 4 million odd other articles on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is "especially important [to be consistent] within an article" but that is not the only requirement. Obviously the style is not perfectly consistent across the entire encyclopaedia, but we should generally strive for consistency across articles where we reasonably can. This is one such case. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But you seem to have adopted an erroneous position that all the other articles you've seen have adopted a "correct" style, one that's contrary to the rules of English grammar. I would argue that they ought to be made consistent with this one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly why I've raised the RFC - to determine what the correct position is, so that we can all do the "right" thing. Regardless of the outcome, I intend to suggest that the template documentation be clarified - to match the consensus - so that editors in future are more likely to be consistent and we don't have these sorts of arguments. If the consensus is that you are correct and I am wrong, then I shall certainly change my ways in future. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I am already doing the right thing, and I have absolutely no intention of changing anything regardless of the outcome of this RFC. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support. As a reference to a titled item, rather than a direct reference to any concept that may be represented by that title, it should, in my opinion, retain the capitalization of that title, as should references to sections of Wikpedia articles.--Boson (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment This looks like a matter for WP:MOS. Shouldn't this RfC be labelled {{rfc|style}} and perhaps be discussed/advertised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles?--Boson (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with article titles per se, it's to do with how article articles should be supplied to the {{main}} template. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but since that determines how the text is rendered, it is a matter for WP:MOS, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles deals precisely with things like formatting and capitalization of titles - not just Wikipedia article titles but also titles of other compositions, such as books titles, chapter titles, etc. I would say this is analogous to the treatment of chapter titles. If it were just about how the title was supplied to the template, it would be fairly irrelevant, and we could achieve consistency by having the template automatically capitalize the first word. Perhaps that would be the best solution, until such time as Wikipedia allows the first letter of the actual article name to be lowercase. --Boson (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But it is just about how the article title is supplied to the {{main}} template, nothing else. The reason the template can't decide on capitalisation for itself is that it has no way of knowing whether or not the target article title is a proper noun (like Malkin Tower) or not (like data storage). Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case it is not just about how it is supplied to the template but also about how it appears in the text, and is therefore a matter of house style like any other part of the text. --Boson (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake, I give up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to know we think alike on some things! --Boson (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - Personally I prefer to capitalise the first letter in these situations, as (i) I see the article name as a proper noun, and (ii) it matches the article title. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all the article name isn't generally a proper noun, and certainly isn't in the example given, data storage. Secondly, in the body of the targeted article itself the capitalisation will generally not match the capitalisation of the title unless it's a proper noun, such as Malkin Tower for instance. And thirdly the normal rules of English grammar dictate that the first letter of whatever follows a colon is not capitalised unless it's a proper noun. So what have personal preferences got to do with the price of fish? Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is a proper noun, even if the subject of the article is not. Where an article is linked within text it is being done in a different way, the link is not specifically to an article but rather to a definition/further information about the topic linked. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Then why isn't it capitalised as a proper noun should be, i.e. "Data Storage" rather than "data storage"? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it is a reference to a title or label, like a section or chapter heading. --Boson (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support: consistency is good. Personally I capitalize the titles unless the respective articles use {{lowercase title}} to avoid automatic capitalization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But the article is consistent. I have provided logical reasons why the article title should generally not be capitalised, whereas all I've seen so far from others is muddled thinking ("article titles are proper nouns") and personal preferences, neither of which are persuasive. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • comment: Completely and utterly irrelevant. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to stall efforts to improve a start level article over this kind of idiotic nitpicking deserves a bloody good trouting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support It is a reference to a title or a name, and as such the natural capitalisation would rarely give rise to exceptions. It not only is logical to retain the correspondingly appropriate capitalisation that appears at the head of the article/section, but it is jarring and confusing to the reader to drop it. What is more, the more you interfere, the higher the incidence of actual material errors, both automatic and manual (eg Main article: phallus impudicus), which is far worse than "Main article: Data storage device" would be if it were regarded as an error rather than an arbitrary matter of taste. And of course, the more the interference, the higher the penalty in man-hours fixing the fixes of the fixes. Czarkoff has something like my attitude. MF's judgement of fatuosity is arbitrary to put it politely; not only proper nouns deserve proper and constructive capitalisation. If the reference is to a title, the capitalisation used in the title is appropriate; for instance, "Main article: Dirk scabbard" if the article deals with certain antique weapon sheaths, but the article on the famous actor would require: "Main article: Dirk Scabbard" (and make of "Main article: pH" what you will, but definitely not ph). Manus is welcome to his trout; I agree with the "idiotic nitpicking" judgement, but not that it is irrelevant; capitalisation in spelling is relevant, and spelling in turn is relevant to WP and readers, more relevant than arbitrary taste or format. Granted that some cases, whether sustainable or not, are nitpicking, most of the cases where there is a difference of opinion over a nit, would simply go away if folks stopped fussing and got on with the job. KISS is a good principle, and changing capitalisation is not as simple as accepting the title as it comes. JonRichfield (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Just an observation that it might be good to chill if you're getting stressed by this conversation. Also, I do understand those who think this discussion itself is trivial (but so very much that gets argued back and forth on AfD, RfA and other fora around the project exists solely in the realm of trivia), though I disagree with any sentiment that the RfC is misplaced or unwarranted. This is exactly the behavior we try to promote within the project... when there is a difference of opinion, it's to be discussed, and consensus sought. I think what is unwarranted is to start parsing which disputes are worthy of an RfC and which are not. If you're not interested in the topic, or have no constructive comment, just move along without comment. The policies do not limit the types of disputes that are to be discussed, and it certainly doesn't say that we need to check in with anyone to ensure it meets their worthiness criteria in order to have the conversation. Silence on topics or discussions which you think aren't worth the effort might be a better approach than ridiculing those who are trying to do as is recommended by the policies of the project. I truly have great respect for some of the editors who've commented that this isn't worth it... and they may very well be right, but I see no need to call this "idiotic" or potentially "lame". If it's not your discussion, and you have no constructive opinion related to the topic under discussion (vis-a-vis the discussion itself), I don't understand the purpose of your comments. The arbiters of what needs to be discussed are those who are having the differing opinions and no one else. Vertium When all is said and done 01:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think the MoS is pretty clear on initial capitalization of an article name and its use as a reference point from within another article should, I believe, follow suit. The argument that we use inconsistent metrics for distance, temperature or date formats doesn't seem to apply here. Those inconsistencies exist because there is not uniform use of miles, kilometers, Celsius, Fahrenheit or a common date format globally and the articles are written by people using different points of reference. It's also why we have conversion templates to enable the one data point (e.g. 100 degrees Celsius) to be automatically converted to those who think in Fahrenheit. I also find the argument about "proper English grammar" to be insufficient, because the purpose of a style guide is to tell you exactly how the style is to be presented within the project, so we don't have to argue over whether the grammar is proper or not. It is the style guide that rules, not the rules of language. Lastly, I believe that the notion that the article must only be internally consistent and not consistent with the other articles on the project is just outright incorrect. While the MoS states that consistency is "particularly important within an article", the entire purpose of the MoS is, "to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use.", which clearly applies to all entries. The article titles are initially capitalized (except in rare cases, see WP:MOS for all the exceptions) and therefore the reference to them should be as well. I apologize if mine appears to be "muddled thinking". I don't feel the need to "persuade", merely present the evidence that supports capitalization for the article title exactly the way the title would appear at the top of the page once I click the link. That would represent "consistency". I appreciate the conversation and attempt to reach consensus. Vertium When all is said and done 10:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment 141,496 articles use Template:Main. Ten of them chosen at random, excluding links to articles that start with a proper noun, capitalize the first letter anyway because it's the name of the article. In the unlikely event that this RFC should decide that isn't a good enough reason to capitalize, then that logic applies 141,496 times, and should be done with AWB, not manually. Art LaPella (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It strikes me as strange that in a community so strong in formal language principles, there should be any doubt about the nature or identification of which entity should be a candidate for capitalisation. Some of us have incorrectly, though understandably, referred to a title as a proper noun, which is only correct when the title happens to be a proper noun, as in an article on say, Diptera, but that is beside the point because the same principle applies to both proper nouns and to titles. If I refer to the movie: Predator, Predator is more of a title than a proper noun, but it is proper to capitalise it as a title. If I refer to the movie: The Great Caruso, the entity referred to is not "The" or "Great" or "Caruso", but capitalisation of "The Great Caruso" as a title is independent of context. If OTOH <ahem> I were to be saying in text something like: "That man has the finest tenor voice since the great Caruso." (Incidentally note the (correctly in context) capitalised "That", which is neither title nor proper noun!) then the reason for writing "the great" in lower case is that there is no title nor quote in question, nor any other entity that entails capitalisation for initial words or proper nouns. Take it further if you like: A Study in Scarlet was the conventionally capitalised title of a novel, and it included both the capitalised "A" and lower case "in", whereas I might validly write, either within WP or without, "The novel: A Study in Scarlet, was written by Doyle, and was so titled because it referred to a study in scarlet, specifically a message written in blood." Title capitalised, no capitalisation for the identical phrase. Amazing! Is the obviosity now hammered home sufficiently firmly to satisfy anyone who otherwise might persist in further fatuosities? JonRichfield (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of us have incorrectly ... referred to a title as a proper noun — possibly because we read the Wikipedia article "Proper noun", which says "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity ...", like the specific/unique Wikipedia article that "Main article: ..." refers the reader to. (One might argue that the article title is a proper name rather than a proper noun, but I don't believe the distinction matters to this RFC.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You are of course correct and no comfortably literate person would have considered wasting everyone's time on the point; the pedantic opportunity no doubt happened to be too rare an opportunity for hammering on foolish distinctions, for certain of our less intellectually favoured correspondents to neglect. JonRichfield (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether it's a proper noun or not strikes me as irrelevant to whether it should be capitalised. It is not intended to be a full sentence, it is not part of the prose, it is nothing more than a label and essentially part of the user interface of Wikipedia. Consistency between articles therefore takes priority, and it should be capitalised. All examples in the "main" template documentation capitalise the first letter. Another example of where this occurs is the category links at the base of the article. Does anyone else think their time on Wikipedia might be better spent on other matters? Halsteadk (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Some people however, are a bit weak on concepts such as "label" and have more time on their hands than others. JonRichfield (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By my count we now have (excluding the initial disagreeing parties, Mitch Ames and Malleus Fatuorum):

  • Seven editors (Boson, Rangoon11, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, JonRichfield, Vertium, Halsteadk) agreeing that the article titles should be capitalised (to match the target article)
  • Three (Mark Arsten, Maunus, Art LaPella) who commented but did not explicitly support or oppose capitalisation.
  • None that I can see that think the title should not be capitalised.

So, Malleus Fatuorum, do you continue to object to my capitalising the article titles? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd made it plain that I have no further interest in this article, so you may do with it as you wish. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have recapitalised the article titles. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the use of template {{Main}}, at the beginning of a section and/or the inclusion of a specific article in the "See also" section should present the title in accordance with WP:TITLEFORMAT; it would not be improper to pipe the main title without listing the disambiguation terms that might otherwise be part of the title. This does not imply that every occurrence within the body must also be capitalized. That would depend entirely on grammar and context; as always. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    Had I read the comment by JonRichfield more completely, I'd have noticed this RFC has been answered, well. I'll consider myself late to the party. Cheers to all. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this a Start-class article?

This seems like it should be at least a Good Article; why has it never been improved beyond its current state? I am staggered to see that on such a weak article there was a huge and recent argument about capitalisation. Are these two things connected? --John (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

People who cant like to argue. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I did wonder. Wouldn't it be better to make the article a bit better, than to argue about capitalisation? Supposing the answer to that was "yes", what would the first steps be? --John (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I cant answer that, this article is outside my area, but Id suggest as a start giving MF wide bearth. Encoragment rather than ankle biting. The discussion above is a disgrace and evidence if ever it was need, why we cant have nice things. But its the way wiki is going, guess we might have to live with it. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So, it seems to me, it may be a crap article but at least it has capital letters on its main templates. --John (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It was even crappier before I decided on a structure around which to develop it. But it'll be interesting to see how those capitalisation warriors decide to take the article forward. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"What would the first steps be?" Perhaps you mean the conduct and civility issues, but I will I assume you mean: "How should we proceed in improving the content?".
First, I presume the idea is to turn this into a high quality high-level article (written mainly in summary style) that encompasses all aspects of IT, including hardware, software, networks, applications, technical, commercial, and social issues, etc.
It might help to discuss the scope and structure of the article first. I assume those who have been adding bits have something in mind; sharing that might help the collaborative effort.
A few thoughts:
  • Scope and terminology:
    • Should we discuss the use of the term in common parlance, as opposed to use by engineers etc., or at least direct people looking for that sort of coverage in the right direction?
    • better differentiation from ICT and from other "disciplines" (computer science, hardware engineering, software engineering, etc.)
    • networks
  • Applications
    • Should we mention major types of IT application (commercial, defence, medical, etc.) - and possibly link to sub-articles?
  • Ethics and public issues:
    • Should we include issues of professional responsibility, such as those raised in connection with critical systems like strategic defence systems, nuclear power control systems etc.? (The article on David Parnas couls also do with some TLC.)
    • Public policy, IT regulation, education, privacy, etc.
  • Commercial aspects etc.:
    • IT as an industry, trends, etc.
  • Physics and engineering issues, e.g.
    • application of information theory, semiconductor materials, quantum limits, quantum computing etc.
--Boson (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Let's get to work. --John (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The scope is too big. Can't it be parsed out? (Divided up?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ihardlythinkso; the proposed scope is infeasibly vast. I altered the lead to define the scope of IT as "a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data", and that's the structure I began to organise the article around. Does anyone disagree with that definition of IT, and would like to propose an alternative? Because that's the place to start. Quantum computing, for instance, would be relevant only insofar as it impacts on one or more of those facets, not as a separate topic. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I had not intended to propose any scope; I was merely asking questions about what the proposed scope should be, since, presumably the article will be much more comprehensive if it is not to remain start class. The definition by the Information Technology Association of America ("the study, design, development, application, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems") appears to me to be much more comprehensive than "a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data" (but more restrictive in some respects). I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. Neither definition appears to me to say much about what aspects of those fields are covered (physical, commercial, educational, philosophical, etc.). Other articles on various fields of engineering seem to cover slightly different aspects of their respective fields. For some reason, education and careers seem to be quite prominent; some articles list subfields and applications; some seem to distinguish between engineering and technology. I'm not sure how a reader would know what to expect from this article, as opposed to the article Information and communication technologies. The present content of the section "Social and ethical perspectives" has to do with information but, in my opinion, has little to do with engineering. Other ethical aspects, such as the professional duty of a software engineer designing systems that store, process, and transmit information on incoming missiles possibly using damaged or compromised computing or communications systems might fit the engineering profile better but have less to do with pure information systems.--Boson (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      You display a strange blind spot. There are social and ethical considerations with any system that stores data, and data storage is very clearly one of the central aspects of IT. As for the ICT article, in any rational world that would either be deleted and redirected to this one, or it would be rewritten as what it is: a pretty useless course the government insists should be offered by secondary schools. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      I tend to agree on the ICT article, though one could argue that ICT would be the better title for this article, since it makes it clear that communications are included. I'm not sure why you think I have a blind spot (except that it seems to be your style to make gratuitous assessments of your fellow editors' cognitive and perceptive abilities). I agree that there are ethical consideration with any system that stores data; however you seemed to me to want to define the scope of the article in such a way as to limit it to engineering, and I didn't really see the special relevance of, say, copyright, in that context. The aspects I mentioned have been discussed in connection with the ethical decisions of engineers. Of course, one can extend the ethics to all ethical aspects of the engineered product, but one could - if one wanted - also discuss drunk driving under automotive engineering. In other words, I think here the article is applying the definition in the second sentence. That is OK by me, but that definitions is not far from "anything to do with information systems" (including application, implementation, and management). Anyway, on the basis of the discussion so far, I would suggest that the article should not cover education and careers, the physics and theoretical basis of information technology, software development and software engineering, but should continue to discuss ethical aspects of information systems with no direct relevance to engineering as such (as it might be understood by the IEEE, for instance). Are you in favour of retaining and accepting the definition used in the second sentence of the lede?--Boson (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      "I'm not sure why you think I have a blind spot (except that it seems to be your style to make gratuitous assessments of your fellow editors' cognitive and perceptive abilities)." OK, that's it, no more from me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      User:Boson, do you realize you're guilty of making a personal attack? And Malleus never did? And then criticize how he treats his fellow editors?! Duh. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      I was not attempting to attack Malleus, but I perceived his comment about my having a blind spot as attempting to explain a potential difference of opinion in terms of my having a problem of perception or understanding. Given that he previously, on this page, suggested that another editor he disagreed with "refresh [his] understanding of data structures, assuming [he] ever had one to begin with" and "consider the wisdom of at least trying to extract [his] head from [his] arse", I don't think it was unreasonable of me to see this as potentially part of a pattern and intimate - in very mild terms, I thought, given the robust tone previously used by Malleus - that I was not prepared to accept similar treatment. That does not, of course, excuse a personal attack on my part, and I am not aware of having made one, but if Malleus thinks that it was a personal attack, I apologize for any offence caused. --Boson (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      You're admitting you interpreted Malleus's blind spot thing based on a prejudiced/colored lense. That's right. If you took the coating off your lense you'd see there was/is nothing personal in Malleus's blind spot thing. You got defensive where there was/is no offense. "If Malleus thinks it was a personal attack ..." That's conditionalizing your apology, which defeats said apology. There's capacity for a great discussion here, if you don't blow it. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      "I perceived his comments". <facepalm> Still, why let one person stop any potential work. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I disagree with the sole definition ""a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data""; I would take the definition by the Information Technology Association of America used in the second sentence. See below.--Boson (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This article really has improved nicely in the last month (not), now all the {{main}} hatnotes have been "fixed". But does anyone intend to do some serious work on it? Or indeed any work at all? Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I had thought of doing some serious work on it, but currently my available time comes in small packages, so for the next few weeks I may limit myself mainly to minor changes, correcting errors, and the like.
My other problem is that much of what I might add is probably concerned with things that you might feel do not belong in this article. Before I put any great effort into the article, I would like to see a consensus that the scope of the article is not just "a branch of engineering and does not just deal with the use of equipment. Remember, the term was allegedly coined in an article in the Harvard Business Review, not a journal from the ACM or the IEEE. It would, perhaps, help if the order of the first two sentences of the lead were reversed but, since "IT" is used in different senses, I think the definition of the topic needs its own section (briefly summarized in one sentence in the lead). In my view, the lead is supposed to be a brief summary; so I think it is too detailled and could be reduced to " Information technology (IT) is a branch of knowledge concerned with the development, management, and use of computer-based information systems." (with the details in a separate section). To make a start I have added such a section. I will happily volunteer to rewrite the lead as well but will wait a while for more feedback. --Boson (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What an embarrassing page. The authors clearly have so little knowledge on this subject that you might as well assume they're amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.193.85 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting to see any progress since the Great Capitalisation War was concluded. How do you explain the stasis here? Ignorance? Malevolence? Malleus Fatuorum 12:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted sentence in "Academic perspective" section

The following sentence was removed with a query on what "contrast" meant here: " this is in contrast to CS, SE, CE and IS undergraduate degree programs. " The aim here was to be explicit and list the other undergraduate degree programs that are distinguished from IT courses in most universities (as discussed in the citation given)- I think that it is useful to clarify this as it may not be obvious to a reader from a different discipline. "contrast to" could be replaced by "distinguished from".

74.73.169.211 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we're writing on career guidance I don't see the relevance of this. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Synergee (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Information_technology/Archive_1&oldid=1151034687"