Talk:Information technology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Weak Definition and Sources for Definition of Information Technology

Hi,

I've been following this WP article and it's very weak. I'd like to help improve it but believe we have to start at the definition, which is incomplete and which has very weak references (by weak, I mean that the references cited are not known or used by most IT professionals, teachers, or even students.

i'd like to propose that, both, the definition of IT and the sources cited to support it be changed as a start for improvement.

The definition, itself, is highly incomplete because IT has at least three (3) definitions. In short, these are 1) the technology; 2) the industry; and 3) an Organization that provides technology solutions, within a broader enterprise.

Currently, there are four (4) sources cited for the definition...

1. A Dictionary of Physics (6th Ed) : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
2. Free Online Dictionary of Computing (copyrighted by a random person named Denis Howe) : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
3. A dictionary of Media and Communications : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
4. Encyclopedia of Computer Science : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT

I checked Google Scholar and not a single one of the above shows up as being cited in any scholarly papers. Also, the IT industry looks to far more established and broader sources for its definition so I think the article should, as well.

Better industry de facto sources would be:

1. The Office of Government Commerce (Britain) ITIL Framework : Used throughout the IT industry and academic/research.
2. The International Foundation for Information Technology : Used throughout the IT industry and academic/research. Also, is the only source recognized to provide a complete definition of IT.

Unlike in the cases of the first four references, the last two come up in Google Scholar and are well known throughout the industry.

May I have the group's permission to start by improving the definition? If not, does anyone have better proposals?

-- My Best,

--FGuerino (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition is by no means incomplete, and is supported by many who know what they're talking about, including for instance Irv Englander in his The Architecture of Computer Hardware and Systems, in which he defines a computer-based information system as being composed of four elements: data, hardware, software, and communication. Those four elements are the necessary backbone to structure this article around. ITIL. for instance, is simply a money-making fad hardly used outside of government, and the ineviable danger with not being strict with a definition supported by multiple auhors is that this article will descend back into the usual Wikipedia gooey porridge. Eric Corbett 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps interesting to note that Britannica doesn't have an article on IT, only a subsection within the information systems article. One of the unaddressed problems is that we have several overlapping articles based on the latest fads and fashions (IT, IS and ICT). It's also perhaps interesting to note that Britannica features Englander's book quite prominently in its additional reading section. Eric Corbett 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric,

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoroughly and quickly. I appreciate your doing so.

You stated that "the definition is by no means incomplete". Kindly note that your statement is inaccurate because the definition, as is currently documented, only covers the Technology aspect of Information Technology and does not cover the Industry aspect or the Organizational aspect. In other words, it only covers one (1) of three commonly known and broadly accepted branches of the definition. Therefore, the WP definition is factually incomplete because it misses two out of three branches of a broadly accepted definition.

You also stated: "ITIL. for instance, is simply a money-making fad hardly used outside of government, and the ineviable danger with not being strict with a definition supported by multiple auhors is that this article will descend back into the usual Wikipedia gooey porridge." First, please let me respectfully point out your facts are, again, incorrect. ITIL has been around for well over a decade, is regularly cited in academia and industry, and is at very least acknowledged as a force by almost every major enterprise in the world (whether they or you like ITIL or not, and which is a whole different conversation). Also, ITIL is published by the British Office of Government Commerce (OGC), which is a not for profit government agency. IF4IT puts all profits back into its open content and uses donations as a primary driver to fund it. All four of the very weak sources that are currently cited in the WP article to support the definition (and which you seem to be protecting) are, in fact, openly "for profit" sources. They all exist to make money. And so, your description that ITIL exists to make money while implying that the others do not is, at a minimum, misleading to anyone who reads your statement. Both, ITIL and IF4IT are much more broadly accepted and stronger sources for Information Technology Information (although, they are only two examples and are not the only ones that can be used to improve the article).

You stated that Britannica cites Englander's book. However, "it does not do so in the context of Information Technology", as by your own admission it does not have an entry for Information Technology. Also, I would argue that Englander's book is not considered to be a broadly accepted industry reference.

Please note that my point is that the sources currently cited are very weak (because they're not used broadly) and incomplete (because they do not cover all three (3) branches of the more complete definition. Therefore, my submission to this conversation is that there are better sources to use, which can help improve the general content of the article. (I'll add that I believe FOLDOC is just a very bad source and shouldn't be used at all, as it appears no one in academia or industry knows about it or cites it in formal use, and it appears to violate WP policy on notability of references.)

The simple fact is that anyone who does know anything about Information Technology, and who reads this article, realizes that it is a very poor representation of what Information Technology really is. And, given it's poor representation, I would argue that it is currently much worse than the "gooey porridge" that you wish to protect the article from becoming. So, I'd like to start by improving the definition and tying it to more complete and broadly accepted sources.

BTW, you seem to keep going back to Britannica to see how they do things. While there is some value in that, I would not recommend that we build WP (an Encyclopedia) from Britannica (another Encycloped), as other Encyclopedias have their own issues and the goal is not to mirror them and their issues.

Again, thanks very much for your response and I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have only one brief comment for now, which I'll expand on later if you still don't agree, but I consider your statement that "the definition, as is currently documented, only covers the Technology aspect of Information Technology" to be rather revealing given the title of the article. I might have a little more sympathy for your position – not a lot, but some – if you'd said that the article only covers the technology aspect of IT, not the information aspect. Eric Corbett 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, please don't assume that I'm one of those who knows nothing about IT. It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do. Eric Corbett 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

An article is about one topic, and I think the topic here is "Information Technology" not "Information Industry" or "Information Organisation". Even if I.T. has different definitions, an article topic only has to be about one definition. If anything I think the lead rambles on too much with definitions already and should be condensed down. Bhny (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. Eric Corbett 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bhny

Hi Bhny,

I believe I try to this address this in the following response to Eric (specifically in Question #3), which points out that WP handles this situation by creating pages that act as broader topic wrappers or lead-in topics to other pages. There are countless pages on WP that do this. So, in this case, the "Information Technology" page can simply be a broader topic wrapper that discusses the three components of the definition, and then each component can lead to a more detailed sub-section, and each sub-section (if necessary) can lead to another page.

I hope this clarifies. Your thoughts?

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is IT, if you want to start a new article "IT Industry" then go ahead. (This article still only needs one definition no matter what) Bhny (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric,

You wrote: "please don't assume that I'm one of those who knows nothing about IT." I don't think I've implied that you do or don't know things about IT so please don't think that I want to judge, as I don't. I can only go by what you've written and, unless I'm wrong, I can only assume that your goal in being here is that you want to see the article improved. Correct?

So, starting with the fact that we agree the three branches of the complete definition for "Information Technology" are:

1. IT, as in Technology (which is covered)
2. IT, as in the Industry (which is not covered)
3. IT, as in the organizations that provide the technologies and make up the industry (which is not covered)

Question #1 becomes: How do we improve the definition so that it is complete and covers all three branches? My suggestion would be to rewrite the definition in a manner that breaks it into three very clear components (matching the above) so as not to confuse readers. This would also allow the article to also be broken into three matching sections and potentially tie each section to other, more appropriate WP pages, should there be desire to do so.

Question #2 becomes: How do we improve the quality of the sources? The four that are currently being used are very week and I believe that FOLDOC is the weakest of the four because it does not seem live up to WP policy for a citable source, as it does not appear to be referenced by research or industry as a solid source.

Question #3 becomes: Like countless other WP pages, why can't this page simply be a broader lead-in page into 3 separate and more specific pages (one for Technology, one for the Industry, and one for the Organizations), if necessary? Again, this is how countless other pages on WP handle a topic that bifurcates so I would imagine we could apply the same mechanism here. The page could, very simply, be a lead-in into 3 other pages (if it makes sense to do so because the content warrants such bifurcation).

Your thoughts on the above?

My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me be frank. I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric, You seem to be more interested in attacking me than in offering options to try and improve the article. I'm certainly open to any ideas you might have on the subject. Do you have any? My Best --FGuerino (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one, which is that you ought not to dabble in things you have no understanding of. Eric Corbett 14:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Now I'm intrigued. Are you referring to the topic of Information Technology or working with the Wikipedia community? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of the Definition of Information Technology

Given that the old definition only focuses on the Technology aspect of IT (and leaves out the Organizational aspect and the Industry aspect), I took some time to start a draft of a more complete definition that attempts to go after all three branches of the definition. This is only a draft and intended to be an idea starter for anyone interested in contributing to the the improvement of the definition. Note: Neither uses citable sources, yet, as I think improving and stabilizing the content is more important...

The Old Definition:

Information technology (IT) is the application of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data, often in the context of a business or other enterprise. The term is commonly used as a synonym for computers and computer networks, but it also encompasses other information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. Several industries are associated with information technology, such as computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, e-commerce and computer services.

The Prosed Draft for a New Definition:

Information technology (IT) is a phrase that is commonly used to describe any one of three different and very broad contexts that include Technology, Organizations, and Industry.

In the context of Technology, as in "we use Information Technology to solve our problems," Information technology represents the application of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data, often in the context of a business or other enterprise. The term is commonly used as a synonym for computers and computer networks, but it also encompasses other information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. Several industries are associated with information technology, such as computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, e-commerce and computer services.

In the context of Organizations, as in "we have an Information Technology organization that helps solve our technology problems," Information technology represents the many groups of people (i.e. organizations or communities), that are often part of broader enterprises or exist as standalone companies, and that provide technical or technology related solutions (i.e. products and services) to or for others. These organizations are often comprised of many people, each with varying skills, who deal with the many different areas and issues associated with the application and support of computers and telecommunications equipment.

In the context of Industry, Information technology represents the global superset of all people, organizations, and technologies that comprise one of the largest industries in the world. This includes all professionals, educators, students, companies, organizations, tools, and technologies that make up the entire industry.

My belief is that this now allows the entire article to be broken into three far more detailed sections that address each of the three contexts. Any one of the above three definitions or their dedicated subsections can also act as lead-ins to other more detailed pages. For example: the Technology portion of the definition can lead into a more detailed page about ICT and the industry portion can lead into a more detailed page on the IT Industry (such lead-ins would only be used if deemed to be necessary).

Your thoughts and suggestions for improvement?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's flabby, rambling, and doesn't reflect any mainstream idea of what IT is about. Eric Corbett 17:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is terrible. As I said above, if you want to write an article "Information Technology organization" go for it. Don't try and make this article about three things. Bhny (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett & Bhny

Hi Eric & Bhny

So, while I appreciate that you may not like it, and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, your opinions are pretty useless (and some may argue meaningless) without honest attempts to improve things. It's very easy to bash thing. Let's remember that the article pretty much rates as being no better than "useless" as it stands, today.

Also, please give me some indication as to your knowledge and understanding of IT, because based on your feedback, it sounds like you have very little.

(Maybe the right thing to do is modify the article directly, have you revert it, and we start the process for a broader peer review?)

PS: Eric, I took some time to read your profile and also read some articles published about you. While I understand and can appreciate your personal issues with WP, why take them out on me?

--My Best --FGuerino (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have spent more than 30 years working in IT, so I think I know what I'm talking about. If you want to write an essay on what you think IT is then I suggest you take Bhny's advice. Eric Corbett 19:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric

Great, so between the two of us we have over 60 years of IT experience. I would imagine we can put our heads together and find ways to improve this article. Or, is your goal to block any improvements, at all?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My goal is to keep the article focused on information technology. I have absolutely no idea what yours is. Eric Corbett 20:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric

Hi Eric, just sticking to the Industry context, as opposed to just the Technology context... Gartner views IT as an Industry (and far more than just Technology), as you can see from this podcast, where they estimate spend to be about 3.7 Trillion (Refer to Gartner PodCast). And, while the spend estimates are different, Forrester Research also gives an estimate for Information Technology (where IT is more than just Technology) (Refer to Forrester Estimated IT Spend).

IT, as Gartner, Forrester, and all who follow them see it, is "an Industry" and far more than just Technology. It's Technologies + People + Organizations + Products + Services, etc. And, their spend "Information Technology" spend estimates include the spend for all of those individual components, and not just Technology. Now, I used the word "mainstream" intentionally because you specifically made a statement that what I wrote does not represent any mainstream idea of what IT is about. My definition was based on Gartner and Forrester and, since billions of people follow their research and see IT as an Industry, I'd consider that pretty mainstream.

Do you agree with Gartner's and Forresters defintion of IT being an Industry as well as just Technology, or not? If so, do you agree we can enhance the article to cover this? If not, do you believe that the topic of Information Technology Industry should be a completely different article?

--My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of the Bibliography to the Article Content?

Hi All,

Is the Bibliography relevant to this article? Upon reading (and rereading) through both the article content and the bibliography, it appears that it has absolutely no relevance other than to link in random content that has no clear alignment with anything in the content. As result, I'd like to delete it and work with the group to improve the article other ways.

Your thoughts?

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy. Either way, don't touch the bibliography, you've been sufficiently disruptive already. Eric Corbett 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

I usually find that people who handle things by showing public displays of abusive bullying, like you do, often do so because they feel threatened, most often because they have very little of real value to offer. I certainly hope this isn't the case with you but your long and documented history of attacks and abusiveness seem to be proving me wrong. please know that as soon as I have enough information I will be modifying the document with material that will conform with WP policies, to the best of my ability. If you role the work back, then so be it. We'll deal with everything publicly and according to process. So, my question to you is very specific... Do you have anything to offer that will help improve the content of the article or should I just ignore you as being a barrier to any form of real progress?

As for anyone else that reads this, I'd appreciate an intelligent conversation with someone who really does care and who wants to work constructively to improve the article.

My best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any example of abusive bullying only an editor who can't take good advice. Giving your best wishes to someone you have accused of abusive bullying doesn't excuse your behavior and is guaranteed to irritate. PS "Upon reading" is wrong, it should be "On reading". J3Mrs (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello J3Mrs, thanks for correcting my English. My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know who the Hell you think you are FGuerino, or what your game is, but you clearly know nothing about IT, the IT industry, how to write, or how to construct an encyclopedia article. If you consider those observations to be "abusive bullying" then you're also an ignorant and dishonest troll. Eric Corbett 18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, are there any people who want to talk about improving the article instead of each other? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

changes to the article need to be achieved by consensus. There are editors here who clearly wish to continue improving the article but they disagree with your intended edits. My suggestion is that you assume good faith and listen to what others are saying to you. I am not an expert in IT but I do know enough to suggest that limiting the article to 3 key areas is unlikely to gain consensus, and that edits to the bibliography need support from other editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to point out that you can't just delete the bibliography, as it's referred to by the citations? This is just basic stuff. Eric Corbett 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is necessary to point that out, since most articles don't do references that way, and it is now obvious why the bibliography can't be deleted. Bhny (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't that obvious right from the start? Eric Corbett 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually Eric, as Bhny kindly points out, no it's not obvious to all of us as some of us are new to WP and trying to learn. You could've simply pointed it out and ended it there instead of going down a path like "My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy." Questions for anyone who has a constructive answer: Why aren't Bibliographies used more often on WP articles?" Is there a time when they're more appropriate than others? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually the books are listed in the ref tags and appear in the reflist, so there's no need for a separate bibliography. A problem is that someone could delete books and orphan the refs. (like you wanted to do). But anyway different articles handle refs differently so it is best to go with the style that is there. Bhny (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bhny, that's exactly why I asked, first, and didn't go and delete it. Thanks for the info. I still don't see anything on WP about when to use or not use Bibliographies. If you come across anything, I'd certainly be interested. My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is called a "short citation". You can read all about citations here- WP:REF. A "full citation" is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles. Bhny (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They're particularly useful when you're citing different pages in the same book, as you don't then have to keep repeating the book details. "Full citations" may be the most common in the run of the mill WP articles, but the citation method used here is very common among WP's best articles. Eric Corbett 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Okay, I have semiprotected this article for three months - the vandalism reverts are only once every second day, but it is a large article and highly visible one. Let's see if this makes life easier. NB: Any admin is welcome to revert this if an IP requests an edit. I feel this is more useful than Pending Changes as what usually happens is someone makes an edit and is then unavailable to discuss afterwards, leaving a reviewer scratching their heads..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, I have some ideas for edits I'd like to make to this page. What's the correct process for working on the page while it is in a state of semiprotection? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you ought to do is to learn something about IT. But sadly semiprotection doesn't prevent you from continuing your vandalism of this article. Eric Corbett 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, as always, thanks for your valuable opinions. However, I think I'll wait for Cas Liber to explain things. My Best --FGuerino (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric is right, semiprotection does not stop you editing it. However, if you suspect anyone may disagree with the edits then I strongly recommend discussing them here on the talk page and getting consensus first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: Why not start one new section with an outline of your plan? Is there something wrong with the article? Briefly, what? Is there something missing? Briefly, what? Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I noticed that the article is graded as a "Start Class", which strengthens the position that there's a great deal that can be improved. My opinion is that there are a number of things about the article that can be improved. For example...

• The section on storage spends no time talking about Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. Instead, it jumps into history of early storage and then makes makes the incorrect statement that most storage is on magnetic and optical devices (the reference is 15-ish years outdated) when, in fact, it's on magnetic and solid state devices.
• The article talks about Transmission but doesn't talk about Reception.
• The section on Transmission dives into XML. XML is a formatting and metatagging language that has nothing to do with transmission or reception, other than to format requests, responses, and message envelopes. (Most applications don't even use XML and even less use SOAP.)
• The section on Transmission doesn't talk about any other means of transmission, such as in the case of wireless signal transmission.
• The Commercial perspective section only talks about impact on business and not on individual consumers.
• The Data manipulation section should most likely speak of Data processing, in order to use terms that are more common with industry professionals.
• In Academic perspectives section, the topic leaves ICT and moves to education programs, which is not about the topic of ICT.
• The same for the section on Ethics has nothing to do with IT as a technology (i.e. a thing) and really has to do with IT as a professional discipline (which is not the topic of the article because the topic is IT as a technology or thing).
• The history section is very incomplete and can use a great deal to help the reader.
• The section on Retrieval doesn't actually talk about retrieval (i.e. proactive Request and Response). Instead it goes into random topics that have nothing to do with Retrieval.
• There is a factually incorrect statement in the Database section, such as "All database management systems consist of a number of components that...". The word "All" being incorrect. Also, this section starts to go into XML, again. It also talks about relational databases but no other forms (there are many others, so why not just talk about DBs at a high level and then point the user to the WP DB topic?)
• There is no section on Software, such as in the case of languages or executables, which is a huge form and portion of IT.
• The Bibliography section just serves to bulk up the article and makes it difficult to edit the main article without breaking the Bibliography. It's also not the norm for most articles on WP. Also, most of the books in the Bibliography are so outdated that very few people trying to learn IT would really spend any time reading them or getting any value from them, as they do not apply to much of IT, today.

The above is just based on a quick glance and I'm sure there's much more if we take the time to actually dissect the article. I'd like to work with the community to identify ways of improving the article and to start making some changes along those lines. I'm also more than willing to discuss changes, openly, with people who care about the article, before implementing them (as I tried to before).

However, before doing any of this, wanted to understand what the correct means of modifying the article is, when an article is under semi-protection, as this is the first time I've encountered it. I clicked on the "Lock Symbol" on the article and read up on article protections, last night, so I think semiprotection just means that modifiers of the article must be logged in under their account id. Is this correct?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need to be logged in to edit a semiprotected page. As far as something being Start class on the talk page, some times they are outdated or incorrect, so base observations on the article itself. Start with the above one at a time. They appear to be succinct and actionable suggestions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify. I appreciate your doing so. I'll start looking for time to help develop the article and then will go after each item above, one at a time and as you suggested, and hopefully with the help of others who want to see the article improved. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of absorbing what you're being told repeatedly, as your ridiculous comment above about the Bibliography section so amply demonstrates. @Casliber: have you actually looked at any of FGuerino's suggestions in any detail? According to him, the history of IT begins with the discovery of electricity. Eric Corbett 15:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I concede this is definitely not a topic I am familiar about - I don't recall using a Bibiliography section in any article I've buffed for FAC, but the topic matter is much more specialised and this is much wider in scope. At least some of the above suggestions are specific and can hence be discussed. I need to read more on the topic myself to determine any arguments. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've used a Bibliography section in every article I've buffed for FAC, and I'm by no means the only one. But surely you don't need to be an expert to recognise that identifying the discovery of electricity as a defining moment in the history of IT is bloody ridiculous. Eric Corbett 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cas Liber: For the record, I'm personally not for or against the use of a bibliography. I just vote that if one exists (in any article), it should

1. only be populated with high value content and
2. it should not inhibit easy improvement or maintenance of the article.

A bibliography is nothing more than a formatting construct that could easily be mirrored by nothing more than a very simple "Further Reading" section.

My opinion on the article's bibliography (and others may disagree) is that it contains low value information (violating #1) and we've been led to believe (by Eric) that if we make simple edits to the article we can break the bibliography because it's been integrated in such a way that deletion of unneeded references will orphan sections of it (violating #2).

I can see adding a bibliography, later, when the article is improved and sits somewhere in an A Class level. However, why would we need a bibliography, now, for a low content Start Class article, especially when there are other simple ways of doing the same types of things and most other articles don't use such a format? It just makes things complicated and adds no real value. Again, these are my opinions and other people's opinions may vary.

Also, I presented 12 other ideas for improvement that have to do with specific ways to improve content and would hopefully raise the value of the article. I respectfully present the question: Why is a formatting issue so important, here, when there is so much that can be done to improve the article?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A sure sign of a pointless discussion is when it features sweeping statements that flit from topic to topic, with no focus on getting the first thing done. Any further questions about protection should be at WP:HELPDESK, but there is nothing to learn—just edit as normal. Please pick one item from your list and add a new section to this talk with a brief outline of the plan for that one item. Avoid mentioning anything other than the one item. Some proposed text would be good, or just edit the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, thanks for the reference to the helpdesk. That's something new I've learned today that will come in very handy. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be very slow of understanding FGuerino if you believe the Bibliography section to be further reading. Eric Corbett 00:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(big breath) Right then, starting at the top - I have no idea about Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. Can anyone else offer an opinion on whether this need be included? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way. How much of the world's data is stored in volatile devices? The answer is of course none. And to address the second part of that first point, "makes the incorrect statement that most storage is on magnetic and optical devices ... it's on magnetic and solid state devices" the most recent research (2007) shows that claim to be untrue. And here we arrive at the nub of the problem; FGuerino wants to write an essay on his limited understanding of IT, whereas I want to write a properly cited encyclopedia article. Eric Corbett 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, as a start, I believe we can break this down into three pieces, all under a section called "Data Storage"...

Computer data storage is broken into physical categories that include volatile and non-volatile storage, and virtual, such as software databases that leverage any combination of volatile or non-volatile storage.

1. Volatile storage (WP page is weak and could use some more good content) is temporary or non-persistent storage and is implemented through the use of Random Access Memory (RAM). It's used by systems as temporary memory for things like cache memory, often very much like a scratch-pad. In applications Volatile storage, which leverages RAM is further broken down into Heap Space, for storage of pointer driven instantiation of objects that constantly change in size, and Stack Space, for highly structured and fixed size address driven storage, such a where constants and variables are stored. Given that most applications/systems use Volatile storage, at any given moment, a huge percentage of the world's storage is temporarily in Volatile storage and is dynamically changing, as we speak. And, your mobile device and/or computer have a great deal in temporary storage as you read this.
2. Non-volatile storage represents long term or persistent storage and is implemented through many different solutions, such as but not limited to Read Only Memory (ROM), Solid State Storage Devices (simplest example are USB drives), Magnetic Disks, Optical Storage Devices, etc. Some Non-Volatile storage are in the form of dedicated semiconductors, such as ROM and solid state devices, other are systems such as magnetic disks, and others can even be things like plastic (CDs/DVDs), vinyl (records), Phonograph cylinders etc. Not all can be erased, such as ROM or a Phonograph cylinder. Not all storage is digital, as is the case with vinyl records. Not all storage is writable, as is the case with ROM and vinyl records.
3. Databases are nothing more than examples of software that has been designed for and dedicated to leverage and optimize the use of any combination of Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. For example, we can have a non-persistent, temporary database that does not use persistent storage and that only lives only for the span of an application or session instance. NOTE: There are many types of databases that include but are not limited to: Relational, Object-Oriented, Fact-Table-Oriented, Non-Persistent, NoSQL, FileDBs, etc. The list is actually very long (as can be seen from the WP Database article which does a good job of covering many but still is far from complete.

I'd like to add that Eric pointed to a reference from 2007 to support his statement of storage use. That reference is outdated by 7 years. If we are going to use a reference, here, I recommend we use something far more up to date. Sources like Forrester and/or Gartner references can be as recent as 2013 and they're probably the two most widely known, notable, and accepted sources for industry research and assessment; although there are others, too.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The point you have yet to grasp is that this isn't an essay. If you have a more up to date source then please provide it. Eric Corbett 03:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber

I added some internal WP links to the different storage types to help in the explanation of the above. If it isn't clear, I don't expect that the verbiage used above would be the exact verbiage in the actual article, as I'm sure it could be improved for the article.

Also, after thinking about it, I would not recommend putting storage related statistics in the IT article as it's not the purpose of this article to delve into the details of storage and because such statistics change rapidly, from year to year. I would recommend moving any comments about storage statistics into their appropriate WP page, where such data would most likely be maintained more often and more accurately by experts on such topics.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(a) ummm...so not on this page then? (b) I made a mistake above. I very often have a bibliography section but almost never a further reading section...I wrote the above before my prerequisite morning coffee....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another stupid suggestion from FGuerino, who really needs to study WP:Summary style before posting again. Eric Corbett 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas,

Regarding a) I guess I don't understand what you mean by "so not on this page, then?" The only thing I suggested moving off this page was any mention related to statistics or metrics for storage, not the broader text about storage. Could you please clarify?

As for b) again, I'm neither for nor against but simply believe it adds no value to this article, given its low state of quality. You'll notice that the majority of all low grade articles don't use one, either. However, if the consensus is to use one, here, I'm ok with that, as it's just a formatting construct.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's rather tiresome having to explain the same things to you again, and again, and again ... The Bibliography is by no means "just a formatting construct", as you would understand if you actually took the trouble to try and understand anything. Eric Corbett 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric,

On the topic of bibliographies... You have yet to explain anything, clearly and as witnessed by the history of this page, on why using a bibliography with a low grade article adds value, especially when more than 99% of the articles on WP don't use one. Please feel free to take the time to do so, for Encyclopedia novices like me and so all new WP authors can learn and benefit from your experience and wisdom.

On the topic of storage, do you have anything to add about how to restructure and improve the content or should I assume that you're good with what I've written above?

-- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you ask, I think what you've written above is irrelevant rubbish. To which I'll add that you consistently confuse "low grade" with incomplete. And I note that you still don't understand the purpose of the Bibliography, which I find quite astonishing. Perhaps Cas Liber will have more success in trying to explain the difference between the Bibliography and Further reading, and the importance of citing reliable sources instead of just spewing forth what you believe to be true. Eric Corbett 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric, if you can't answer with specific details then I have no choice but to believe that you're avoiding getting into any conversation because you're simply not knowledgeable on the topic, especially since there's nothing in any of your answers that could prove otherwise. Remember, the few times you've actually delved into details, you've conveyed incorrect information, such as...

1. You stated that ITIL is "a money making fad", after it being around for about two decades, having tens of millions of practitioners and being used by tens of thousands of enterprises,
2. You stated that ITIL is "hardly used outside of government" when, in fact, most of its use is outside government,
3. You stated that none of the world's data is stored in volatile devices, clearly not understanding that volatile devices are in constant use and hold a large percentage of the world's data, at any given point in time, even though it's dynamic

Whenever asked, it seems like you avoid details or any accurate facts so, please don't take it personally, but I'd rather wait for people who understand the topics being discussed, who can prove so by providing accurate and useful details, and who are always working to constructively improve the topic without taking the low road.

--My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some data may be temporarily stored on volatile devices while it's being worked on, certainly, but it's permanently stored elsewhere. Which is the fundamental point you continue to miss. And what on Earth is the relevance of ITIL to this article? Have you read WP:Summary yet? So far as I can see you have signally failed to provide even a single fact, substituting instead your own ill-informed opinions. BTW, what happened to your IT industry essay article? Eric Corbett 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, in addition to data that's intended to be persisted, there's also a tremendous volume of data that 1) is temporary, 2) is never intended to be permanently stored, and 3) is thrown away after use, which is exactly the purpose and the importance of volatile memory and is how things like in-memory databases work.

Examples of use include Compilers, Synthesizers, and Continuous Software Build and Integration Frameworks, which follow these paradigms all day, every day, as well as financial and insurance institutions who deal in voluminous calculations of arbitrage, risk, & reward, all day long, and most analytics and reporting tools.

Everyone in IT knows and understands both types of memory (volatile and non-volatile) to be important. Even non-volatile persistent storage devices rely on volatile storage to work.

If you don't believe any of this to be true, simply take the volatile memory (RAM) out of your machine and then try to respond to this post (if you can even reboot it). I dare you.

--My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add the most obvious example... ALL of your software runs in volatile memory. So, as for its importance to IT, now I really dare you to eliminate it from your machine and try to respond to this point. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're a complete moron who really ought not to be left unattended. I have nothing else to say to you, as you would be completely incapable of understanding it. Eric Corbett 23:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: Please stop posting opinions. Also, the cutsey style is wearing thin: have a look at how discussions are handled here: we do not greet each other, and we don't put signatures with have a nice day on a separate line (this is not email). Who is right and who is wrong is of no interest to other editors, so please stop commenting about ITIL, and please stop debating Eric—this is not the page for that (come to think of it, no page on Wikipedia is suitable for that). You might review my other messages for more positive suggestions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Trust me, I'm more than happy to stop debating Eric. Following your advice, I presented some material on how I thought we can improve the storage section and I thought I was being respectful by letting others discuss it before attempting to modify the article (especially since I'm relatively new and I'd like to avoid edit warring). For clarity... Is this process incorrect? As for my style of greeting or exit, your point is taken and I'll take a less formal approach. Thanks for that feedback. --FGuerino (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is about semiprotection of the article, and it is already too long for me to want to find any concrete suggestions that may be present. Information technology#Data storage already exists. If you are referring to your comment above at "03:19, 11 September 2013", my response would be that it is hard to tell which parts are suggestions for the article, and which are observations. The current article mentions "volatile" very briefly and that seems exactly correct—the distinction is a who cares point in this high-level article. Please work on something for a few hours at least, then start a new section with a concrete proposal—or just edit the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for Potential Areas of Article Improvement

Based on Johnuniq suggestion, I'm moving the list of potential improvements into a separate section to help clean up the page... (NOTE: I didn't know whether it was proper form to just go back into the previous conversation threads and break them out into new sections or to just copy everything into a new section, so I chose to just to copy everything. Sorry if that was not the most efficient way to do so.)

• The definition only covers one of multiple contexts and, if it's not the purpose of the definition to cover the other contexts, the article should at least do so and point to them, as means of properly setting the scope fo the article one context while informing the reader of the other contexts.
• The section on storage spends no time talking about Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. Instead, it jumps into history of early storage and then makes makes the incorrect statement that most storage is on magnetic and optical devices (the reference is 15-ish years outdated) when, in fact, it's on magnetic and solid state devices.
• The article talks about Transmission but doesn't talk about Reception.
• The section on Transmission dives into XML. XML is a formatting and metatagging language that has nothing to do with transmission or reception, other than to format requests, responses, and message envelopes. (Most applications don't even use XML and even less use SOAP.)
• The section on Transmission doesn't talk about any other means of transmission, such as in the case of wireless signal transmission.
• The Commercial perspective section only talks about impact on business and not on individual consumers.
• The Data manipulation section should most likely speak of Data processing, in order to use terms that are more common with industry professionals.
• In Academic perspectives section, the topic leaves ICT and moves to education programs, which is not about the topic of ICT.
• The same for the section on Ethics has nothing to do with IT as a technology (i.e. a thing) and really has to do with IT as a professional discipline (which is not the topic of the article because the topic is IT as a technology or thing).
• The history section is very incomplete and can use a great deal to help the reader.
• The section on Retrieval doesn't actually talk about retrieval (i.e. proactive Request and Response). Instead it goes into random topics that have nothing to do with Retrieval.
• There is a factually incorrect statement in the Database section, such as "All database management systems consist of a number of components that...". The word "All" being incorrect. Also, this section starts to go into XML, again. It also talks about relational databases but no other forms (there are many others, so why not just talk about DBs at a high level and then point the user to the WP DB topic?)
• There is no section on Software, such as in the case of languages or executables, which is a huge form and portion of IT.
• Correct/enhance the article's definition and/or lead-in paragraph(s) to address the other forms of IT (ors, discipline, and industry).
• Remove history from the non-history sections of the article and move such history into the history section.
• The Bibliography section just serves to bulk up the article and makes it difficult to edit the main article without breaking the Bibliography. It's also not the norm for most articles on WP. Also, most of the books in the Bibliography are so outdated that very few people trying to learn IT would really spend any time reading them or getting any value from them, as they do not apply to much of IT, today.

Data Storage

(Copied from above with some minor modifications...) I believe we can break Data Storage down into three pieces, all under a section called "Data Storage"...

Computer data storage is broken into physical categories that include volatile memory and non-volatile memory, and virtual, which includes software coordinated storage, such as databases, that leverage any combination of volatile or non-volatile storage.

1. Volatile storage (WP page is weak and could use some more good content) is temporary or non-persistent storage and is implemented through the use of Random Access Memory (RAM). It's used by systems as temporary memory for things like running all software, for temporary calculation and processing space, and for cache memory, often very much like a scratch-pad. In applications Volatile storage, which leverages RAM is further broken down into Heap Space, for storage of pointer driven instantiation of objects that constantly change in size, and Stack Space, for highly structured and fixed size address driven storage, such a where constants and variables are stored. Given that most applications/systems use Volatile storage, at any given moment, a huge percentage of the world's storage is temporarily in Volatile storage and is dynamically changing, as we speak. And, your mobile device and/or computer have a great deal in temporary storage as you read this.
2. Non-volatile storage represents long term or persistent storage and is implemented through many different solutions, such as but not limited to Read Only Memory (ROM), Solid State Storage Devices (simplest example are USB drives), Magnetic Disks, Optical Storage Devices, etc. Some Non-Volatile storage are in the form of dedicated semiconductors, such as ROM and solid state devices, other are systems such as magnetic disks, and others can even be things like plastic (CDs/DVDs), vinyl (records), Phonograph cylinders etc. Not all can be erased, such as ROM or a Phonograph cylinder. Not all storage is digital, as is the case with vinyl records. Not all storage is writable, as is the case with ROM and vinyl records.
3. Databases are nothing more than examples of software that has been designed for and dedicated to leverage and optimize the use of any combination of Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. For example, we can have a non-persistent, temporary database that does not use persistent storage and that only lives only for the span of an application or session instance. NOTE: There are many types of databases that include but are not limited to: Relational, Object-Oriented, Fact-Table-Oriented, Non-Persistent, NoSQL, FileDBs, etc. The list is actually very long (as can be seen from the WP Database article which does a good job of covering many but still is far from complete.

NOTE: I'm just spending some time evaluating references before I'll attempt to update the article to include and structure most of the above. Thanks --FGuerino (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is fine as it is - if people need to find more about vinyl records or Stack Space they can type it into search box and go to relevant article. 173.68.70.47 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, please review WP:TL;DR. The amount of material listed in this section is too large for any reasonable discussion, and given the fact that there have been significant disagreements on this page, it is important to focus on a single issue (with more later, after the first issue is resolved).

The article has a Information technology#Data storage section so I assume the proposal is to replace the existing section with the text shown above (but see WP:MOSHEAD—it's "storage" not "Storage"). But that can't be right because your notes are in the proposal, and it's too conversational—articles are written in a matter-of-fact manner, not the essay style evident above. In an educational setting, I suppose there would be some reason to emphasize volatile vs. non-volatile, but I don't think it makes sense here—volatile storage is not really any kind of storage. In some 20,000-foot view, I suppose a database is storage, but I suspect that is not point of the section in the article (which covers hardware, and not even HSM, just the components). You might review WP:NOTHOWTO then think about some text to propose for the article using the same kind of encyclopedic style evident in other reasonably mature articles. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTHOWTO and especially WP:NOTTEXTBOOK are a perfect core policies which apply in this case but from what I've managed to read so far on this talk page it appears that the person who is proposing such drastic and unnecessary changes is unable to grasp these concepts or to understand the difference between an "encyclopedia" and an "IT Technology for Dummies" 400-page book... 173.68.70.47 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, the above is just meant to be a framework for notes and discussion and not the actual text. When writing, I'll do everything I can to keep things relevant, to the point, and in a WP:NPOV, while following WP:TL;DR. I believe that, when i'm done, the sections will be more accurate and more comprehensive, while simultaneously being shorter than they are today, as there's a lot of tangential text that I believe doesn't really belong in those sections (as that material exists in other more detailed WP articles). I'll allow you and others to be the judge of the changes. As far as my style, I may need (and always welcome) help and improvements, as I'm still learning. Will try to get to the mods, sometime this week. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As discussed, I made the changes to the Data storage section, renaming it and reconstructing it to actually talk about the different types of storage. I pulled the Databases section into it as a sub-section and cleaned it up. In all cases, I moved any pre-existing content that represented "history" under the History section of the article. Also, I still need to spend some time adding citations. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

... and I've reverted them. You've clearly got absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Congratulations... you're very predictable, down to seconds. However, unlike you, who spent absolutely no time or effort discussing ways to improve the article and who constantly just violated WP:CIV by attacking and taking the low road, I took the time to offer options, lay out details and discuss them with the community. So, your revision is without any documented justification and appears to be no more than intentional edit warring, as you've made it clear that you have nothing to add to this topic. Therefore, I will revert your changes and happily invite the community and administrators to notice and discuss what's going on, here. If you wish to discuss the changes and offer options for real improvement, please feel free to do so. However, your documented history says you'll probably attack and avoid any real conversation. Thanks. --FGuerino (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think you could possibly be serious with the rambling and unfocused nonsense you were proposing. Eric Corbett 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric, May I kindly ask if you're working from multiple unlinked accounts, as your second revert came from the user MrOllie and not from your regular Eric account, which is the account the first revert came from.

Both email notifications I received for the first revert, both on and off WP, came directly from your Eric account, while both notifications for your second revert came from the MrOllie account. If they're both owned by you, neither of the two user pages/accounts seems to show any linkage between them or disclosure of common ownership, as would be required by WP.

In addition to the above, the page information technology revision history also shows your second revert as containing both users:

"(cur | prev) 15:14, 18 September 2013‎ MrOllie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,072 bytes) (-2,743)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 573533802 by Eric Corbett: This is not an improvement.. (TW)) (undo | thank)"

Thanks. --FGuerino (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

MrOllie is nothing to do with me, but if you feel you have good reason to believe that I am acting dishonestly then I suggest you raise your concerns at the appropriate venue(s). A good place for you to start might be to ask for a checkuser to be performed, which you can do at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. In the meantime I suggest you reel your neck in, as you're just making a fool of yourself. Eric Corbett 21:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you don't remember me from our previous interactions, FGuerino, but I assure you that I am not Mr. Corbett, and I arrived at the conclusion that your edits were not improving the article independently. They were unsourced and in several places inaccurate. To cite just one problem with your edits, it is common to create arrays on the heap, or conversely to create objects in stack space. I think your process is backward. You need to report what sources say, not come up with your own impressions and only later try to find sources to support them. - MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, I hadn't realised that FGuerino has been banging this drum for three years now, yet still pretends to be a well-meaning newbie. Obviously a very slow learner. Eric Corbett 02:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@MrOllie, I don't remember you. Did we meet? --FGuerino (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric, what drum have I been banging, Eric? --FGuerino (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@MrOllie, I read the previous interactions link. Yes, now I remember you. Hello.

BTW, That was an old account that I couldn't remember the User ID for, which is what led me to this one. I don't believe violated any policies, as I haven't used that account for editing since then. However, if I need to do anything to link to it or disclose, please let me know and I'll gladly comply. It looks like it's gone, anyhow.

As for your feedback on my posts I'm more than willing to work with people to correct and improve the content. I was planning on adding sources but the content was rolled back before I could. It seems that "no one" wants to provide any options for improving the article, and any attempt to do so by anyone other than established editors results in a rollback. If you have any advice on the situation, kindly feel free to advise. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that you're not improving the article, you're consistently attempting to make it worse with your rambling essays. Eric Corbett 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: May I offer some suggestions re article talk page usage. Please don't link to user names unless they have indicated that is what they want, or there is some particular reason to alert them (such as if replying to a two-week old message). Busy editors contribute on lots of pages and alerts would just be a nuisance if every response gave a notification. If you need to make it clear who you are replying to, just use plain text as at the start of this comment. Re the topic: I also do not support the changes proposed—I gave a couple of hints above, but let me state plainly my opinion that your edits do not improve this article—you might look at alternative sites like Wikiversity where essays and personal approaches are more common. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for your suggestion to look at Wikiversity and for clarifying about linking to users on talk pages.

While I appreciate your feedback, and while I understand that you and others may not agree with my suggestions or changes, I'd expect an intelligent and collaborative countering of alternative options or ways to improve what I've offered, especially in the case where more experienced editors can help newer editors, like myself, learn how to better write in an encyclopedia-like style. The truth is that I presented about 15 potential areas of improvement (I just added a couple more to the list), along with some ideas on how to possibly implement such improvements, and got nothing but abuse or disagreement as responses. Not once did I ever get intelligent discussion about alternatives. I know this is not the norm on WP as I've visited many other talk pages and seen far more positive interactions by their article contributors. I've also been fortunate enough to encounter other editors who jump to help, both, improve articles and mentor editors, further highlighting that there are always other options. So, at this point, I have to assume that the community's goal is to intentionally hold this article at a Start Class grade. And, given that I really don't want to argue with anyone and because I have a day job which constantly calls, I'll disengage unless someone changes their mind(s) and wants to improve the article, at which time I'll gladly do what I can to help. In the mean time, I'll definitely check out Wikiversity and thanks, again, for the feedback. --FGuerino (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

network devices are hardware - topic of the moment

Right to stop folks armwrestling I've locked this temporarily. I must admit right now I don't know this area - so can folks link to sources and explain rather than armwrestle over the article page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What about network device? And what's the logic of singling out network devices as opposed to, say, data storage devices? Hardware is hardware. What's going to be next? We start to categorise the various types of software? Basically there is no logic underpinning this addition of "network devices". Eric Corbett 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Microprocessor

Information technology is about Microprocessor dynamics and this should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.109.73 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Information technology existed long before the invention of microprocessors, don't you think?

I have no objection to its being mentioned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no idea of what "microprocessor dynamics" is, but perhaps someone wiser can enlighten me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about microprocessor development on different applications throughout time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.109.73 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about it? Why does it matter what platform(s) were used to develop different applications? Eric Corbett 19:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

what is data conversatation process?

what is data conversatation process? debasis 03:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0009 (talk • contribs)

IT is System Administration

I realize the original definition of IT encompasses all of computer technology, including programming. But as somebody who works in the industry, I typically see the term IT is used, particularly in job ads, to mean sys admin. System administration, as a phrase, is not even mentioned in the article. Since apparently there are some strong feelings about what should be or not be in this article, I wanted to get some feedback here, rather than just jump in and add something. Nerfer (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't my experience that IT means systems administration. You would need to cite sources for anything you want to add to the article by the way. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Camera

An Internet protocol camera, or IP camera, is a type of digital video camera commonly employed for surveillance, and which, unlike analog closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, can send and receive data via a computer network and the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mas1143 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Information technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121112547/http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/manchester.html to http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/manchester.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118072720/http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0 to http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021153204/http://www.acm.org/education/curric_vols/CC2005-March06Final.pdf to http://www.acm.org/education/curric_vols/CC2005-March06Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How does efectively to our community ang society if the technology is addected to the people.

How does efectively to our community ang society if the technology is addected to the people. 122.52.148.198 (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)≠

Information Technology and People

Information technology is a growing field. In today's world everything is based on computer technology from a landline phone to a Laptop has technology. It has a big impact on the generation that is comping up all they are aware of is technology Information Technology enables the storage, processing and information that flow within the organizations. Anything and everything involved with computers, networks, software, server and database falls under IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avneet K (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Degree programs

ABET and ACM have collaborated in recent years to form accredition and Curriculum standards for degrees in Information Technology as a distinct field of study separate from both Computer Science and Information Systems. SIGITE is the ACM working group for defining these standards. The current criteria are included in the documents here. Accredited Programs currently exist at the US Naval Academy, Rochester Insitute of Technology, Purdue, and BYU among others. This information should probably be included somehow, I'm popping this info in the article, but feel free to modify it or move it if there is a more appropriate place.

Great sources and contribution. Thanks! Butler, Dustin (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflicted edit request

Am posting this on behalf of User:Blokdyk who had added the content below to this article in this diff, and has now disclosed he is the CEO of The Art of Service, the management consultancy that develops the Self Assessments.

Please treat this as though Blokdyk had posted themselves.

Perspective

Information Technology Self-Assessment RACI Matrix

		Role	Role	Role	Role
Criterion	Project Deliverable (or Activity)	Leadership	Team Members	Sub-Teams	External Resources
Recognize:	What does Information technology success mean to the stakeholders?	A		R
Recognize:	What vendors make products that address the Information technology needs?				C
Recognize:	What would happen if Information technology weren’t done?	A	R
Define:	Do we all define Information technology in the same way?			C
Define:	Are Required Metrics Defined?				I
Define:	Is it clearly defined in and to your organization what you do?		A
Measure:	Are priorities and opportunities deployed to your suppliers, partners, and collaborators to ensure organizational alignment?		R
Measure:	Are you taking your company in the direction of better and revenue or cheaper and cost?		C		R/A
Measure:	What should be measured?	R		A
Analyze:	Did any value-added analysis or ‘lean thinking’ take place to identify some of the gaps shown on the ‘as is’ process map?			C
Analyze:	How do mission and objectives affect the Information technology processes of our organization?			C
Analyze:	Have the problem and goal statements been updated to reflect the additional knowledge gained from the analyze phase?	A	R
Improve:	Does the goal represent a desired result that can be measured?	R/A
Improve:	How do you measure progress and evaluate training effectiveness?			C
Improve:	Is the implementation plan designed?		C	R/A
Control:	Are suggested corrective/restorative actions indicated on the response plan for known causes to problems that might surface?	A	R
Control:	Who has control over resources?		R		C
Control:	Is knowledge gained on process shared and institutionalized?			A
Sustain:	How do we ensure that implementations of Information technology products are done in a way that ensures safety?	A
Sustain:	Did my employees make progress today?	R/A		C
Sustain:	How do we engage the workforce, in addition to satisfying them?			A

The RACI Matrix is a powerful tool to assist in the identification of roles and assigning of cross-functional responsibilities to a project deliverable or activity.

RACI represents:  R - Responsibility, A - Accountable, C - Consulted, and I - Informed

RACI Definitions:

Responsibility = person or role responsible for ensuring that the item is completed 

Accountable = person or role responsible for actually doing or completing the item

Consulted = person or role whose subject matter expertise is required in order to complete the item

Informed = person or role that needs to be kept informed of the status of item completion

Place an R, A, C, I or any appropriate combination in each of the applicable roles for each activity. Each Activity should have at least one individual Accountable while there may be shared responsibilities depending on the activity.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Declined The requested edits appear to have originated from the reference material supplied, in violation of copyright. Information proposed for additions to articles must be sufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Please see WP:CFAQ for more information.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  04:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is off topic and belongs under project management. Butler, Dustin (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)