Jump to content

Talk:Technology/Archive 2

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


Cleanup

Steve, your rewrite was a big improvement, but it is still a bit difficult to parse the article, especially with so much missing information and substubs. I realize that this is a large topic, but perhaps we should start with something small, and by making sure that the opinions and material are sourced, maybe even using direct quotes A lot of the arguments seemed to be opinion (or might not be, but they are unsourced), and the layout is a bit confusing. Perhaps a way to start this might be to write at a higher level, perhaps following the layout of something like Encarta's article and then expanding after the basics are done? Right now the article is a bit difficult to track. I want to help on this, and realize that a lot of great work has been done so far, but we could go further.. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems that all my my efforts have been removed and since I don't have a masters degree I'll just be moving on I guess . . .

Rossfi 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Rossifi, I wasn't aiming at your edits, or anyone else's, my issue was as much with the organization as anything else. What changes do you object to? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I liked the organisation - it was the first short article on technology that i have come across that seemed to have a clear separation between the principle factors. Personally I think the wikipedia is generally better than Encarta and would not like to hold the Encarta up as an example to follow or we might as well be editing that instead! Just my POV of course :-)

I thought Steve's original approach in the history section to be more to the point than many H.o.t articles but the cuts have removed the statement about the history of technology being a history of 'resources' leaving in instead my following statement about it also being a history of exploitng resources that provide energy and power. These are two entirely different things. What happened to simple tools like Sticks, Stones and Sinew? Technology is as much about primitive technologies as it is about modern technologies. Your edits have removed most of that information and changed the emphasis of the section.

You then went on to remove everything that developed the lead paragraphs. Granted it needed trimming as Steve and I had already agreed in the discussion above but this easier to do when all the areas have been sufficiently developed and commented on(I added all that stuff onto a stub that Steve wrote for the H.o.t section). I know the wiki is not a forum and I expected some editing and development which is why I added a number of stubs to the 'H.o.t' section allowing others the chance to make further additions and address some of the earlier criticisms about missing info. What is disappointing is encountering such a large 'Cleanup'.

Your edit comments were; "Tried to cut down repeated phrases and unsourced claims. There were lots of POV phrases and original research. A lot more work is needed, this is not terribly coherent, more like class notes."

Fair enough - but use the Talk pages to point out the specifics and allow a rebuttal and discussion!

While quoting references is important - you cant reference everything or it becomes a thesis . . .

Most of the histories of technology that I have seen to date (including the wiki main article 'H.o.t' page and Encarta)seem to spend a lot of time attributing various technological developments to various cultures and most seem to focus on an apparent 'explosion' in developments beginning around 10,000 BC.

Richard Rudgley an anthroplogist recently presented a DVD for television (Secrets of the Stone Age)which shows a considerable amount of evidence that a number of developments (textiles, ceramics, manufacturing) in fact precede the 10,000BC period. This suggests a much more gradual developments process and my personal study of technology agrees with that view(eg STEAM; Papin, Morland, Savery, Newcomen, and finally James Watt in particular are the indivuals who get the credit but there is much more to it than that). This is not a closed field and I would suggest that many more archeological discoveries wait to be unearthed.

In addition while I do see a clear relationship between technology and culture this needs to be stated explicitly rather than meandering from culture to culture attributing discoveries(or individual to individual as some timelines focus on). This was something I had planned on getting to, along with the history sections of a number pages I had linked to, but . . .

I think a history of technology should describe the signifcant developments (club, fire, lever, manufacturing, wheel, metal, steam etc) and then discuss reciprocal effects with cultures. Again just my POV

All in all pretty discouraging . . .

Rossfi 18:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S.

I have read the Encarta article and am not that impressed, to me it seems to ramble and meander a bit and I'm not too convinced about some of the dates.

My inclination at this point is to have my account removed as I would much rather have the work criticised before changes so that I can improve my contributions. Bit hard to do when it just gets chopped. I know the wiki is not a classroom but I had thought the Talk pages were the appropriate forum for development of both pages and authors. Perhaps I was wrong . . .

If I can't see what I'm supposedly doing wrong, if anything, then I'll focus my efforts on other more productive and rewarding pursuits. Though I have admitted to being dissappointed - this isn't sulking or anything like that - I just don't see the point of expending so much effort and carefull thought trying to achieve an informative and NPOV contribution to then have it all deleted without any discussion.

Yes it was like class notes - the page is under development, now it's just less . . .

Rossfi


Rossfi, I really didn't mean to insult you by modifying the article, and I certainly didn't mean for you to react this strongly. My changes were not criticism or condemnation of you or your efforts, and you should not take it as such. If you want to revert my changes because you think they were in error, you can do so, but please be ready to defend your choices. If you want to create your own version of the page to hold up as an alternative (Technology/temp for example), you can do that also. Don't let my changes drive you from wikipedia, but, at the same time, realize that the typical process is to argue back-and-forth over edits. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Mate I think you're missing the point - I'm disappointed and not a little discourouraged, perhaps a little annoyed - I am not insulted, condemed or otherwise.

My point is that I would like to see discussion on This page Before such drastic cuts are made without specifc justifications on the main topic page.

I don't mind criticism at all in fact I Want it - so long as it is focused on the material.

So what were the specifics? "repeated phrases and unsourced claims", "lots of POV phrases and original research".

Please focus on that and provide more detail as to why you felt it necessary to cut so much material with so little explanation.

To give you an example of specific critism;

You have added another definition for technology (used by economics) at the beginning of the article but did not choose to to follow the existing style of bullet entries adding it instead at the head of the article. This is confusing as it does not scan well.

The paragraph iself contains the phrase "current state", this not so different from the phrase "level of achievement" in the preceding bulleted definition, this is therefore repetitious.

While the paragraph as whole has some value (particularly the second sentence phrase 'technological change'- though the sentence itself does sound suspiciously like it's drawing a conclusion) I believe it should be placed further down possibly in the section on 'Funding' or in a new section 'Technology and Economics' in which case we may have to remove/roll in the 'Funding' section.

The original paragraph beginning "As a cultural activity . . ." flows on much better from the definitions and is an execellent start to the article.

Now That is critiscm - and you have a chance to respond Before we edit . . .

Rossfi 08:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rossfi, I am sorry if I misread you, but you threatened to quit WP, so I assumed that you felt some sort of personal insult. As for my philosophy of these things, I edit articles to make them, I hope, better; I don't assume that anyone owns the previous language. The whole idea of be bold is to plunge in and make improvements, and, if there are objections, to hash them out -- I would have no idea whether they would be objections until I start editing. There is a lot more rewriting I wanted to do on this, but I started with these changes, and waited for a response. Now, I can respond to your criticism:
  • You have added another definition for technology (used by economics) at the beginning of the article but did not choose to to follow the existing style of bullet entries adding it instead at the head of the article. This is confusing as it does not scan well. I didn't add it and I didn't write it, it was already in the article, in an even more confusing place, randomly stuck in as the last paragraph in the section "Science, Engineering and Technology."[1] I think it obviously makes more sense with the other definitions, or in a seperate Definitions heading which we do not yet have. I chose not to make it a bullet because it is the only example we have (yet) of a specific contextual definition, not a general one, I viewed it as an afterthought -- "technology means all of these things, but, watch out, if you are talking about economics specifically it has another meaning." Feel free to make it a bullet. This was simply an initial attempt to organize existing material, which was scattered.
  • The paragraph iself contains the phrase "current state", this not so different from the phrase "level of achievement" in the preceding bulleted definition, this is therefore repetitious. Again, I didn't write it. Also, I think the definitions section up front is not particularly strong and needs to be rewritten. Where are these definitions from? What context are they used in? Instead, they all seem assertions, and should be given a context or source.
  • I believe it should be placed further down possibly in the section on 'Funding' or in a new section 'Technology and Economics' in which case we may have to remove/roll in the 'Funding' section. See above on definitions, but I must say that the whole existance of the funding section seems strange to me, since "technology" is not usually thought of as something that is funded, instead it is something that has sources, some of which are formal programs, sone of which are bricolage efforts, some commercial, etc. Economists are not primarily interested in the funding of technology per se, they are interested in its sources and its effects, so an economic perspective could be anywhere in the article, see, for example Endogenous growth theory.
  • The original paragraph beginning "As a cultural activity . . ." flows on much better from the definitions and is an execellent start to the article. It is still there, but it brings me to...
My issues with the article, and thoughts for future change, include:
  • Sources. Wikipedia relies on sourced material, original research is not allowed. I was not sure what was sourced and what was original. For example, I commented out the complexity, depedency, valence and scale stuff -- whose framework is this? Is it original research? Why use this framework rather than others? We need to explain.
  • POV. There were many sections that felt like individual point-of-view arguments that may or may not be true. For example, still remaining is this text: "The most subtle side effects from technological uses are sociological in nature. Subtle because those side effects can go unnoticed without careful observation and contemplation of individual, institutional, and group behaviors." This isn't true in many cases -- sociological changes are often obvious on any reasonable time scale -- and who says so, in any case?
  • Lack of connection. There are many articles on technology and technical change in Wikipedia, but they are not drawn on nor connected to this one. The technology topic should help guide to other areas, and explain their relationships. Just a few examples of this include: Intellectual history of time, Science policy, innovation, disruptive technology, and there are a host of others as well.
  • I like the fact that there are quite a few individual scholars mentioned, but they are only mentioned briefly, and are scattered in different areas. It would be good to gather them into a few headings and compare and contrast views, rather than just having a name or two here or there, or to use blanket terms like optimist or pessimist.
Hopefully, this is specific enough about the changes. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Goodoldpolonius, OK. Firstly I do apologise for incorrectly attributing the definition to you, I may to have to learn how to read that history trail better.

The remainder of this response may be a little out out of sequence, please bear with me . . .

I think the definition in question is too long to be a bulleted entry and there is the problem that it repeats to some extent on the last bulleted definition. I must also admit I need some clarification on "a specific contextual definition, not a general one" scuse my ignorance and poor education.

Like you I think the definitions need to be rewritten. I added the last two in an attempt to provide a more concise definition. They are based on general usage but I can't yet 'source' them as the bulk of my personal library is in storage though I do have some books on the way that may help.

Can't comment on anything to do with economics I am not at all expert in this area, though oddly enough I was thinking of Bolton when I used the Steam example in my previous comments. I do think the relationship should be explained.

Sourcing: I've re-read the guidance on sources and I'm still not clear on how to resolve your concern that "I was not sure what was sourced and what was original". There are a number of reference at the bottom of the article but I have yet to add mine(If I ever do).

In addition I followed a few links (Bronze, Bronze Age, Alloys, Lithic Reduction, Lithic Flake) - No Sourcing - but whoever wrote those entries clearly knows their subject - are we to then remove the entries or content because there are no sources? or have I missed the point?

The 'stone age' page does appear to have some sourcing but it is very unobtrusive and therefore much easier to scan. So how far do we take the sourcing thing?

"complexity, dependency, valence and scale stuff" Dunno either but I found it enlightening(While it was there). I do note however that it wasn't moved into the Talk Page which would have been more polite.

Re the POV example - again not sure - but I wouldn't make either of the claims in that bullet, the original or your response "changes are often obvious on any reasonable time scale" - Often? What is a 'reasonable' time scale?

Re Lack of connection - I agree entirely, moreover when I made links to various topics I could see a need for development there too, as I have indicated previously - but it's early days yet.

I'm quite frankly less fussed about scholars and more interested in evidence, I'm quite sure I would have no trouble digging up evidence of scholars and any number of other authority characters who have championed a view into general acceptance only to have it subsequently destroyed.

Finally - The bulk of my contributions were in the History of technology section. These no longer exist, which is why I may not be adding any references. There is nothing left to need supporting references . . .

I do understand that I don't 'own' what I write here - but why write if it is only to disappear without comment or any perception that it may have contributed to the development of the final product (even if only for a short while.

Rossfi 20:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC) P.S.

I was writing this last while the comment below were added.

Rossfi

  • Rossfi, your concerns are real, but keep up the work. If something is now wacked, and you believe it shouldn't be wacked, put it back in!! and let's get on with the discussion and creation of the remainder of the article. The History of Technology is a tough topic to synthesize for an encyclopedia. Thousands of years of mankind's history needs to be summarized in less than a few hundred words. What is it that you would like to see put back in? I know that section did (does) not contain my best prose, but the ideas are out there. If someone doesn't come up with something else soon, I may revert the deletions myself. We need your input!!! Awaiting your edits...... Steven McCrary 02:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Lotta' stuff here since I last visited. Not enough time to comment on all of it. Beside, I believe we should divide it up and discuss each issue individually. So I have divided it up, and I am making a start. More later, but for now. . . here goes.

Steven McCrary 19:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of material

Ownership of material actually lies with both the original author and with Wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyright. Steven McCrary 19:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Original research

As I read the "Wikipedia:No original research" page, ideas that are currently published or are part of the public landscape can be written about here. It seems to me that the ideas presented so far are part of the public landscape (and presented in a NPOV). Otherwise, the sources are cited. I was not aware of a need to delete the material written due it being original research. This is not a criticism of Goodoldpolonius2, since it is certainly within his boldness to do so. If someone wants to revert it, do it, that is also a part of boldness. Then bring the issues over to this talk page for discussion. (more later) Steven McCrary 19:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The whole section on complexity, dependency, valience, and scale is original research, for example. This approach is not cited anywhere I have seen, and it is a non-obvious framework. Where does it come from? Why should this framework be the authoritative one in an encyclopedia? How is it used? There are plenty of scholars of technology who have come up with frameworks, we should use one of them. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, it may not be an approach cited anywhere, still it is a synthesis of ideas, none of which are original with me, I assure you! I am not opposed to using a framework, but many are incomplete. What do you suggest? Steven McCrary 01:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Study of technology and other topics

I disagree with the deletion of the paragraph on the study of technology from the introduction, and reverted it. Steven McCrary 00:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence just doesn't parse for me, though I am happy to have the intro talk about related fields. What is "wanton use" and how is it different from non-wanto use? What is the "study of technology"? I just am not clear what the paragraph means. Does it mean that technology is a subject of study in other fields? That technology has an impact on other fields of study? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Do we really know the difference between wanton use and non-wanton use, maybe that is your point, especially prior to implementation? Maybe "careless use" would be better, or something like that. Steven McCrary 01:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Symbiosis with society

Not original research, and the creation of a separate society and technology page is not necessary before the discussion of symbiosis is possible on this page. Steven McCrary 01:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Symbiosis, though is just one point of view, it is not authoritative. Who refers to technology and civilization as having a symbiotic relationship? Some scholars view technology as an outgrowth of civilization, others as a process ruled by capitalism, or as a result of scientific progress, or as a controlling factor in civilization's growth. We should give an overview of the views on society and technology, and not just pick one direction. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that "civilization" or "capitalism" or "scientific progress" or "civilization's growth" are all various forms of the same thing, society. Many, such as McGinn, make this statement (there are a couple of others, whom I will get when I am back in the office on Monday). Steven McCrary 01:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Backing away

In light of the quite fervent response and wholly negative I have received to my changes and suggestions, I'll leave this article to Steven and Rossfi to continue to develop as they see fit, since I think I am alone among the three of us in suggesting changes. I would ask that you leave the cleanup tag in place, and I'll wait until there is editorial consensus for a change before I bother to push any more. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Goodoldpolonius2

I wish you wouldn't mate. I don't mean to be cheeky but you youself said "realize that the typical process is to argue back-and-forth over edits" and "please be ready to defend your choices". I guess that can be painfull at times but if the end result is some consensus and a good page then itgggg's got to be worthwhile. And BTW we have chewed up some bandwidth here, I am getting the following warning message when editing this page This page is 40 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. Does anyone know the procedure for this? 32K hardly seems enough, we have a ways to go yet and it is an extensive subject, can the limit be extended temporarily? Or can I move the discussion between me and Goodoldpolonius2 to my own talk page?

I will be re-instating some of my edits in the near future in a briefer form and with less stubs. Then we can examine the specific areas that need improvement.

Rossfi 09:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, I am with Rossfi on this one, please do not back away. The edits and suggestions are much appreciated, please do not take it otherwise. If there something in the discussion that has offended you, then please accept my apology for being too fervent. I assure you that I did not intend to offend you, only to share my perspective, humble as it is, and feeble in its attempt. However, the give and take is necessary for creating the page, especially one such as this. I am very grateful for your input so far, and hope it will continue; if not that is by your choice, and I accept that as well. Looking forward to your edits..... Steven McCrary 13:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note the many questions earlier in this discussion asking you for further input, evidence of the value of your input. Anyway.....Sincerely, Steven McCrary 13:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the nice words, I really appreciate it. On the other hand, I really do think that we have a fundamental difference of consensus here between your approach and my own. I continue to worry that this page feels very ideosyncratic, since each piece relies on one source, with no clear sense of whether it is authoritative or even how these sources relate. For example, things like the 4-value description of McGinn and the division of technology into energy and tools in the history section seem very specificly somebody's theory, and they don't really speak to each other, nor do the other parts of this essay. Similarly, the effects of technology differ depending on definition and time -- the sociological effects of the automobile and fire are hardly "The most subtle side effects." So I still have fundamental problems with the approach. On the other hand, you guys seem to be making progress, but since there are so many articles to work on (and I want to keep hammering away on the innovation side of technology) I have learned that, in the face of consensus, it is often better to check in occasionally than to engage in long debates that won't change minds. If you disagree, I am happy to continue to discuss. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction and History

I agree with much of the reorganization by Goodoldpolonius2, including:

  1. I like the "economics" definition in the introduction, not in history (as before).
  2. I was not happy with how the History section had evolved. It contained good stuff (if I may say so myself), but I agree that it was not parsing well. Let's make another run at it; any suggestions?
  3. I have tried to reword the "cultural activity" explanation in the introduction, especially as it relates to society, is it any better?

Thanks, Steven McCrary 13:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

History

I have restored a good portion of the history section with some trimming and modifications as no justification has been given for its removal. I'm happy with the first part but the subsections while informative probably make it too long so I guess they'll have to go eventually.

I restored the wording in paragraph 3 to 'themes' as that is what the paragraph is about.

Need to get sources sorted out . . .

Rossfi 14:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the history section in an attempt to improve the parsing. Here is what I did:
1. I somewhat agree with Goodoldpolonius2 that the parsing needs further consideration. I looked around a bit to see how others have attacked the history of technology, keeping in mind that there is an entire article on the history of technology. One Web site, for example, http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/Technology/Technology.html, at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois (USA), divides history into three technological eras based on the work of Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994, pp. 259-267):
a. The Era of Biological Energy Sources: 9000 BC to AD 600
b. The Era of Inanimate Energy Sources: 600 to 1600
c. The Era of Fossil Fuel Energy Sources: 1600 to the Present
There are many ways to parse technological history, I modified this section to follow from simple to complex tools and energy. But is that parsing any better than others?
2. I also commented out (still there as hiddent text) the last two paragraphs, for the following reason:
  • "The discoveries and developments . . ." This paragraph seems out of place, as a random collection of technologies with influence. But all technologies are influential in one way or another, why select only these?
  • "Much of the available liturature . . ." Here again, seems out of place. Why only cover the neolithic age? Do we need an entire paragraph on technological accelerations in history? Maybe just delete it completely.

Steven:

Been looking around too, with the same thought. I do like the Simple to Complex idea but it also seems a bit 'binary' and jumps form one paragraph to the next. The problem with the previous version was that it didn't mention paper and god knows how many other inovations but which are significant?

1. Re your reference above from 'North Park Uni', the problem with it is that it is 'chronological', based on Europe/China. Consider this; Current archaelogical evidence suggests that farming started in Europe/China around 9000BC but in the Americas around 4000BC - Copper in Europe/China around 7000BC? but in the Americas around 1000BC. And yet not all in Oz(eg) for either farming or copper. The reasons? Still being argued as far as I know (I have my own personal views but I havn't found a 'source' for them - so can't use it - could be original).

2. The "The discoveries and developments . . ." paragraph isn't about any particular technologies, in fact the second sentence starts "Examples of a few of the earliest . . .". As knowledge grows in an area it invites specialisation, ie themes (perhaps schema would have been a better word). These can later branch (or dissapear). Specialisation can accellerate developments in a given area which can then have an impact on other areas. Better comms for example = improved dissemination of ideas, thus affecting the other themes. This seems obvious and important to me - am I in danger of being original? I was sure this was common knowledge.

Re the "Much of the available liturature . . ." paragraph; I'm not sure how I could have phrased this better - it is the bulk of the current liturature that focuses on the neolithic - but a growing number of discoveries are pointing to a continuing gradual accelleration. I do think this is important and worth including.

See a book called "A Brief History of the Human Race" by Michael Cook (current Prof of Near Eastern Studies @ Princhton) where he discusses 'cultural platforms' ie pottery for metal(p26), and acceleration (pp 28-29), and . . .

Rossfi

Would this be any better?

The discoveries and developments during the course of the history of technology can also be seen to follow a growing number of interrelated themes. Examples of a few of the earliest themes are; Communications, agriculture, animal husbandry, transport and construction and evidence for a manufacturing process has recently been found dating back as far as 38,000BC. Subsequent to the Industrial Revolution later themes tend to be more easily identifed as industries and modern examples would include the management of water (water industry), electric power, aviation and telecommunications.

Rossfi 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope - too Complicated . . . sigh

Rossfi 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed the main headings so as to change 'look&feel'; Removed 'commented' paragraphs - too hard for now; A few minor words and phrases here and there (put the furnace back in - you can't leave that out:-).

Rossfi 23:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your changes and modifications are needed improvements. I agree that the history section is choppy, needs transitions, etc. I am still open to suggestions on how to improve it without going on and on and on.... I am also glad to see that the "discoveries and developments" paragraph is still under consideration. To me, it is still random; sorry but I just do not see the connections among the "themes."
Re: "Much of the available literature..." Maybe a paragraph on periods in history when technological improvements seemed to accelerate, not just the neolithic age?
Steven McCrary 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
In that case I would imagine that "theme" is the wrong word, I need to do some more research through the available liturature and perhaps find a better example/explanation.
Re the 'acceleration' please let me assure you that 'I' am not focusing on the neolithic it is the available body of liturature that seems to do that. From my point of view there are four acceleration periods that I am reasonably sure of: Neolithic, Greco-Roman era, the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution (not too sure about Egypt yet). But, I need to 'source' this before writing.
Something else to consider - A City can considered a 'technological system' so does that count as a complex tool?
As to going on and on etc I see your point but am a bit short of inspiration at the moment so may step back for a little while ...
Rossfi 13:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Steven McCrary 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

P.S. I actually preferred most of the oringinal lead-in, it was simpler and more pointed and I like the summary sentence at the end of the definitions Thus, usefulness is the essential feature of technology.. Also the paragraph starting As a cultural activity, technology predates both science and engineering. It is a far-reaching term including both simple tools, such as a wooden spoon, and complex tools, such as the space station. Its scope includes any tool in any discipline. This is not to imply that technology is the only cultural forming activity, nor that it is the primary culture-forming activity. Often, it is dominate in cultural formation; often, it is not. In addition, culture may act to form technology. This relationship between technology and culture could be called symbiotic, and is explained futher below. forms a good base to develope the article.

I like the "economics" definition too, particularly the bit abount combining resources - may just have to try it out as a bullet . . .

If technology is "also a cultural activity" then you conflict with the "culture-forming activity" definition and imply a whole lot of other activity types?

Rossfi 15:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Modified, any better? Steven McCrary 16:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yea - Excellent - probably need to wrestle some with the definitions but they'll hold for now . . .

See above for responses on History

Rossfi 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

in keeping with this "be bold" concept...

hello all,

i'm going to try and keep it simple. i'm in my masters at asu studying rhet/comp with a focus on technology. after much reading (which i've been doing for a few years) i've noticed a glaring problem with theory on technology as related to anything else - the word technology is SO multiple in its definitions that, rather than creating value of diversity in the field, it hinders progress, obscures meaning and keeps theorists who could be working on parallel and progressive themes essentially divergent.

so i built a wiki. i call it techniki. my plan is to keep it simple for a while. it is focused on gathering definitions and usages of the word technology with a goal of creating a stable (not fixed, caged - nothing fascist) definition.

my problem so far - no community for creating knowledge. i am hoping that by posting this i can begin the 'tell 2 friends who tell 2 friend' (i hope that came across as humor.)

i've noticed very few names on this site, so i figure there is a tight-knit community who gives a damn about these topics. can any or all of you help me? my wiki is at this address:

http://brain.brainery.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page

you can contact me at james.palazzolo@asu.edu.

thank you...james palazzolo

Hi James, Not too sure if your 'posting' is an appropriate use of this discussion page but . . .

By way of a response I would ask if you noted the earlier exchange between Steve and I under Definition and Comments.

If you get this sussed then jump in and help us mate - the definitions part is tough and any help is appreciated. . .

Rossfi 16:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Trying to reach NOISY

I'll begin with I'm relatively new to this. If I'm posting incorrectly, let me know and I'll do it correctly.

I'm noticing that NOISY is considering my posting of the techniki to be "self-promotion" and is therefore removing it. I'd like to debate this - many of us who study the history, philosophy and theory of technology are concerned about the multiplicity of definitions assigned to the word technology. The techniki is trying to create a sphere of knowledge concerning this legitimate academic concern. A clearer, more stable definition can help clarify other complex issues that stultify our fields to date - issues of tool development, fund sourcing and power to name only a few.

I've moved the techniki placement on the main technology page to try and appease those who consider it self-promotion. Will this serve to assuage your consistent editing and, instead, help keep this posting to the page which is solely in the effort of connecting communities interested in building knowledge about this highly relevant corridor of the field?

Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technology"

Deletion of phrase "practical vagueness as we categorise"

I am not sure about the meaning of the following sentence: "Again we are confronted with an impractical vagueness as we categorise the lever with the jet engine." I have deleted it once, does anyone else understand what it means? I believe it should be eliminated. Steven McCrary 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You have my concurrance. I see no reason for that cryptic remark except the hubris of a modern engineer. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I Have "Cleaned Up" the First Three Sections,

hopefully without major change, except that I saw no reason for the Disambiguation part not to appear within the writup. It is not a final cut by any means, and I think the History should be expanded. But, I think it will do for a start. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Greek words

I have restored the Greek words in the introduction, the question marks will not do the job. Do we need to discuss the removal of the Greek words completely fromt the text? SteveMc 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping someone would do that; I did not feel qualified. I believe they should stay; they appear in like context at the beginning of most of the words and phrases that derive from antiquity. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Normxxx, but it looks like you're the one who messed it up in the first place. Revision as of 06:47, 27 January 2006 :-( Is it possible your computer didn't retain the greek letters? Did you maybe use an external text editor? If the greek letters could be replaced with some escape codes that should prevent this from happening again, but it does make the page a little harder to edit. Ewlyahoocom 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem, now that I know I'm the problem! I use a fantasticaly powerful little text/html editor that is orders of magnitude simpler than anything MS puts out. It's called NoteTab Pro and is put out by Notetab, but its native font set is quite limited. In future, I will be careful to avoid sucking in the Greek and/or reset as necessary. Thanks for the tip. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the greek words are OK, but they are missing the accents (diacritic marks). It's "τεχνολογία", "τέχνη" and "λογία". I'm putting them on. If someone has a good reason not to do it... take them out and tell us why. -- cholo 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Further Editing

Meanwhile, I have extended my edits down to (but not including) Economics and technological development. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

This is going to be a very long article which, eventually (but not until we have a final cut), will need to be broken up. In the meantime, sections alternate between American and British spelling, and I think that is confusing to the reader. I will be honest: I prefer American spelling because (1) I have a hard enough time spelling in American English; learning to spell in British English would be that much harder, and (2) American spelling is usually simpler.

Thoughts anyone? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it'll be ok to use American spelling throughout the article. Gflores Talk 17:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Any opinions from any Brits on the wiki? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Brit here; I'm fine with American spellings. Although... technology *is* an international thing and therefore International English should probably be used - recall that nearly all other countries that speak English use Commonwealth English. I say write in American for now, as that seems to be the language of technology. AKismet 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

telephone technology basics

non-human technology

I'm wondering if the article should cover or at least mention 'technology' in non-humans. There's Animal_cognition#Tool_use, but it's breif. If tool use or construction (e.g. nest building) in non-humans counts as technology then a section on it would be cool. If technology is something different than what animals do, then a paragraph or two that contrasts human technology with similar non-human behaviours would be good. Matt 18:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also note Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_"great_apes" with free pictures. Matt 18:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There's also [2] (wikipedia's coverage of this is slim and unreferenced). It documents tool use in dolphin's being taught by mother to daughter. It discusses the tool use as evidence of culture. Matt 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who ScienceWeek is, or if they're reliable, but [3] is informative. Matt 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[4] talks about primate and early human use of tools. Mentions Capuchin monkeys learning tool use from observing others. Matt 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
And finally (for I do need to get real work done), [5] Talks about technology in general, including some definitions that distinguish different levels of technology. I don't know who the fellow is, but it's from NASA so it's somewhat credible. Matt 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

BC style

Does anyone care about the style for BC? We have it with and without periods, with and without "E". Maurreen 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Abstract

Does anyone else think this article is overly abstract? Maurreen 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic is broad and abstract by it's own nature.This must be one of the difficult articles to write about on wikipedia.

I suggest you put it up for peer review. --Technosphere83 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

History of technology

The "History of technology" section is a great overview. However, it is overly long, given that there is a full article on that subject. Also, I note that the History of technology article lacks an overview. I therefore propose a shorter summary of the history of technology in this article and a move of all but the first paragraph of the section to the "History of technology" article, where it would become the first section and perhaps be titled "Overview." What do folks think? Any objections? Sunray 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the history section is one of the best parts of the current article. The rest is too academic for my taste. But if it's important to you, go ahead. And nice to see you again, Sunray. Maurreen 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Been out of it for a while (moving from UK back to Oz) but I love the way this Topic has moved on - I too think the history section is great, its greatest strength being that it focuses on the progression of technology rather than time periods or cultures. I do however have my doubts about the place of the electronics sub-section and will remove it if there is no objection as I don't see any good reason for electronics to have any special prominance (much as I like the the subject). This should shorten the section adequately, removing any more would lose valuable info. I think adding an overview would defeat the purpose. Rossfi 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you hold off on removing the electronics section? How about instead if I add more types of technology, so that electronics wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb? Maurreen 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has added any additional sections for other technologies, I'm going to remove "electronics". Elliotreed 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Maureen, I agree that most of the article may fit better on a Technology and society, in fact, I almost started one last night. SteveMc 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Great idea but the section is too long already - Note that previously I wanted to make Fire a sub heading - Electicity/Electronics is also a key turning point but it is all part of a much larger treatise. The bit on the wheel is also a bit verbose I think and could do with a trim. 58.168.211.79 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
As with Rossfi, I have been out of it a long while, and I am happy with the progression of the article. I concur, however, that the electronics section is too long. I do not believe that adding more technology is the cure. If we begin adding technologies to this page, where will we stop? See for example the List of technologies and [6] and the {{Technology-footer}}. Electronics should be minimized to its appropriate context in history, not in pop culture. As such, I also deleted the paragraphs on the wheel. SteveMc 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Abstract? academic?

Regarding the "academic" and "abstract" comments of Maurreen:

First, I must ask what is too academic or too abstract? Maurreen, please be more specific about how to cure this "ill" so we can change the tone of the article. However, I must add my belief that the topic of technology should not be simplistic, as it is a complex topic. I believe that we underestimate the power of technology in our society and in our development. It changes us in very dramatic, yet in very subtle ways, but both are important. In addition, we generally define technology per pop culture, currently electronic and digital devices, such as the computer, iPOD, gaming, and the Internet. And we tend to neglect existing technologies as passé, which is, I believe, quite dangerous. I could go on and on here, but one final point, look at how many people are working on this article (too few), yet consider how widespread technology (pervasive). Why is there such a disparity there? My answer, we find this topic passé as well. With thanks, SteveMc 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your question. I think the article is moving in the right direction since I made those comments. Your expansion of the Ethics section added concrete examples, which is good.
The deletion of "The Historical Record" section was good. It had said: "The historical record is mixed, providing much support for any of these viewpoints. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be very egalitarian, since very little binds an individual or a family to the group, except social pressure. If sufficient problems develop, either an individual or family may generally leave the group at will. Conversely, the most severe punishment in such societies is generally some form of shunning or ostracism (practiced even in the advanced society of Ancient Greece). However, as humans formed more settled communities tied to agriculture, egalitarianism gave way to various forms of authoritarianism. This was especially evident in the status of the two sexes; the near equality of the sexes generally gave way to one in which women were very much more subordinated, in the extreme, being treated as little more than chattel. But, since the industrial revolution, societies have tended to become much less authoritarian and the status of women has also greatly improved." That was off the topic.
But to me, much of the current article could better be called "Technology in society" or something like that. I'd like to see a more on different types of technology and how things work. A little on intellectual property law might be good. Maurreen
Maureen,
  • I agree that most of the article may fit better on a Technology and society page, in fact, I started one last night (see Technology and society), and just about moved the content of much of this page over to that one. I suggested an outline for the Technology page about a year ago, but really there was no input from others about the content of this page, and I realize that that outline is mostly about technology and society. So please jump in to help with an outline.
  • Also, I agree that the article needs many more examples to make it less "academic."
  • Finally, I am not sure how to handle your comment about types of technology and how things work. Once we start down that "road", where do we stop?
SteveMc 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Steven, thanks for your note. I am sorry if my initial comments were unflattering.
I took a look at the "Technology and society" page. It seems to be off to a good start; I like that it is concrete.
About different types of technology and how things work and where to stop ... I'm not sure. I'm not always good at drawing lines, especially beforehand.
I looked at your outline and will try to think on that some more. What I'm envisioning is roughly a cross between "history of technology" and "technology in society". But it's gray in my head and I'm not saying it's the best idea. Maurreen 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejected for Version 0.5

We would like very much to include this topic in [[WP:V0.5}}, but this article clearly still needs a lot of work. It has improved greatly since we first looked at it in autumn 2005, though, and so I have now classed it as "B-Class" instead of "Start". I very much hope it can be cleaned up before August, so that we can renominate the article and include it on our test CD. Walkerma 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nature of technology

I restored the section on the "Nature of technology" since its seems, to me anyway, to be an important topic. That section gets to the heart of the comment made by Maurreen, above, regarding the academic nature of this topic. Without these types of technology, the article misses a major point. SteveMc 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Outline?

Here’s a possible outline. I expect it can be improved. Some things overlap. Suggestions are welcome.

  1. Science, engineering and technology
  2. The nature of technology
  3. History
    1. Fire
    2. Agriculture and plow
    3. Wheel
    4. Simple machines
    5. Paper
    6. Printing press
    7. Industrial revolution
    8. Electronics
  4. Types and uses
    1. Agriculture
    2. Communication
    3. Construction
    4. Domestic technology
    5. Electronics
    6. Energy and fuel
    7. Environmental (inside and outside)
    8. Industrial (such as manufacturing and extraction)
    9. Mechanics (such as engines, hydraulics and pneumatics)
    10. Military and weaponry
    11. Primitive
    12. Tools
    13. Transportation

Maurreen 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen, this is an excellent beginning, thanks. Not to be argumentative (really), here are my concerns:
  • Why these technologies? I realize they are very important, but what is the rational basis for this list? What is the rationale for adding/subtracting technologies to/from this list?
  • How much are we going to write about each one? There are individual articles devoted to each one, so how much are we duplicating here.
  • What do we do with the content of the article as currently written?
SteveMc 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thank you. I have no problem at all with your questions.
About why these -- In the history section, those seemed to me to be the most widely significant, that allowed much else to follow. In the types and uses, that was mainly just what I thought of at the time. There are a few that I discounted as possibly not having wide impact, such as for sports or for handicapped people. I didn't include computers and such because I figure that can go under electronics. I forgot medical technology. This is not to say that the list above can't be improved.
About the length for the subsections -- I'm guestimating one to three paragraphs, but I'm open.
I realize these broad subjects are hard to work on. I've also done some work on Humanities, Community and Culture.
About the current text -- Maybe most of it should go in Technology and society? Maurreen 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, those are good suggestions, and I think we agree about this stuff. How about:

  1. Science, engineering and technology—current paragraphs seem adequate.
  2. The nature of technology—current paragraphs seems adequate.
  3. Ancient history—current paragraphs seems adequate.
  4. Pre-modern history—three or four paragraphs about important technological developments not covered in Ancient history or in Modern uses, such as the printing press, paper, warfare, simple machines. Also, move a paragraph from the current History section to this one.
  5. Modern uses—three or four paragraphs on the most important technologies, which I believe are:
  6. Evaluation of technology, here we would condense the remainder of the article into a couple of paragraphs.


To address some of my other questions above:
  1. I suggest that the modern uses section be limited to those technologies found at Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century and at the technology template
  2. The other paragraphs currently in the article can be moved to Technology and society.

Suggestions ? SteveMc 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic thrust sounds like a good improvement. I can't look at the details right now, but I don't object. Maurreen 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where should this go?

Not sure exactly what they mean, since I did not suggest them, I am only taking them from the to-do list to here. Nevertheless, do these topics belong in this article:

  1. technology in education
  2. Technology in developing countries

SteveMc 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "technology in education" (technology in support of education) is minor and need not be covered in this article. But technology education (learning about technology) might be worth a paragraph or so.
About "technology in developing countries" -- without more information, I'm leaning toward thinking that should be covered in elsewhere, such as in Comparison of countries by technological development, for lack of a more concise name. Maurreen 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's possible that I suggested these two myself, but am now thinking otherwise. :) Maurreen 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I am OK with "learning about technology" and "technology in education" is minor. I think the "technology in developing countries" is or could be covered in appropriate technology. SteveMc 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Patents

Should we include maybe a few paragraphs on patents and related? Maurreen 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on patents, so a few paragraphs would be too much. The article is nearing the "bloated" stage. How about a couple of sentences in "The nature of technology"?SteveMc 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see your point, it was mainly food for thought. Maurreen 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And I am eating it up. Good thoughts! Those are the types of thoughts we need for this article. SteveMc 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Maurreen 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome, I added something on intellectual properties. SteveMc 21:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked it. Maurreen 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Maurreen, I notice that the tags are gone, doesn't the article still need some editing? SteveMc 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article still needs editing.
I put the cleanup tag back. I had the idea that tag was for articles that are awful, which I never thought this was.
I didn't ever see a need here for the wikification tag, but if you want to put it back, that's OK with me. Maurreen 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I am OK with just the cleanup tag. The article is not awful, but it still can use a little help. I would like to move this article to peer review sometime before the end of the year, but I believe one thing that it needs is clarification, maybe simplification, but I am unsure. I am so close to this article that I may be objectively challenged. SteveMc 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Science, engineering and technology

The article includes this sentence:

Another way to distinguish engineering from science, is to understand that an engineer can never (literally) say "I do not know" to answer a question, but a scientist can/must say "I do not know."

I don't quite understand this. There must be many things that any individual engineer doesn't know. Maurreen 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that. :-\ What I meant by it is that when an engineer is asked to solve a realistic problem, "I do not have an answer for that problem" is not an acceptable answer. This is a popular adage used in the engineering community to indicate that engineering solutions may not be based on the application of a scientific principle. In engineering the term "empirical" is used to indicate that the solution is based on practical experience, not on scientific theory. If it is confusing or clear, we can eliminate it. SteveMc 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should delete it and try to sum it up earlier, possibly like this:
The distinctions between science, engineering and technology are not always clear. As a rule of thumb, engineering focuses more on practical experience, and science more on theory and pure research.
Generally, science is the reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at discovering enduring relationships (principles) among elements of the (phenomenal) world. It generally employs formal techniques, i.e., some set of established rules of procedure, such as the scientific method. Engineering is the formal use of both scientific and technological principles to achieve a planned result based upon empirical (professional) experience. However, technology broadly involves the use and application of all forms of knowledge (i.e., scientific, engineering, mathematical, language, and historical), both formally and informally, to achieve some practical result (Roussel, et al. 1991).
The second sentence I suggest above is probably flawed, but I hope it's in the right direction. Maurreen 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Made changes in the article, please tell me what you think. Thanks, SteveMc 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's good, it's a little streamlined.
I added back in "For example, science might study the flow of electrons in electrical conductors. This knowledge may then be used by engineers to create tools or devices, such as semiconductors, computers, and other forms of advanced technology."
Hope that's OK, I like the concrete example, but you can take it out if you disagree. Sorry if I wasn't clear above. Maurreen 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I should add in the Usage bit for Science, engineering and technology. It really does help people distinguish them. Could someone improve my examples and Usage definitions, thoughTosayit 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Combined, these terms take on a meaning different that thier sums. This macro explination should be done in Science and technology. -- MCG 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the opening paragraph, it sets out the distinctions/overlaps well but the only problem is that the citation is not made explicit, i.e. Rousell et al, wrote what? 134.226.1.229 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review?

What does the article need to make it ready for Wikipedia:peer review? Please add comments here and in the to-do list at the top of this page. Thanks, SteveMc 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gone over the whole article; I have a short attention span. But maybe I could put a little in the current stub sections and then we could submit it for GA. Thanks for all your work on this. Maurreen 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Technology

I am requesting feedback (from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback) for the technology article, which has undergone a very slow metamorphosis since its origination in Wikipedia. It would be hard to categorize this article as new, since it was conceived in 2002, but, only now is it emerging from its B-classification. Therefore, the editors of the technology page could use your help moving the article to A-class.

Here are the questions?

  1. Is the article broad enough?
  2. Is the article too broad?
  3. Does the article flow? is it engaging? clear?
  4. How is the lead section?
  5. Are there enough images? too many?
  6. Is the article too long?
  7. Is the article informative?

Please make the feedback at Talk:Technology/Request for feedback or by hitting the Edit link to the right of Technology, above.

Thanks, SteveMc 22:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try and have a proper look at it next week, but from a quick scan through I can immediately see that it has far too many links. Many terms are linked repeatedly and many common terms are linked that don't need to be. The "See also" section repeats links from the article. There is also a lack of references and a mixing of citation styles.
Lead section: The introduction overuses "technology" (that's going to be hard to avoid) and is repetitive. I gave it a very quick copyedit to try and remove some overuse of words, but it needs reviewing. (I also removed the see also link - you don't really want to encourage the reader to go elsewhere in the first sentence). The last sentence seems to be re-covering the sentence before in less detail but with examples: I'd consider merging those two. Overall the lead reads like a definition, but with such a general subject that's probably not inappropriate.
Hope this helps (obviously you only see the bad things when you are having a quick look) - Yomanganitalk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yomangani,
  • I went through the article and delinked repeated and common terms. I am not a great judge of context, so many more could be delinked. Plus, is it possible that this article is so broad, that it may have a lot more links than other articles?
  • I think I got the citation style fixed.
  • I worked on the introduction.
More to come. Thanks, SteveMc 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I delinked some more in the first few sections (I think good rules are not to repeat links - if the reader is interested they will have probably clicked it the first time, and not to relink the titles of the main articles). It probably will have more links than most articles because it is an overview of the individual subjects. Yomanganitalk 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I got the repeated links out of "See also" and I fixed a couple more references. SteveMc 02:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Re:lack of references. I am not sure what to do about this feedback. First, I am not sure that I agree. Second, if I did agree, I am not sure how to fix it. In either case, how to fix this is really a pragmatic issue, in my opinion, an unpractical one. In other words, much of the information contained in this article is a matter of generally "common" knowledge, especially to someone who "lives and breaths" matters of a technical nature. But, it is not original research, but is expert knowledge, allowed under Wikipedia:No original research policy, therefore finding sources for these statements could be problematic. Not that I am against citing sources, in fact, I am willing to work to do this, but I am very unsure how to draw the line between what needs citations and what does not, for this article. SteveMc 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You could be right (as I said, I only had a quick scan through). A lot of this could be covered by the "apple pie" get-out clause of WP:OR. I'll have better look this week and see if I can see anything that needs citing that isn't already. I probably had a knee-jerk reaction to the number of links and lack of references brought on by reviewing articles on narrower subjects, so looking at this will be handy for my reviewing technique too. Yomanganitalk 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs is a good editing/rewrite. I've tackled the lead section -- I hope you like it. The history section just isn't complete without an explanation of the technological stages (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Age, Space Age, Information Age, etc.) and technological levels (hunting/gathering, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, etc.) the previous edits were completed by User:Nexus Seven 14:25, 16 August 2006

Looks good to me. I will have trouble adding text on all of those ages since I have little knowledge in those areas. In some ways, the stages are there, but not specifically. The Industrial Revolution is there, but not as a separate section. Adding those stages is going to make the article very long, are they really needed? Is there anything else that could be done instead? SteveMc 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above - I feel that using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow, and allow you to talk about the developments made and the social impact of them, which more accurately deals with what technology means. LinaMishima 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick/long note about the "ages" approach. I have aluded to this previously but will point it out again as I believe it bears reiterating. The problem with the 'ages' listed above is that technicaly the Stone Age finishes about 10,000 yrs BC and everything before this time is classified as Stone Age however more recent examinations of a continously growing body of evidence would indicate a progression that goes back a good deal further and one that is much more gradual yet constantly accelerating(e.g we now know we had weaving before?? Agriculture). While I do agree in some respects with the comment that "using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow", I think it is also true that this approach is basicaly limiting(see other Encyclopeadias e.g. Encarta). I do think the 'ages' should be mentioned but only as a sub-section of the outline indicated earlier by Maureen. While that outline will produce a very long article I think in this case it is justified - after all we have been practising the subject for at least half a million years!(that we are sure of so far).
I would also add that Bushcraft should be added immediatly after Fire, as many of the skills that precede Agriculture fall into this category. As to what is important, that's easy - PLUMBING and various other domestic appliances - trust me on this, go primitive camping for more than a few days and it's not the computer or TV that is missed but hot showers, flush toilets(and toilet paper:-), warm-dry clothing-beds-and-houses, stoves, kettles, and supermarkets(logistics). These are still the fundamental problems of technology, the rest is mostly just cool stuff to keep us amused. Rossfi 13:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GAC

Unfortunatley, this artcile is not a GA, due to the fact that there are very few references, and none are mentioned in the body of the text.Some P. Erson 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Platinum Television Group

Our client would like to exchange links with similar sites. They provide TV advertising, so anybody in advertising or marketing or TV related would work. The Site is: Platinum Television Group


Technology as a practice

The notion of technology as a practice and a system of connections (between users, tools, organizations, and their environments) seems to have a fairly solid following. I believe it deserves mention in this article (either within the opening paragraph, within the "nature of technology" or as its own headline).

“I think what we are all discussing are political issues. They are political in the best sense of the word, in the original Greek sense of the word, in that they affect the community, the very citizens who have to work and live together. When all the technology is disposed of, when we have understood or put aside all the details, what is left are the issues of how people live together. These political issues have existed ever since people have lived together and were articulate about their relationships.

To me, it is important to understand that technology is practice, it is the way we do things around here. This definition takes machines and devices into account, as well as social structures, command, control, and infrastructures. It is helpful for me to remember that technology is practice. Technology, as a practice, means not only that new tools change, but also that we can change the practice. If we have the political will to do so, we can set certain tools aside, just as the world has set slavery and other tools aside. It is also the nature of modern technology that it is a system. One cannot change one thing without changing or affecting many others.”

Ursula Franklin, The Real World of Technology. 1989 Massey Lectures[7]

and also:

-- MCG 05 Sept 06

Version 0.5 again

Sadly, I cannot pass the article in its current form. Besides the lack of references and inline citations, there are several sections that are simply too stubby to be useful, bare external links on the prose, among other things. I would follow the suggestions given on the peer review above. Titoxd(?!?) 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Regarding the opening paragraph, it sets out the distinctions/overlaps well but the only problem is that the citation is not made explicit, i.e. Rousell et al, wrote what? 134.226.1.229 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Degrading article

This article is getting worse not better. I have spent too much time to see it go that way, so I am resigning from it. Adios and good luck. SteveMc 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame Steve, you and Maureen seemed to be heading in the right direction . . .

Though some of the more recent entries have pushed the focus all over the place and the grammar is deteriorating too. I think we all need to remember (me included) that this is supposed to be an article not a full blown essay or book. Sadly I'm short on time so can't add too much by way of effort but I am thinking that a review of previous efforts and a possible reversion may be in order, is this possible? I don't believe that personalities should be included in the article nor that it should detail any particular technology, so Bernard should go . . . Rossfi 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technology/Archive_2&oldid=1136229737"