Talk:Zettabyte Era

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qm13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dubious propositions fixed

In both the Internet service providers in the Zettabyte Era and YouTube sections of the page, I have made the necessary changes pointed out by a user who had found dubious propositions in these sections. --Qm13 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I am a a student editor currently studying at York University. I posted this article as a class assignment. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for changes or improvements to my article. Qm13 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal Essay Claim

Sorry it reads like a class assignment, which in wikipedia is described as a "personal essay". As far as I can see the term comes from Cisco and has a strict numerical definition. It is not "broad concept" concept at all. Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As noted on the history page, this article has already undergone a community review, and the DYK process. At no point did the consensus reflect this position. At no point was a violation of WP:Neutral suggested. It is also not being suggested here, which is the common criticism for article being too much like class assignments. If you can argue that the article reads as argumentative then we can have that discussion. Please do not provide flags without justifications grounded in policy. Just stating that this reads like a student paper without justification suggests a violation of WP:AGF.

It reads like a student paper because it doesn't use references properly and it is attempting to create this vague exciting thing when zettabyte era means exactly that we have crossed a threshold where the world has a zetabyte of data, nothing more poetic than that. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The "broad concept" descriptor refers to the various definitions that exist, as the zettabyte measure can refer to data on the move and data at rest, a dichotomy common to current discussions of big data. If you are uncomfortable with the broad definition terminology, a modification would be fine; however, the previous edits were not accurate as the zettabyte era does indeed refer to a time period where data on the move/at rest is at a particular level. --Jaobar (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Where are these definitions? I haven't found one apart from the technical explanation in a Cisco reference. I actually added that to the article but it was reverted. I'm trying again using wording from this actual article. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed claim about energy consumption

This conversation began on my talk page here. While I appreciate the position of Seattle Jörg, the substance of the argumentation for reverting the original edit does not follow Wikipedia policy. The original edit is taken directly from a peer-reviewed, published source from arguably an expert in the field. The counter provided by Seattle Jörg, while likely well-meaning, is supported only with conjecture or opinion. One should not be able to win an argument on Wikipedia with mere conjecture, when the point in question comes from a reputable external source. A more appropriate counter should also come from external sources. I recommend that Seattle Jörg provide an alternative viewpoint in the text, by also citing research, as opposed to merely deleting text that is unwanted. --Jaobar (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I am sorry, but this is plainly wrong. It can be peer-reviewed as much as it wants, it is still either an error in the number of zeros (such things can happen even during the editing stage, after peer-reviewing), or a problem of formulation (such as comparing daily energy consumption of the internet to yearly household energy consumption -- I did not check the numbers whether that would be plausible). And perhaps the authors were experts in the field of the zettabyte era, but that does not mean that they are either experts in the field of arithmetics or the demographics of the US. No, my counter is not supported only with conjecture or opinion. Please tell me, where do I conjecture or offer an opinion? All I do is multiply a number by 400 and compare to another number, where the second number (the number of American households) is probably not hard to find a citable reference for. Should I do that? Should I find a reference for the number of American households, and should I find a reference for the result of multiplying 25000 by 400? By the way, I earn my money by actually doing research (thus I know that peer-reviewed material is not necessarily the word of god), and I cannot help to find it anything but silly if you call my argument original research.

So: it was not me who originally flagged this sentence as dubious--discuss. I just saw it, was bold and decided that it is not only dubious, further does not bring anything to the article, and deleted it, because I can think of many, many ways how one can better spend some hours to further wikipedia rather than haggle over this sentence. But it seems that others see it differently. So my proposition: even if you do not admit that it is wrong, perhaps we can agree that sometimes less is more, and that the article would be better off without this claim? Seattle Jörg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Jörg, thank you for your note. I have edited the sentence and removed the piece about American households. Is this alright? --Jaobar (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfectly happy with that. I just did a small further stylistic prettification and deleted the dubious--discuss-flag, as this was about the now removed claim. Seattle Jörg (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)