Talk:2000s in science and technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of Science (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Discussion[edit]

What does this bit mean? "Google and Yahoo search engines increases trafficability of the internet"

Eh? —greenrd 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Animated .gif files VS Adobe/Macromedia Flash[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning how the Adobe flash format replaced gifs (that were used through out the 90’s) as the most common Internet advertisement format. Also maybe mention the dramatic rise of malicious software.

Social Networking Sites[edit]

Shouldn't we include things like myspace and facebook because it has so far had decent amount of impact on society to be included in this article. -Pro66 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


^^^ I agree, social networking sites boomed this decade and related phrases are used in common dialect in the western world.

Merger proposal[edit]

I suggest merging Technology of the 2000s into this page, as they seem to be about the same thing. When I searched for a page on Technology of the 2000s I found that, but meant to find this. And this page seems to be consistent with the set up of "technology in the..." for other decades, such as 1990s in technology & science and 1970s in technology. Hm, okay, admittedly the uniformity I was hoping for seems to be lacking... but that can be fixed. - A.J. (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MERGE: I support a merger, but the sections provided for video games and television should be integrated into the their subject pages, (e.g. 2000s in video gaming, 2000s in television, etc...) The page would need to be cleaned(Tigerghost (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

MERGE: Agree per Above. Pro66 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge but change: I do not agree with you that this should be merged with that article. I believe that the things related to technology. Like the TV and all that should be merged to the article you propose. But anything related to science should be given it's own article as it is only indirectly connected to the technology of the 2000s. What I am saying is yes, merge anything related to Technology to the article you propose but anything related to science be given it's own article...like Advances in Science of the 2000s or something. Whatever you guys choose. Rgoodermote  17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MERGE: I support the merging of Technology of the 2000s into this article. It is redundant to have two articles that discuss essentially the same thing albeit a few exceptions. It would not only be more logical, but also easier to navigate with only one article. Award888 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MERGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domcabcd (talkcontribs) 13:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done the merge and redirect. Mdwh (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

A lot of recent things are missing from this article. Specifically the finding of certain missing links and a very large atom smasher in Sweden. I also remember that in the recent months there have been a lot of recent findings in space and about our planet. I'm no science guy so I don't follow these things closely..so just do what you guys feel. Just suggesting here.Rgoodermote  17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

–Sweden? Don't you mean Switzerland? And more accuratly Geneva? (This is where CERN and the LHC are located). :) 83.136.195.130 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sexting".[edit]

I do not believe Wikipedia should take a stance on this issue. We do not exist to tell people what manner of sexual behaviour is appropriate, nor do we have any authority to tell people when they should engage in such pursuits. Hence I have removed a negative inference wherein "sexting" was cited as a negative social implication. Please answer here before reverting (and allow me to answer that), if you deem that necessary. Also note that the same edit contained some copy-editing, and should not be undone wholesale, should such an action be deemed necessary.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The behaviour that was being referred to, at least, given enough nudity, is illegal almost everywhere under child pornography statutes, I believe. Even in jurisdictions where proposals have been made to treat sexting by minors as a lesser offense (and I don't understand how this is supposed to interface with child porn laws), it is still supposed to be treated as a criminal offence. I don't see anyone except you, and possibly the perpetrators of these crimes and their relatives, arguing that they should be allowed.--greenrd (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I take back what I just wrote. From reading sexting, I've learned that a New York politician has proposed allowing it for minors under certain circumstances, so you are right - it is a disputed area. I was not aware of this.--greenrd (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Better sources needed[edit]

This page should not depend on a rather small group of Wikipedia authors that decide what technologies that are worth mentioning here and which are not, based on our private preferences and rather narrow interests. We should be more systematic. The starting point is to find good sources and good criteria. Are there any scientific prize to look at? Some journal or book that on a regular basis identifies the most important advanced that were made within quite wide areas. Some trend analysis and prognoses company identifying the most topical buzzwords in science and technology papers? Some lists of scientific papers with highest citation indices? Some futurology researcher that systematically makes prognoses for the future? Etc. Any concrete suggestions? Mange01 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)