Talk:Information technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Networking / Software / Hardware / Security (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.


Computer security[edit]

Should we show mobile security under Information security?

Degree programs[edit]

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.

Semiprotection[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

(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[edit]

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[edit]

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)