Talk:Information technology

Computer security

Should we show Computer security under Information security?

Degree programs

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

{{main}} case

This issue is indeed taken care of, rightly or wrongly. Cheers to My76Strat, who is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved: See RFC below. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding these edits uncapitalising the first letter of the referenced article:

• The target article titles all start with a capital letter, per normal Wikipedia conventions.
• There's nothing at {{main}} to suggest that we should not use the capitalisation of the target article - all of the examples are capitalised
• Numerous other articles use capitalisation (eg, Australia, USA, etc) when they use {{main}}

Would you please explain why you reverted my edit, and point me to the appropriate MOS guideline or policy? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I will point you instead to any basic English grammar book: what follows a colon is not capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What follows the colon in this case is a proper noun - it is the title of a Wikipedia article, and thus should be capitalised to match that article, just as we maintain capitalisation of the titles of references, bibliography entries, "Further reading" entries, "See also" entries. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. In the cases you mention the article title is capitalised because it appears first in the entry; another basic rule of English grammar is that the first letter of the first word is capitalised in such cases. But in the case of {{main}} the article title appears after a colon. Think of it this way. If there was any merit in your suggestion that article titles are proper nouns then the whole title would be capitalised, not just the first letter of the first word.For example the title of this article would be "Information Technology", not "Information technology". Now, can we get back to focusing on something that really matters, like expanding this article to better describe the field of IT? Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The article title is whatever WP:TITLEFORMAT dictates. And the article title - being the name of an specific article - is a proper noun, and thus should be replicated without modification. I've raised an RFC, because we don't seem to be getting anywhere resolving this ourselves. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No. If the article title was a proper noun then it would appear capitalised in the body of the article, which in the case of "data storage" for instance it does not. Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of context. The article title in {{main}} refers explicitly to the article about the subject (not the subject itself). The words in the body of the article refer to the subject itself. The former is a proper noun (name of an article); the latter is a common noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, quite mistaken. By your logic, every wikilink in an article should be capitalised exactly as the article title to which it refers is capitalised, which is absurd. And to repeat the point again, if "data storage" really was a proper then it would be capitalised "Data Storage", not "Data storage". Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The visible text for a wikilink in the body text - where a term is used as part of the narrative - follows the normal capitalisation rules (non-caps for common noun) because it is intended to be read as part of that body text. The link is a convenience but does not mean we break the normal English rules in the visible body text / narrative. That's why wikilinks are case-insensitive for the first character, and that's why we have pipes. However the "Main article: ..." text is not part of the narrative (that's why it is formatted differently, so the reader can see it is not part of the narrative) - it is an "abbreviation" for "The article titled 'Main article' is the main article for this topic". In this context it is a proper noun. As to whether it should be "Main Article" - take that up on the talk page for WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'm not going to argue here about what the article title should be, merely about whether we should reproduce it unchanged in {{main}}.

I suggest that we should both wait for some other editors to provide input, since we do not appear to be getting anywhere ourselves. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to take up at WP:TITLEFORMAT, as article titles are not proper nouns, and hence are formatted correctly as they are. My point is that if they were proper nouns, as you contend they are, then the capitalisation would be incorrect. But they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Should article titles included in the {{main}} template - ie appearing as Main article: <article name>, explicitly referring the reader to another Wikipedia article - have the same case as the article title, typically with the first letter capitalised, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Mitch Ames asserts that they should (eg Main article: Data storage device), but Malleus Fatuorum disagrees, saying that it should generally start with a lower case letter (eg Main article: data storage device). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a disagreement about style, and the style should be common to all articles, I've also raised the matter on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is it laid down that style should be common to all articles? Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. One of the reasons we use templates is to provide a consistent look. (Template_Talk:Main#What's the_point?) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read that again, particularly the final sentence. Have you not noticed, for instance, that date formats are very far from consistent across all articles? Or units of measurement? The only requirement is that articles be internally consistent, not with every one of the 4 million odd other articles on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is "especially important [to be consistent] within an article" but that is not the only requirement. Obviously the style is not perfectly consistent across the entire encyclopaedia, but we should generally strive for consistency across articles where we reasonably can. This is one such case. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But you seem to have adopted an erroneous position that all the other articles you've seen have adopted a "correct" style, one that's contrary to the rules of English grammar. I would argue that they ought to be made consistent with this one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've raised the RFC - to determine what the correct position is, so that we can all do the "right" thing. Regardless of the outcome, I intend to suggest that the template documentation be clarified - to match the consensus - so that editors in future are more likely to be consistent and we don't have these sorts of arguments. If the consensus is that you are correct and I am wrong, then I shall certainly change my ways in future. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am already doing the right thing, and I have absolutely no intention of changing anything regardless of the outcome of this RFC. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. As a reference to a titled item, rather than a direct reference to any concept that may be represented by that title, it should, in my opinion, retain the capitalization of that title, as should references to sections of Wikpedia articles.--Boson (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment This looks like a matter for WP:MOS. Shouldn't this RfC be labelled {{rfc|style}} and perhaps be discussed/advertised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles?--Boson (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with article titles per se, it's to do with how article articles should be supplied to the {{main}} template. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but since that determines how the text is rendered, it is a matter for WP:MOS, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles deals precisely with things like formatting and capitalization of titles - not just Wikipedia article titles but also titles of other compositions, such as books titles, chapter titles, etc. I would say this is analogous to the treatment of chapter titles. If it were just about how the title was supplied to the template, it would be fairly irrelevant, and we could achieve consistency by having the template automatically capitalize the first word. Perhaps that would be the best solution, until such time as Wikipedia allows the first letter of the actual article name to be lowercase. --Boson (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But it is just about how the article title is supplied to the {{main}} template, nothing else. The reason the template can't decide on capitalisation for itself is that it has no way of knowing whether or not the target article title is a proper noun (like Malkin Tower) or not (like data storage). Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case it is not just about how it is supplied to the template but also about how it appears in the text, and is therefore a matter of house style like any other part of the text. --Boson (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, I give up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know we think alike on some things! --Boson (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously? An Rfc about this? This is heading toward WP:LAME territory. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Personally I prefer to capitalise the first letter in these situations, as (i) I see the article name as a proper noun, and (ii) it matches the article title. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all the article name isn't generally a proper noun, and certainly isn't in the example given, data storage. Secondly, in the body of the targeted article itself the capitalisation will generally not match the capitalisation of the title unless it's a proper noun, such as Malkin Tower for instance. And thirdly the normal rules of English grammar dictate that the first letter of whatever follows a colon is not capitalised unless it's a proper noun. So what have personal preferences got to do with the price of fish? Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is a proper noun, even if the subject of the article is not. Where an article is linked within text it is being done in a different way, the link is not specifically to an article but rather to a definition/further information about the topic linked. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why isn't it capitalised as a proper noun should be, i.e. "Data Storage" rather than "data storage"? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a reference to a title or label, like a section or chapter heading. --Boson (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: consistency is good. Personally I capitalize the titles unless the respective articles use {{lowercase title}} to avoid automatic capitalization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But the article is consistent. I have provided logical reasons why the article title should generally not be capitalised, whereas all I've seen so far from others is muddled thinking ("article titles are proper nouns") and personal preferences, neither of which are persuasive. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• comment: Completely and utterly irrelevant. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to stall efforts to improve a start level article over this kind of idiotic nitpicking deserves a bloody good trouting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is a reference to a title or a name, and as such the natural capitalisation would rarely give rise to exceptions. It not only is logical to retain the correspondingly appropriate capitalisation that appears at the head of the article/section, but it is jarring and confusing to the reader to drop it. What is more, the more you interfere, the higher the incidence of actual material errors, both automatic and manual (eg Main article: phallus impudicus), which is far worse than "Main article: Data storage device" would be if it were regarded as an error rather than an arbitrary matter of taste. And of course, the more the interference, the higher the penalty in man-hours fixing the fixes of the fixes. Czarkoff has something like my attitude. MF's judgement of fatuosity is arbitrary to put it politely; not only proper nouns deserve proper and constructive capitalisation. If the reference is to a title, the capitalisation used in the title is appropriate; for instance, "Main article: Dirk scabbard" if the article deals with certain antique weapon sheaths, but the article on the famous actor would require: "Main article: Dirk Scabbard" (and make of "Main article: pH" what you will, but definitely not ph). Manus is welcome to his trout; I agree with the "idiotic nitpicking" judgement, but not that it is irrelevant; capitalisation in spelling is relevant, and spelling in turn is relevant to WP and readers, more relevant than arbitrary taste or format. Granted that some cases, whether sustainable or not, are nitpicking, most of the cases where there is a difference of opinion over a nit, would simply go away if folks stopped fussing and got on with the job. KISS is a good principle, and changing capitalisation is not as simple as accepting the title as it comes. JonRichfield (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just an observation that it might be good to chill if you're getting stressed by this conversation. Also, I do understand those who think this discussion itself is trivial (but so very much that gets argued back and forth on AfD, RfA and other fora around the project exists solely in the realm of trivia), though I disagree with any sentiment that the RfC is misplaced or unwarranted. This is exactly the behavior we try to promote within the project... when there is a difference of opinion, it's to be discussed, and consensus sought. I think what is unwarranted is to start parsing which disputes are worthy of an RfC and which are not. If you're not interested in the topic, or have no constructive comment, just move along without comment. The policies do not limit the types of disputes that are to be discussed, and it certainly doesn't say that we need to check in with anyone to ensure it meets their worthiness criteria in order to have the conversation. Silence on topics or discussions which you think aren't worth the effort might be a better approach than ridiculing those who are trying to do as is recommended by the policies of the project. I truly have great respect for some of the editors who've commented that this isn't worth it... and they may very well be right, but I see no need to call this "idiotic" or potentially "lame". If it's not your discussion, and you have no constructive opinion related to the topic under discussion (vis-a-vis the discussion itself), I don't understand the purpose of your comments. The arbiters of what needs to be discussed are those who are having the differing opinions and no one else. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think the MoS is pretty clear on initial capitalization of an article name and its use as a reference point from within another article should, I believe, follow suit. The argument that we use inconsistent metrics for distance, temperature or date formats doesn't seem to apply here. Those inconsistencies exist because there is not uniform use of miles, kilometers, Celsius, Fahrenheit or a common date format globally and the articles are written by people using different points of reference. It's also why we have conversion templates to enable the one data point (e.g. 100 degrees Celsius) to be automatically converted to those who think in Fahrenheit. I also find the argument about "proper English grammar" to be insufficient, because the purpose of a style guide is to tell you exactly how the style is to be presented within the project, so we don't have to argue over whether the grammar is proper or not. It is the style guide that rules, not the rules of language. Lastly, I believe that the notion that the article must only be internally consistent and not consistent with the other articles on the project is just outright incorrect. While the MoS states that consistency is "particularly important within an article", the entire purpose of the MoS is, "to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use.", which clearly applies to all entries. The article titles are initially capitalized (except in rare cases, see WP:MOS for all the exceptions) and therefore the reference to them should be as well. I apologize if mine appears to be "muddled thinking". I don't feel the need to "persuade", merely present the evidence that supports capitalization for the article title exactly the way the title would appear at the top of the page once I click the link. That would represent "consistency". I appreciate the conversation and attempt to reach consensus. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have advertised this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization discussion.--Boson (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 141,496 articles use Template:Main. Ten of them chosen at random, excluding links to articles that start with a proper noun, capitalize the first letter anyway because it's the name of the article. In the unlikely event that this RFC should decide that isn't a good enough reason to capitalize, then that logic applies 141,496 times, and should be done with AWB, not manually. Art LaPella (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It strikes me as strange that in a community so strong in formal language principles, there should be any doubt about the nature or identification of which entity should be a candidate for capitalisation. Some of us have incorrectly, though understandably, referred to a title as a proper noun, which is only correct when the title happens to be a proper noun, as in an article on say, Diptera, but that is beside the point because the same principle applies to both proper nouns and to titles. If I refer to the movie: Predator, Predator is more of a title than a proper noun, but it is proper to capitalise it as a title. If I refer to the movie: The Great Caruso, the entity referred to is not "The" or "Great" or "Caruso", but capitalisation of "The Great Caruso" as a title is independent of context. If OTOH <ahem> I were to be saying in text something like: "That man has the finest tenor voice since the great Caruso." (Incidentally note the (correctly in context) capitalised "That", which is neither title nor proper noun!) then the reason for writing "the great" in lower case is that there is no title nor quote in question, nor any other entity that entails capitalisation for initial words or proper nouns. Take it further if you like: A Study in Scarlet was the conventionally capitalised title of a novel, and it included both the capitalised "A" and lower case "in", whereas I might validly write, either within WP or without, "The novel: A Study in Scarlet, was written by Doyle, and was so titled because it referred to a study in scarlet, specifically a message written in blood." Title capitalised, no capitalisation for the identical phrase. Amazing! Is the obviosity now hammered home sufficiently firmly to satisfy anyone who otherwise might persist in further fatuosities? JonRichfield (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of us have incorrectly ... referred to a title as a proper noun — possibly because we read the Wikipedia article "Proper noun", which says "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity ...", like the specific/unique Wikipedia article that "Main article: ..." refers the reader to. (One might argue that the article title is a proper name rather than a proper noun, but I don't believe the distinction matters to this RFC.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are of course correct and no comfortably literate person would have considered wasting everyone's time on the point; the pedantic opportunity no doubt happened to be too rare an opportunity for hammering on foolish distinctions, for certain of our less intellectually favoured correspondents to neglect. JonRichfield (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Whether it's a proper noun or not strikes me as irrelevant to whether it should be capitalised. It is not intended to be a full sentence, it is not part of the prose, it is nothing more than a label and essentially part of the user interface of Wikipedia. Consistency between articles therefore takes priority, and it should be capitalised. All examples in the "main" template documentation capitalise the first letter. Another example of where this occurs is the category links at the base of the article. Does anyone else think their time on Wikipedia might be better spent on other matters? Halsteadk (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Some people however, are a bit weak on concepts such as "label" and have more time on their hands than others. JonRichfield (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By my count we now have (excluding the initial disagreeing parties, Mitch Ames and Malleus Fatuorum):

• Seven editors (Boson, Rangoon11, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, JonRichfield, Vertium, Halsteadk) agreeing that the article titles should be capitalised (to match the target article)
• Three (Mark Arsten, Maunus, Art LaPella) who commented but did not explicitly support or oppose capitalisation.
• None that I can see that think the title should not be capitalised.

So, Malleus Fatuorum, do you continue to object to my capitalising the article titles? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd made it plain that I have no further interest in this article, so you may do with it as you wish. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have recapitalised the article titles. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the use of template {{Main}}, at the beginning of a section and/or the inclusion of a specific article in the "See also" section should present the title in accordance with WP:TITLEFORMAT; it would not be improper to pipe the main title without listing the disambiguation terms that might otherwise be part of the title. This does not imply that every occurrence within the body must also be capitalized. That would depend entirely on grammar and context; as always. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Had I read the comment by JonRichfield more completely, I'd have noticed this RFC has been answered, well. I'll consider myself late to the party. Cheers to all. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this a Start-class article?

This seems like it should be at least a Good Article; why has it never been improved beyond its current state? I am staggered to see that on such a weak article there was a huge and recent argument about capitalisation. Are these two things connected? --John (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

People who cant like to argue. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder. Wouldn't it be better to make the article a bit better, than to argue about capitalisation? Supposing the answer to that was "yes", what would the first steps be? --John (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I cant answer that, this article is outside my area, but Id suggest as a start giving MF wide bearth. Encoragment rather than ankle biting. The discussion above is a disgrace and evidence if ever it was need, why we cant have nice things. But its the way wiki is going, guess we might have to live with it. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems to me, it may be a crap article but at least it has capital letters on its main templates. --John (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It was even crappier before I decided on a structure around which to develop it. But it'll be interesting to see how those capitalisation warriors decide to take the article forward. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"What would the first steps be?" Perhaps you mean the conduct and civility issues, but I will I assume you mean: "How should we proceed in improving the content?".

First, I presume the idea is to turn this into a high quality high-level article (written mainly in summary style) that encompasses all aspects of IT, including hardware, software, networks, applications, technical, commercial, and social issues, etc.

It might help to discuss the scope and structure of the article first. I assume those who have been adding bits have something in mind; sharing that might help the collaborative effort.

A few thoughts:

• Scope and terminology:
  • Should we discuss the use of the term in common parlance, as opposed to use by engineers etc., or at least direct people looking for that sort of coverage in the right direction?
  • better differentiation from ICT and from other "disciplines" (computer science, hardware engineering, software engineering, etc.)
  • networks
• Applications
  • Should we mention major types of IT application (commercial, defence, medical, etc.) - and possibly link to sub-articles?
• Ethics and public issues:
  • Should we include issues of professional responsibility, such as those raised in connection with critical systems like strategic defence systems, nuclear power control systems etc.? (The article on David Parnas couls also do with some TLC.)
  • Public policy, IT regulation, education, privacy, etc.
• Commercial aspects etc.:
  • IT as an industry, trends, etc.
• Physics and engineering issues, e.g.
  • application of information theory, semiconductor materials, quantum limits, quantum computing etc.

--Boson (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Let's get to work. --John (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• The scope is too big. Can't it be parsed out? (Divided up?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I had understood this to be the top-level article that would do that dividing up by referring to sub-articles, etc., but I have no objection to limiting the scope. --Boson (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    It's not a question of "limiting" the scope but of properly defining it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Ihardlythinkso; the proposed scope is infeasibly vast. I altered the lead to define the scope of IT as "a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data", and that's the structure I began to organise the article around. Does anyone disagree with that definition of IT, and would like to propose an alternative? Because that's the place to start. Quantum computing, for instance, would be relevant only insofar as it impacts on one or more of those facets, not as a separate topic. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I had not intended to propose any scope; I was merely asking questions about what the proposed scope should be, since, presumably the article will be much more comprehensive if it is not to remain start class. The definition by the Information Technology Association of America ("the study, design, development, application, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems") appears to me to be much more comprehensive than "a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data" (but more restrictive in some respects). I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. Neither definition appears to me to say much about what aspects of those fields are covered (physical, commercial, educational, philosophical, etc.). Other articles on various fields of engineering seem to cover slightly different aspects of their respective fields. For some reason, education and careers seem to be quite prominent; some articles list subfields and applications; some seem to distinguish between engineering and technology. I'm not sure how a reader would know what to expect from this article, as opposed to the article Information and communication technologies. The present content of the section "Social and ethical perspectives" has to do with information but, in my opinion, has little to do with engineering. Other ethical aspects, such as the professional duty of a software engineer designing systems that store, process, and transmit information on incoming missiles possibly using damaged or compromised computing or communications systems might fit the engineering profile better but have less to do with pure information systems.--Boson (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    You display a strange blind spot. There are social and ethical considerations with any system that stores data, and data storage is very clearly one of the central aspects of IT. As for the ICT article, in any rational world that would either be deleted and redirected to this one, or it would be rewritten as what it is: a pretty useless course the government insists should be offered by secondary schools. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    I tend to agree on the ICT article, though one could argue that ICT would be the better title for this article, since it makes it clear that communications are included. I'm not sure why you think I have a blind spot (except that it seems to be your style to make gratuitous assessments of your fellow editors' cognitive and perceptive abilities). I agree that there are ethical consideration with any system that stores data; however you seemed to me to want to define the scope of the article in such a way as to limit it to engineering, and I didn't really see the special relevance of, say, copyright, in that context. The aspects I mentioned have been discussed in connection with the ethical decisions of engineers. Of course, one can extend the ethics to all ethical aspects of the engineered product, but one could - if one wanted - also discuss drunk driving under automotive engineering. In other words, I think here the article is applying the definition in the second sentence. That is OK by me, but that definitions is not far from "anything to do with information systems" (including application, implementation, and management). Anyway, on the basis of the discussion so far, I would suggest that the article should not cover education and careers, the physics and theoretical basis of information technology, software development and software engineering, but should continue to discuss ethical aspects of information systems with no direct relevance to engineering as such (as it might be understood by the IEEE, for instance). Are you in favour of retaining and accepting the definition used in the second sentence of the lede?--Boson (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    "I'm not sure why you think I have a blind spot (except that it seems to be your style to make gratuitous assessments of your fellow editors' cognitive and perceptive abilities)." OK, that's it, no more from me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    User:Boson, do you realize you're guilty of making a personal attack? And Malleus never did? And then criticize how he treats his fellow editors?! Duh. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    I was not attempting to attack Malleus, but I perceived his comment about my having a blind spot as attempting to explain a potential difference of opinion in terms of my having a problem of perception or understanding. Given that he previously, on this page, suggested that another editor he disagreed with "refresh [his] understanding of data structures, assuming [he] ever had one to begin with" and "consider the wisdom of at least trying to extract [his] head from [his] arse", I don't think it was unreasonable of me to see this as potentially part of a pattern and intimate - in very mild terms, I thought, given the robust tone previously used by Malleus - that I was not prepared to accept similar treatment. That does not, of course, excuse a personal attack on my part, and I am not aware of having made one, but if Malleus thinks that it was a personal attack, I apologize for any offence caused. --Boson (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    You're admitting you interpreted Malleus's blind spot thing based on a prejudiced/colored lense. That's right. If you took the coating off your lense you'd see there was/is nothing personal in Malleus's blind spot thing. You got defensive where there was/is no offense. "If Malleus thinks it was a personal attack ..." That's conditionalizing your apology, which defeats said apology. There's capacity for a great discussion here, if you don't blow it. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

    "I perceived his comments". <facepalm> Still, why let one person stop any potential work. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I disagree with the sole definition ""a branch of engineering dealing with the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data""; I would take the definition by the Information Technology Association of America used in the second sentence. See below.--Boson (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This article really has improved nicely in the last month (not), now all the {{main}} hatnotes have been "fixed". But does anyone intend to do some serious work on it? Or indeed any work at all? Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I had thought of doing some serious work on it, but currently my available time comes in small packages, so for the next few weeks I may limit myself mainly to minor changes, correcting errors, and the like.

My other problem is that much of what I might add is probably concerned with things that you might feel do not belong in this article. Before I put any great effort into the article, I would like to see a consensus that the scope of the article is not just "a branch of engineering and does not just deal with the use of equipment. Remember, the term was allegedly coined in an article in the Harvard Business Review, not a journal from the ACM or the IEEE. It would, perhaps, help if the order of the first two sentences of the lead were reversed but, since "IT" is used in different senses, I think the definition of the topic needs its own section (briefly summarized in one sentence in the lead). In my view, the lead is supposed to be a brief summary; so I think it is too detailled and could be reduced to " Information technology (IT) is a branch of knowledge concerned with the development, management, and use of computer-based information systems." (with the details in a separate section). To make a start I have added such a section. I will happily volunteer to rewrite the lead as well but will wait a while for more feedback. --Boson (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What an embarrassing page. The authors clearly have so little knowledge on this subject that you might as well assume they're amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.193.85 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting to see any progress since the Great Capitalisation War was concluded. How do you explain the stasis here? Ignorance? Malevolence? Malleus Fatuorum 12:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted sentence in "Academic perspective" section

The following sentence was removed with a query on what "contrast" meant here: " this is in contrast to CS, SE, CE and IS undergraduate degree programs. " The aim here was to be explicit and list the other undergraduate degree programs that are distinguished from IT courses in most universities (as discussed in the citation given)- I think that it is useful to clarify this as it may not be obvious to a reader from a different discipline. "contrast to" could be replaced by "distinguished from".

74.73.169.211 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we're writing on career guidance I don't see the relevance of this. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Synergee (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)