Talk:Technology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:30, 4 June 2015

Technology was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Technology B‑class

	Technology portal 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology B‑class Top‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems B‑class Top‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History of Science B‑class Top‑importance

	History of science portal 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.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History B‑class Top‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives

Request for feedback

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Definition of technology

"Technology is the knowledge and practice of how to produce things."^[1]

Technology: “A knowledge of techniques, methods and designs that work, and in certain ways with certain consequences, even when one cannot explain exactly why.”^[2]

Technology as distinct from science: “It is important to distinguish between science and technology, for science as such can have no place in the present volume. Though the dividing line is sometimes imprecise, it undoubtedly exists. In our context, at least, science is the product of minds seeking to reveal natural laws that govern the universe. Technology, on the other hand, seeks to find practical ways to use scientific discoveries profitably, ways of turning scientific knowledge into utilitarian processes and devices.” ^[3]

It should also be noted that technology before the late 19th century was not based on science. Also, engineering did not arise until the early 19th century.

“Throughout the period and indeed well into the 19th C, theoretical science was in large measure devoted to understanding the achievements of technology.”^[4]

References

^ Bjork, Gordon J. (1999). The Way It Worked and Why It Won’t: Structural Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96532-5.
^ Rosenberg, Nathan (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 143. ISBN 0-521-27367-6.
^ McNeil, Ian (1990). An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology. London: Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 0415147921. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Landes, David. S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge, New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. p. 32. ISBN 0-521-09418-6.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Remove or rewrite history of technology section

There are other, more complete Wikipedia articles on the history of technology, so links here should be sufficient. If a history is needed it should be general overviews of periods. It should also be reverse chronological order. The first thing we see shouldn't be stone tools.Phmoreno (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It should also be reverse chronological order."

Without opining on the rest of your comment, I disagree with this bit. History sections are generally in chronological order. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It's missing one brace here: " -logia[1] is ". It should be " -logia[1]) is " I think. Thanks :) HacDias (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sunrise (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prpopsed merger

I propose merging Productivity improving technologies (historical) with this article. That article actually discusses most of the important fields of technology.Phmoreno (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would massively expand the article, beyond that which we could reasonably expect readers to read in a single sitting, with a highly selective list. Surely the most important technologies are those which sustain life and improve the quality of life, not those which improve productivity? NebY (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology is a massive subject, as you will see if you read a couple encyclopedias of the history of technology or engineering. Most of the material can be summarized with main and details tags to appropriate existing articles. Some existing supporting articles can be improved by moving existing material there. The merger will also involve adding additional technologies, such as medical and imaging or whatever else is thought important.Phmoreno (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Productivity improving technologies (historical) suffers from being presented as an essay type of article, and borderline WP:OR. Most of the content there is already covered better in other articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspected WP:OR claims proved wrong starting with the definitions of technology and productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a request to the Wiki Project Technology regarding these Articles.Phmoreno (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that not a single person agrees with your proposed merger. (You can add me to the list; in my opinion Technology needs to paint the guge topic of technology in the broadest strokes possible, with links to articles such as Productivity improving technologies (historical) so that the size of the article doesn't grow without limits.) I strongly suggest that you follow the advice in my essay at WP:1AM, especially the part where it says "You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really trying to convince anyone to do the merger. I'm looking for ways to improve this article. Look at all the space devoted to the stone age and animals using tools Luddites. At least Productivity improving technologies (historical) discusses modern technology and shows how it affects our everyday lives. What's needed are ideas of how to restructure this article and integrate it with History of technology, which is an alternate merger candidate for Productivity improving technologies (historical). Given the vast size and complexity of the topic, I would particularly like the opinions of people who have broad knowledge and understanding of it, especially people who are willing to actually work on it. Whatever gets decided is going to be a compromise and not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome.Phmoreno (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bjork, Gordon J. (1999). The Way It Worked and Why It Won’t: Structural Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96532-5.

[2] Rosenberg, Nathan (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 143. ISBN 0-521-27367-6.

[”McNeil1990”-3] McNeil, Ian (1990). An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology. London: Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 0415147921. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[4] Landes, David. S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge, New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. p. 32. ISBN 0-521-09418-6.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Revision as of 04:19, 4 June 2015 edit Guy Macon (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 59,284 edits →‎Prpopsed merger: "You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors" --WP:1AM ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:30, 4 June 2015 edit undo Phmoreno (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 12,438 edits →‎Prpopsed merger Next edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:

	:It appears that not a single person agrees with your proposed merger. (You can add me to the list; in my opinion [[Technology]] needs to paint the guge topic of technology in the broadest strokes possible, with links to articles such as [[Productivity improving technologies (historical)]] so that the size of the article doesn't grow without limits.) I strongly suggest that you follow the advice in my essay at [[WP:1AM]], especially the part where it says '''"You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors"'''. --[[User:Guy Macon\|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon\|talk]]) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)		:It appears that not a single person agrees with your proposed merger. (You can add me to the list; in my opinion [[Technology]] needs to paint the guge topic of technology in the broadest strokes possible, with links to articles such as [[Productivity improving technologies (historical)]] so that the size of the article doesn't grow without limits.) I strongly suggest that you follow the advice in my essay at [[WP:1AM]], especially the part where it says '''"You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors"'''. --[[User:Guy Macon\|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon\|talk]]) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

			::I'm not really trying to convince anyone to do the merger. I'm looking for ways to improve this article. Look at all the space devoted to the stone age and animals using tools Luddites. At least [[Productivity improving technologies (historical)]] discusses modern technology and shows how it affects our everyday lives. What's needed are ideas of how to restructure this article and integrate it with [[History of technology]], which is an alternate merger candidate for [[Productivity improving technologies (historical)]]. Given the vast size and complexity of the topic, I would particularly like the opinions of people who have broad knowledge and understanding of it, especially people who are willing to actually work on it. Whatever gets decided is going to be a compromise and not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome.[[User:Phmoreno\|Phmoreno]] ([[User talk:Phmoreno\|talk]]) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)