Talk:Technology: Difference between revisions
→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 |
|||
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) |
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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Your suspected WP:OR claims proved wrong starting with the definitions of technology and productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I will make a request to the Wiki Project Technology regarding these Articles.Phmoreno (talk) 19:47, 1 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". --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.Phmoreno (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Systems articles
- Top-importance Systems articles
- Systems articles in systems
- WikiProject Systems articles
- B-Class history of science articles
- Top-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- B-Class history articles
- Top-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles