Talk:Robot

"Citation needed" tags

Rocket asked me if I was the culprit behind the "citation needed" tags; I was. The edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robot&diff=208022475&oldid=208006142. In other cases, I've been able to either improve the article myself or come up with a reason to delete inserted material, but I couldn't go either way in this case. The competition looked legitimate to me, so I didn't have a good reason to remove it, but I couldn't find reliable sources and none were provided. We haven't heard from 75.186.81, the original poster, in a while. I guess if the material still can't be sourced after almost 3 months, it may be time to delete it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand. Why did you select those particular sentences to have a fact tag? It's just that they don't sound very disputable, especially compared to all the others in the same section, almost none of which have tags. Rocketmagnet (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the other competitions were added before I started watching this page in January, and I have generally tried to be reactive rather than proactive (for better or worse). More important, even when there isn't an inline citation, most of the other listings don't claim much more than that the events happened, which easily fits the requirements of WP:SELFPUB; that is, a competition's organizer is a perfectly reasonable source for the claim that the competition happened. (The FIRST competition and Botball do claim a bit more, but then, there are tons of newspaper stories on both.) But look at what the IGVC poster is trying to establish, and this is after I had "toned it down" quite a bit: "It is multidisciplinary, theory-based, hands-on, team-implemented, outcome-assessed, and based on product realization. Many of the participants design their vehicles during year-long coursework. Students in business and engineering management, language and graphic arts, and public relations also participate. Students solicit and interact with industrial sponsors who provide component hardware and advice, and in that way get an inside view of industrial design and opportunities for employment." WP:SELFPUB isn't going to work here; we need reliable sources to establish that all these things apply, or else we need to rewrite it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I move that we delete those statements, and replace the single link in the paragraph with a ref. Any opinions? Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. They can always be added back when we get refs. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just reading this list of things, I would be highly surprised if they were not true.

• multidisciplinary: It's robotics after all.
• theory-based: quite likely
• hands-on: extremely likely if they are making robots
• team-implemented: Just a daft way of saying that more than one person works on the robot
• outcome-assessed: How else might they asses it? On the casting couch?
• based on product realization: Possibly another way to say outcome-assessed.

Anyway, this is all text straight from the IGVC web site. Which, surely, is reliable enough to be a reference in itself. If you were interested in entering the competition, and read their web page, would you be highly suspicious of those claims, or would you just accept them? Personally, I'd have no to reason to doubt them. Which begs the question, why not just use the web page as the ref? Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Straight from the web site" makes it a copyvio for one thing. And looking at the sentence:

• multidisciplinary: doesn't need to be said then - all robotics is multidisclipinary, not just IGVC
• theory-based: either doesn't need to be said, or needs a ref to show IGVC is theory-based in some notable way
• hands-on: again, is just IGVC hands-on?
• team-implemented: daft wording
• outcome-assessed: again, duhh... Although another way of assessing might be based on grasp of theory, regardless of whether the robot worked. But really, all robot competitions revolve around the robot actually working, so this too is not necessary
• based on...: again, superfluous for our purposes

As to the three cite tags, I'd support eliminating the sentences as proposed above. I don't see how they really add anything to the article but extra words. Perhaps a reword into a single sentence, ref'd to the website? Franamax (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And while there's eyeballs here, in "Literature" at "According to the [OED]", looks like a copy-paste has been made - note the [1] & [2] in the text. Wonder where that text came from? Franamax (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: the text was inserted here. Seems to be a cut-and-paste from a mirror site. The original ref's need to be found? Franamax (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax! Found it at Three Laws of Robotics, which is an FA so the ref (just one, the other is a note) will have been checked. Fixing it now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done chaps. Looks good. Now, does anyone know exactly what the "copy editing" banner refers to? If it refers to the last few sections, would it make sense to move the banner down there, so other editors know what it's supposed to apply to? Rocketmagnet (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan. It would be great to move the article towards FAC, but there is still a very long way to go IMO. I think the last three or four sections need rework. Rocketmagnet (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Forums as references

In the first section of this article, there were a couple of references to a forum, which were removed because generally forums are not reliable references. However, in this particular case, I believe that a forum is a valid reference and the best reference.

The point being made in the article was there was a lot of discussion about the nature of robots. What reference could possibly be better than a forum where people are actually discussing the nature of robots?

Of the three references that were there originally, one remains. It points to a news article where several definitions are given, but it does not mention any discussion. Below that is a comments section (essentially a forum) where discussion is happening.

It would seem to me that either this ref is referring to the discussion below the article (the original intent of the ref), in which case refs to forums should be allowed. Or it's referring to the article, in which case it's a bad ref.

I move that we should put the two other refs to forums back in. And opinions? Rocketmagnet (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll give me a date when the refs were there, I'll have a look. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was back in 21:14, 14 July 2008 Rocketmagnet (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The first Botmag link doesn't work any more. The second one (2006-10-15) works for me in illustrating that there are many different opinions on what a robot is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one is still available in the archives. One of the other refs in the first section has gone down too, and has had the archive link added into the ref. Rocketmagnet (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Few of our readers will have time to read the threads from all 3 forums, and they wouldn't be significantly more enlightened if they did. I'd prefer one or two messageboard links rather than 3; any one or two would be fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll put the second one back. Rocketmagnet (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was I who took the forum links out. I won't argue if they go back in, but I will say that they are unreliable sources. Yes, they show many different opinions, but whose opinions? Housewives, kids, the subset of readers of a particular magazine who care to post to an internet forum? Can I put a link to my blog then, it's at least as reliable as any other random series of postings? If the forum was composed of accredited and/or noted experts, it would be encyclopedic. Sets of opinions contributed by random persons are not encyclopedic. I'd advise you guys to find a better source - if you want to go to FAC, I predict you'll get slaughtered and using those sources will prejudice the whole review. Just my two cents. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Under probably any other circumstance, I would agree that a forum or a blog is an unreliable reference. But I think this is one of the few (the only?) cases where it seems like a good reference. What else can you reference when claiming the existence of discussion, than the discussion itself. The fact that forums are generally unreliable was the reason I put three references in the first place. I wanted to show that there was lots of discussion, and that it was not limited to only one group of people.

I think that we do need a reference there of some kind, and I think that the one reference that remains now is actually less good than the other two. It's a link to a general news site, with just random anybodies commenting at the bottom. At least the other two refs were discussions on a robotics forum, which is full of people who are interested in robots and have thought about them a bit.

I would be interested to see any other ideas for a better ref there. Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"What else can you reference when claiming the existence of discussion, than the discussion itself." - Answer: a secondary source that is analysing this discussion. The discussion itself is, after all, the primary source; which is seen as a less reliable/preferable source than a secondary source (if available). Arnoutf (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fly by comments: I found this discussion via Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but my comments go beyond just the quality of the sources so I'm replying here instead. The first section is the WP:LEAD, which should be a summary of the material in the article proper. Maybe it would be better summarize the definition contents already in the article (which looks relatively well-sourced) instead of adding this new material? For the forum refs specifically, you would need reliable third party sources to establish why these specific discussions on these specific forums are of enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion in the article. Robotics as a field should have plenty of reliable and weighty sources available. I don't see why there's a reason to resort to using internet forums as sources. Secondary sources aren't only used to refer to the content itself, but also its weight. If there are no reliable secondary sources, maybe these discussions just aren't of enough weight to warrant inclusion. Siawase (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and I like what we've got now with just the one ref (although it's in the lead, so I may move it around when I try to fix the lead). I get what Rocket is saying, but the ref we've got now (CBC) is much superior to the other two links; those are 4 well-known experts saying important things on the subject. Readers who want more after they read the expert opinions can keep reading in the discussion board beneath that to see people's reactions to the experts, but we're not highlighting that discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

About the lead: this article is a GA so it's supposed to comply with WP:LEAD, which means for this article that the lead section should be 3 or 4 paragraphs giving a quick summary of the main points of the article and alerting the readers what to expect. I'll give the lead a whack and then self-revert and wait for comments. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Onwards and FAC-wards

I'm doing a bunch of things to push in the general direction of FAC. In general, the things people like at FAC don't make an article worse, and often make it better, but we don't actually have to go to FAC...I'm open to stopping my work at any time. Warning: I tend to make a lot of edits, it's a function of how my brain works (or doesn't). It will probably be easier to read the diff all at once by pulling up the history, clicking on the last and first edit you want to see, then clicking "Compare selected versions". Btw, WikEd is one of the tools you can opt for at "my preferences/gadgets", and WikEd has a great diff screen that works automatically, even when WikEd is "off", that is, even when you have clicked the WikEd icon so that it's gray and it's not your default edit screen. After you've checked WikEd in your "my preferences/gadgets" screen, and when you're editing some page, click the "toggle automatic improved diff" button (to the right of the WikEd off/on button). It will highlight the diffs in a new screen below the normal diff screen, whenever a diff is shown, that is, even when you're not editing.

I added a ref to what I think is the first relevant Chinese technology, a clock tower from 1088 with mechanical figurines that chimed the hours, and I changed the relevant section heading to the less Eurocentric "500 AD – 1500". ("Medieval" implies Western. "Modern" tends to imply Western too, and it wouldn't bother me to change that to a date range, but I prefer to leave things alone that have been in an article for a while, and generally, a focus on Europe is more okay after 1500.)

People at FAC are pretty brutal about links these days; it's best to have at least an argument that readers are going to want to click on the links, and that they'll be happy with what they find when they do. The argument is that very few readers are going to click on even a fifth of the links provided in the article. The reader doesn't know what they'll find when they click, and we do, so it's our job to enforce quality control. But I'll put off de-linkifying until later in the editing process.

The second paragraph in the lead is currently "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots, a typical robot will have several, though not necessarily all of the following properties:

• is not 'natural', i.e. it is artificially created
• can sense its environment, and manipulate or interact with things in it
• has some ability to make choices based on the environment, often using automatic control or a preprogrammed sequence
• is programmable
• moves with one or more axes of rotation or translation
• makes dexterous coordinated movements
• moves without human intervention
• appears to have intent or agency (See anthropomorphism for examples of ascribing intent to inanimate objects.)"

Everyone arriving at FAC has a certain amount of goodwill to burn through, and having 6 lists in the introductory material of the article will burn through all of ours and then some. I think we can prosify this list, and since I'm adding a couple of paragraphs to the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, we should prosify it IMO. How about something like this?

"There is still vigorous discussion among experts as to which machines qualify as robots; the current consensus might best be described as "I know one when I see one". There is however broad agreement that robots are artificially created and that they will have many or all of the following properties: they sense and skillfully manipulate their environment, make intelligent or programmed choices, move with one or more axes of rotation or translation, act without human intervention, and give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal would." Some of the details I'm leaving out of the lead are explained well in the text. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I like it. Only a couple of things, we should change the word "discussion" (already did it in the article). And I don't know if "I know one when I see one" could be describes as a consensus. I think it would be more accurate to simply say there isn't a consensus. Perhaps this:

"While there is no single correct definition of robot, there is broad agreement that robots tend to be artificially created, can sense and manipulate their environment, make intelligent or programmed choices, move with one or more axes of rotation or translation, act without human intervention, and give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal would."

Also ... one problem with having it as prose, rather than as a list, is that now it seems to be implying that robots have all of those properties, rather than a subset of them.

Plus, I still find it much easier to scan-read a list than prose. For a reader with little time (most of them) the eye is drawn to a list, and it able to absorb information from it quickly because it is spacially well structured.

But, essentially, what we have now is still a list. But a list that has been collapsed into a heap, and has lost its spacial structure. So really it's the worst of both worlds. The more I think about it, the more I realise that a list is just better for the reader. It's going to be pretty hard to convince me. Rocketmagnet (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I say, we can pull the plug on heading to FAC at any time, and if you would prefer 6 lists in the first couple of screenfuls, that would be a reason not to head in that direction. It won't fly. On the subject of people reading quickly and missing "many or all", and thinking that a robot has to be all of those things: I considered "and/or" instead of "and", but I've seen "and/or" shot down a couple of times at FAC. I can ask about it at WT:FAC if you think it would help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to de-heapify my prose would be simply to delete one or two properties to make it easier to read; we can and should rely on the text below the lead for clarity and precision. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance: "...most robots make intelligent or programmed choices, many can sense and skillfully manipulate their environment and can act without human intervention, and some give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal might." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the Japanese Robot Association list for several reasons (but it wouldn't bother me if someone wants to re-insert it, if an up-to-date reference can be found). The ref link is still dead after 2 months. I can find nothing on their site and nothing on a Google search except very old references, which makes me doubt that this is still the position of the Japanese Robot Association. Does anyone read Japanese? Also, I believe we've got enough or close to enough discussion on the point without this reference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. I've never heard of this JRA ([1]). --Jiuguang (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would totally worry about it. Firstly, Japan is a major (biggest?) player in the robotics industry, and it would be a massive shame to leave them out. Jiuguang, if you hane never have heard of them, then maybe this article is for you. Secondly, if we get rid of that the JRA, we have to remove all the text about different definitions of robot in different countries. Because otherwise we're just comparing America with itself. I'll try to find a more solid ref. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - maybe you can tell me exactly how influential is JRA? I'm getting ~4000 hits on Google, and even a school lab like this gets more hits. It is also not well-known by its publications (or beyond industrial robots, for that matter). As for the definitions, I think a few paragraphs combining all the ideas from different sources would be good - I don't see the need to list every single national/organizational definition.

Oh, and are there any plans for some more technical information, beyond just story telling? --Jiuguang (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please give an example of a sentence that you don't like because it sounds like "story telling", and an example of some "technical information" you'd like to see on the page, so that I can get a sense of what you're looking for. I made a similar suggestion, two paragraphs below. Technical articles are absolutely okay at FAC, but they have to be framed in the right way, and if we're going to do them, they should go to FAC before this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I thought the "Eastern and Western Views" + "Dangers and fears" section was a bit excessive. By story telling, I meant that this is perhaps a bit too much description for a general overview of robots, and I'd like to see the details moved to a separate article, and an high level overview here. By technical, I meant details on the various components of the robot - this is detailed in Robotics, but surely we should have a mention here. The article is currently very much focused on the definition, history, uses, and views on robots, and missing information on the engineering design issues such as perception, knowledge based systems, learning, etc..(which, more than anything, is really what I'm really interested in). --Jiuguang (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally wrote a lot of that in the Robot article, but decided that it didn't really fit, so I moved it all to the Robotics article (everything from "Components of robots" to "Human interaction"). Personally I prefer it that way. I think there's a huge amount to cover without going into technical details. The way I imagine the Robot article is sort of like a hub which introduces a lot of information, and leaves it to other articles to go into depth. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But, having said that, I agree that it would be nice to have a little technical information as an introduction, without letting it get too technical. One thing that might be nice is to have a photo of an opened up robot, showing all the bits inside. Or maybe an x-ray image, like this X-ray Aibo. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the "Eastern and Western Views" + "Dangers and fears" sections are not very good. That's not to say I don't think they should be in the article, but I think they should be shorter and better written Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rocket removed the history from the lead, which is fine at FAC, as long as the history is on another page. After I'm finished with a quick copyedit, I think I'll move the history information over to History of robots, and only leave the summary of the history here. I copyedit for some people who crank out FAs, such as User:Moni3; the way she would proceed, I think, is to try to get History of robots and any other "spinoff" pages through FA first, so that when Robot gets to FAC, we've got a good answer to "Why didn't you devote more space to X?"
• Speaking of spinoffs, I think I probably also want to get a more technical page through FAC first, or at least a page that worries less about the general reader and more about nailing down what robots are in theory and in practice. This is on my short todo list. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the number of lists

I've thought of one way we can reduce the number of lists. I'm thinking in particular of the Physical Agency and Mental Agency lists. I would be very sad to see these become prose, because they are supposed to represent a kind of spectrum. Perhaps we could re-make them as a diagram, showing how roboty they are on a scale from not roboty to totally roboty. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is easier to get through FAC than lists. I can provide information, but I suck at creating images and tables. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'll see what I can do. Rocketmagnet (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugnot's EL

I reverted Bugnot's EL, but I certainly think it deserves to be a reference for text on some page linked from this page, or from one of those pages. From the link: “The robot’s biological brain is made up of cultured neurons which are placed onto a multi electrode array (MEA). The MEA is a dish with approximately 60 electrodes which pick up the electrical signals generated by the cells. This is then used to drive the movement of the robot." That's a step on the road to direct control of robots by human brains and animal brains. Whether it's a significant step is more up to the biologists and neurologists than up to us; a controller based on a neural net with 60 nodes is not particularly exciting as a subject in robotics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GAR link

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Robot/1

Copyediting

This is where I'll stick notes as I respond to the WP:GAR that are too specific to bring up on the GAR page.

• This is a perfectly good sentence, but I'm removing it from the lead for now, because the article doesn't give sufficient support for this conclusion yet, and it was mentioned as a problem at GAR: "Despite the huge advances in technology of the last century, robots are still nowhere near as capable as the public imagination believes. Both mentally and physically, robots are still slow, dim-witted and clumsy." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
• I moved some of the details of what "robot" meant in 1921 indifferent languages into Notes and references. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Asimo marche.png

ASIMO going for a walk

• For the second picture of ASIMO, where the purpose is to show that it does things humans do, I'd prefer a picture that shows it doing something, such as this one (perhaps cropped). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a nice picture. It definitely needs to be zoomed in a little. I quite like the current one because it shows Asimo's eyes, which give it a strong sense of having a personality. But the walking on's good too. Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about using this one in the lead? If we can crop it right, I think it's attractive enough, and it shows something ASIMO can do, and also shows its height. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Asimo marche crop.png

ASIMO cropped

Here's a cropped version for comparison. I seem to have made it a little blurry though.Franamax (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed this from the history section: it's important enough to be in the article, but 2000 isn't generally considered "history" on Wikipedia: 2000: A humanoid robot that can recognize human faces, see stereoscopically, walk and run on different types of ground (including stairs), and respond (in words and in actions) to English and Japanese commands. (ASIMO, Honda Corporation). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• I've got Hornyak's book somewhere around here, it's great for the differences between eastern and western thought. I'll keep digging, and come back to that section after I find the book. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• I found Hornyak's book and I'm reading up. I have asked around for other Asian perspectives, with no response; I'll do that part today myself. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "These are known as dull, dirty, dangerous" (in some order): I checked the ghits for all combinations of pairs of those words, and there's no pattern of being known that way, so I removed it. Also, when I was working on robot.wikia.com many months ago, there were no reliable sources for sales figures for domestic robots of any kind. I poked around a little today and couldn't find anything better. I have reason to believe that we shouldn't consider a press release from iRobot to be definitive, and it wouldn't qualify as an RS at WP:RSN for this purpose, so I decided to remove the section. I'll add a pointer soon to Domestic robot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Going back and doing work on the refs now for the parts I have copyedited so far. Robot#Defining characteristics has problems, but this isn't a section I'm working on. robotics.megagiant.com has many inaccuracies and has to go (DaVinci didn't build a human-sized knight; the mechanical duck didn't actually digest food). The ref on Al-Jazari wasn't acceptable; I'll see if I can find the SciAm article from 1991 online. I removed The Daily Yomiuri ref; it only gave the front page of the newspaper, in Japanese. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Using videos as references

Trying to find some references for a section on the limitations of robots. There are couple of good interviews with roboticists. Does anyone know if they are OK for a ref? Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Videos can be used for refs, or could be several months ago, but if you like this video, I'd prefer we stick it in the EL's. Is there a transcript available that could be used as a reference? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem is I need references of some kind, and I'm having difficulty finding any about the limitation of robots. Rocketmagnet (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A video isn't a secondary source. Surely some RS has reported on the video? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't hang out at WP:RSN a lot, but I know who to ask and I have a guess what they'll say. Who is talking in the video, Rocket, and where can I find reliable sources (journals for instance) that establish that these people are well respected in their fields? Even a blog entry from respected experts will often be accepted at WP:RSN as a reliable source, provided the expert has the right track record. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A secondary issue is that we don't want to ask volunteer reviewers to spend 30 minutes watching a video, so I hope we can either get a transcript or the video is very short. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Developments

I have added a photo of the original Unimate provided by inventor George C. Devol. I removed the photo of the PUMA, a later Unimation product, as the section is about the history of robots, and therefore the original Unimate is a more appropriate photo.

I also removed this text which is false:

"It wasn't until the second half of the twentieth century, when integrated circuits were invented, and computers began to double rapidly in power (roughly every two years according to Moore's Law),[31] that it became possible to build robots as we imagine them. Until that time, automatons were the closest things to robots, and while they may have looked humanoid, and their movements were complex, they were not capable of the self-control and decision making that robots are today."

The reasons are as follows: The first Unimate prototype, although digital, was controlled by vacuum tubes. The first production Unimates were controlled by transistors. Integrated circuits were not in the first Unimates, so the above section is just plain wrong. Also, Moore's law is really not an important addition, as this is not an article about computers or ICs, but about robots. Also, the above section says "as we imagine them" There has been a great deal of discussion about what is a true robot, and putting some sort of subjective text like that is really inappropriate in an encyclopedia. It is really a poorly written addition that adds nothing interesting to the history of robots, so I removed it.

Bangthedash101 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) bangthedash101

Also, if someone could put some space between the modern developments section and the robot fatalities section, that would make it look better. I couldn't figure out how. Thanks.

Bangthedash101 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) bangthedash101

Please don't insert extra blank space for formatting. It looks terrible depending on the browser you have, the font size you're displaying, your window width, etc. I have removed that space and rearranged the pictures instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it needs something because, on my widescreen monitor, we end up with the title Robot Fatalities right next to a picture of George Devol! Rocketmagnet (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope someone can format it properly. Also, maybe "Robot Fatalities" doesn't even belong in the section for "Modern Developments". Perhaps it belongs at or near the end of the article. Fatalities are not really a "development" in the sense that the word is being used in this section. Bangthedash101 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC) bangthedash101

Good point. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to fiddle with the table a bit; I think it's a good idea to remove multiple references to the same thing and remove some history items and some not-exactly-robotics items, and after that, there are so few items without a named robot that it makes sense to try to include a named robot on every line, to me. Edits welcome. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Eastern and Western views

I can't salvage this section. I'll park it here for the time being:

Eastern Thoughts on Robots

Roughly half of all the robots in the world are in Asia, 32% in Europe, 16% in North America, 1% in Australasia and 1% in Africa. 40% of all the robots in the world are in Japan. Japan also has a thriving community of amateur robot builders.

Japanese, South Korean and Chinese popular expectations of the future impact of robots are generally positive, perhaps due in part to the popularity of fictional robots such as Astroboy. East Asians (in Japan, South Korea, and more recently, China) are more willing to accept robots into their lives, having them care for old people, play with or teach children, and serve as pets.

"This is the opening of an era in which human beings and robots can co-exist," says Japanese firm Mitsubishi about one of the many humanistic robots in Japan.

South Korea aims to put a robot in every house there by 2015-2020.

Western Thoughts on Robots

Western societies tend to have a less positive view of robots, and some people resent or even fear their development. This attitude is reflected in the story lines of films and literature, where robots replace or attack humans.

Some people in the West regard robots as a threat to the future of humans, which may be due to the influence of Abrahamic religions, in which creating machines that can think for themselves would almost be playing God. While these boundaries are not clear, there is a significant difference between the two ideologies.

The problem is that the refs don't support the conclusions, IMO, and it's impossible to do this section with any sensitivity to Eastern religious views and cultural norms from just those refs.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about ref

I remember this Super Bowl ad: http://www.technologymarketing.com/bw/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541524. That page really doesn't say much more than that the ad existed, and the writer claims it was in poor taste. Has anyone seen a ref that says more, for instance, that the network pulled the ad because of complaints? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"See also" links now on another page

The "See also" section links have been vetted several times here, but the current WP:GAR review and upcoming peer review are going to require a lot fewer links. Rather than doing something rash, I think it makes sense just to transfer discussion to the proper venue, which is probably Talk:List of basic robotics topics. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yahh, that section was a big random mess. It's a shame there's no "See Also" here anymore ('cause you just know someone will want to add one) - however, I see nothing on what you've excised of compelling interest. Some look interesting but lead to crappy articles. Uncanny valley and Control theory are mildly interesting. Franamax (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a link to Control theory from "automatic control"; it's one of the first links after the lead. Uncanny valley is already linked and explained in the proper section. I'll be happy to work any other links into the text. Thanks for your feedback all along, Franamax. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Okay, see the GAR review above; I'm not going to have much time between now and Oct 20 (the WP:V0.7 deadline), so I'd appreciate some help with tracking down some of the kinds of sources the GAR review is asking for. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Table vs List

I've sandboxed up a table as a candidate to replace the "Mental Agency" criteria list. You can see it here. I'm not sure whether it works any better than the existing list - opinions? It might work better with another column for "Example"'s. I dunno, but I wanted to see how it would look. Franamax (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer the bullet points more than the table. And now that I'm comparing them, I wonder if the Timeline table should be changed to bullet points? Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Demoted

Although we failed the GAR review, we've got a pretty good idea what to work on from the review. Anyone is welcome to work on any of their recommendations, and I hope to get to work on it later this month. Martin and the 1.0 people assigned A-class to this article a year ago (in September); I just asked on his talk page if we could demote to B because of the failed GAR, and he's fine with that. I've recorded the demotion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New EL

Hm. "Idaho National Laboratory's Robotics Program" at least isn't a commercial site, it's a .gov url and they don't seem to be promoting anything (other than presumably their funding), and they do have tutorials. I'm fine with it but I'd be fine without it, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the name 'robot'

In 'May's Big Ideas' on the BBC, May said that 'robot' means 'drudgery' in Czech and 'labour' in Slowak. The article gives both meanings, but not this distinction between languages. Does anyone know if this is correct? A Czech or Slowak perchance? DirkvdM (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. We've had a lot amount of input on what related words mean in various languages; check the footnotes in the Etymology section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think way too much focus in this article is spent on Defining Characteristics, Definition and Etymology. Do we really need three sections to figure out what the article is even about? I'd recommend combining those sections into one single tightly-edited paragraph. Jdietsch (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy of conversation on user talk page

The IP 88.71.58.254 posted the same material at Robot that you just posted. I'll copy the same questions here that I posted at 88.71.58.254's userpage:

Hi. The information from Hitchhiker's Guide might be useful in the article Robots in literature; I'm not sure because I haven't worked with that article. It's not useful IMO in Robot, because this article can only touch briefly on literature. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me why you think this is something that a reader of Robot would want to know, that is, why do you keep adding this to Robot?

In the book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as: "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with!"

(Feel free to reply here if you like.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IP 88.71.58.254 is not me but I liked its entry regarding the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation definiton of a robot very much. Maybe it is more appropriate to have it in "robots in literature". But then, why is there a "literature" section in "robots"? Why are Asmimov and his poor pseudo-scientific robot stories mentioned? That's fiction. The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.111.2 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, robots is one of the few articles where the literature is actually important. Much of the public's opinion about robots comes from books and films, as does much of the inspiration for robotics engineers and ideas for new robots. The literatire really is an important part of this, strange though it may seem. Although I think the HHG quote is a silly one. Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image edits

An edit last night made some of the images smaller, and bunched them together so that the edit buttons are in the wrong places. There are arguments both ways; most readers don't click on the thumbnail images (maybe they don't know to click on them); on the other hand, I agree that it was hard to fit the images into the text that we had. Any thoughts on whether we like the images better before or after the edit? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to reorder them again so as to alleviate this. While I'm at it I'm removing the Tin Man image as the Tin Man evidently isn't a robot any more than the Cowardly Lion is a lycanthrope. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the 4th recent criticism involving the literature section. Copyediting articles with a long history is harder than making up an article from scratch, for me at least, because I have to respect what was there, but I'm thinking that we would be better off keeping the literature stuff in Robots in literature. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be treated as immutable right now, to be honest. It's likely that the article will need to be rethought before it meets current GA criteria, as incremental improvement of what's here might not be enough, as I'm sure you suspect given the great work you've done on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Best of luck with this; I'm going to stop watchlisting for a while. I need to write some AI and robotics articles I've been putting off, which means I have less time for copyediting. I'll come back to this article early next year. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry! I had not realized that I would cause so much trouble! Sincerely, Kelvin Case (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) )

No trouble at all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi chaps. Just came back after a long time away. What's happened to the images? At the risk of sounding like an arse, why the following?

• The pick and place robot image has moved to the top, away from its text. Does the intro need two images?
• The ASIMO and KITT pictures are together, again away from the text they refer to.
• Where did George Devol go?
• The image in Robotics Jobs and Training doesn't fit nicely.

Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Article visual structure

Now for my main point. When I worked on this article a while back, along with the text and images, one of the things I tried to get right was the visual structure of the article. A large article such as this, which is aimed at a wide audience can easily put people off if it seems too texty and poorly laid out. The visual structure of the article conveys a lot of information. It should guide the eye. To this end, I used several techniques: images, symmetry and bullet points.

I am sad to say that, coming back to the article, a lot of this layout has been destroyed. I understand that you guys are trying to achieve GA status, but it really seems a shame to blindly follow the GA requirements, while ignoring some of the subtle needs of the reader.

I know that one of the GA suggestions is that text is better than lists, and often I would agree with that. Some articles on the Wikipedia really are just lists and barely anything else. But sometimes breaking up information into bullet points is increadibly helpful to the reader. (I'm glad that the bullet points under Defining Characteristics are still there.

I'd be very happy to try to re-layout some of this article, but it's pointless doing it unless we're all in agreement. Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Catalonian hospital EL

The latest external link on assistive robotics for hospital patients might be suitable for Topic_outline_of_robotics#Robotics agencies, organizations, schools, and education programs. I couldn't tell; the main page is poorly translated ("that have the skill of helping to persons with dependence"), and the "About Us" and "Areas" sections have a lot of "we intend to ... " language. This EL isn't suitable for Robot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Un-Removed commercial issues

This was removed:

These issues have not gone unnoticed in the commercial world with entrepreneur Ben Way starting the worlds first robotic defence company.

On the basis that "there's no current problem with marauding neighbourhood robots that need to be zapped with microwaves" but that kind of misses the point of why it should be included; this is the worlds first(which is interest worthy) company addressing the problems we could face with robots. This is not a company planning(which I agree would go into the future of robots) to develop these ideas but a company doing this right now, I presume there products are designed for the current military market such as taking out UAVs. Taking it out would be a bit like saying this article should not have anything mentioned about military use of robots because the terminator does not exist yet. Maybe it should be in a different section, but interested in other peoples opinion if there is consensus to remove it it should be removed; I maybe biased as I have been researching Ben Way for a while, but still think it is wiki worthy. --Up2datenow (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Register piece, is makes a point of saying that it's a company name with great claims but not an indication in sight that it is an actual serious company anywhere close to having actual products. The piece also points out the the backing company has started quite a few "flava-du-jour notionry projects". I don't think this is solid enough to belong in the Robot overview article. Perhaps in an article on military robots or future robots (or possibly stock promotions), and with the caveat text "claims to be". Right now we can verify that a company claims to exist and claims to be doing it, but we can't verify that the company is actually any of those things. I'd say take it out until more info surfaces. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this direct interview with Ben Way looks quite serious and based on his record I would take it seriously I think we should keep it --Danfarlls (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Thrillist is a gloriously free daily email on the newest food, nightlife, travel, entertainment and gadgets in your 'hood." Not a reliable source, Ben Way isn't a roboticist, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's no product, there's no reporting of a product in WP:reliable sources, and if there were, it wouldn't be appropriate for Robot, which is a bare-bones summary article. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Open-source robotics

One of the new ways of robotics-manufacturing is the open-sourcing of the software ("brains") of the robot. This has been done with projects such as the Open Automaton Project (oap.sourceforge.net), Leaf Project (www.leafproject.org/), RobotCub, OpenRAVE and The Humanoid project, Roborealm, ... please include in article and make a new article about this phenomenon.

I figure that open-sourcing and diy-instructions may lead to home-builders of usable robots in the near future, against still realistic prices (25000$ or so; which is -if one manages to build a robot as near helpful as a man, and can keep the device for a lifetime), still quite cheap. See the Aiko-project [2] for the cost and DIY-building.

Cheers, KVDP (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Open-source_robotics#Uses should actually merge into this article. It's basically a list of things, and not very interesting. But perhaps there could be a mention of hobbyist robotics here. Or maybe it would be better suited to the Robotics article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Open-source_robotics#Uses should remain separate from the autonomous robot section because it is an intersecting domain, not a subset of the topic of autonomous robots; i.e., open source items can be autonomous or not. This will remain the case even after the Open Source article is improved to the point that it justifies reading. Jdietsch (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Also, perhaps a small reference to (friendly and evil) robots in computer games may be added, an example is the robot of Half Life 2. Also, Goddard (the robo-dog in Jimmy Neutron) should be mentioned as it is the only all-purpose/helpful robot in popular culture.

81.245.179.182 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary uses

I propose dividing this section in 2:

• -all purpose robots (eg "humanoid robots")
• - specific purpose build robots (eg factory robots) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.191.32 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• No need. It was already nicely divided into two sections: Robots which are better than humans, and robots which are worse, but humans don't want the job. Rocketmagnet (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentary's

I propose adding documentaries in external links. Documentary's to be added:

• James May Big Ideas documentary "Man-Machine"
• Michio Kaku's Visions of the Future documentary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.191.32 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dishwashing

Should new electronic dishwashers also not be mentioned in the dedicated robots-section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.126 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I-Qbot

perhaps I-Qbot can be mentioned in article. See http://www.personalrobotics.nl/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=85

• There are so many great robots out there. Sadly, there just isn't room to mention them all in this article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Robot computing unit

What kind of "brains" does a robot have exactly, and can this info be added in text ?

Different robots are designed different ways. Dedicated robots typically have minimal computing power in a microcontroller, FPGA, etc. More sophisticated systems, such as autonomous robots, tend to run in a client server environment with a microcontroller server operating low-level motor controls, and other "heartbeat" functions and a PC client(s) handling higher-level function. Some computationally intensive sensors may have their own FPGAs AND their own dedicated PCs above and beyond the robot's core systems. Jdietsch (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether a robot is based

• around a true computer (motherboard with CPU and operating system as Linux, autonomous system with Linux (eg microcontroller-based; eg Atmel168-based as Arduino)

• or whether its based around a microcontroller with a OS especially written for the robot

The first one would allow eg the use of a regular small computer (eg mini-itx, eeeBox, gPC) to be implemented and provide the brains of the robot. It would thus allow open-source development of robots, as the operating source may be used for any robot, rather than needing to be made specifically for one robot.

I was wondering after reading a docment on the RoMeLa DARwIn bot see http://www.me.vt.edu/romela/RoMeLa/RoMeLa.html This bot is reportedly by either a RS-485 transmitter or a RS-232 wires, hereby implying control from a regular computer (running LabView and IMAQ Vision) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.131.67 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently saw a blog around robots. It mentioned the Virtual Cogs VCMX212; does this mean this microcontroller mobo is used in robot building ? See http://robotics-visionexperiments.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

http://microcross.com/html/micromonitor.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.144.206 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>Strike-through text

Perhaps a chatterbot (eg Elbot) can be used in the main control unit (computer) to enable interaction with people; this technology too is robot-independant. Speech can easy be added to the robot using text-to-speech software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.128.52 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of head image

The ASIMO image should be removed and placed at humanoid robot section. It gives the impression that 'a robot' is always a humanoid robot; this is incorrect; there are much much more simple (task orientated) robots; in no way visually similar to ASIMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.11.163 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Litter picking

Litter picking can be added to article as a task robots may perform; an example is http://www.plasticbamboo.com/2007/03/22/figla-cleaning-robot/ (aldough this type of robot may not yet be used to locate and pick litter in the high grass) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.168.152 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Telerobot

isnt a telerobot not a robot at all (as it is not autonomous but human controlled) also, autonomous caterpillar-tracked and wheeled robots are not mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.48.38 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Virtual agent

In the headline it states that a robot can be a virtual artificial agent. It refers to bots instead of robots. This has nothing to do with robots. Please remove this nonsense from the article entirely. Perhaps a

For bots, see Robot (disambiguation).

-tage can be added instead

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.63.183 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)