Talk:Technology

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Definition of technology

"Technology is the knowledge and practice of how to produce things."

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

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.”

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.”

References

— 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

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)

Done Sunrise (talk) 18:50, 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 necessarily trying to convince anyone to do the merger. Linking to Productivity improving technologies (historical) is acceptable to me, but I'm looking for ways to improve Technology. 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 better 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.Phmoreno (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the articles are, of course, welcome, but the specific merge that you suggested is something that you are not allowed to do without first arriving at a WP:CONSENSUS. This would involve convincing other editors to support the merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering, but my experience is that one never get's a consensus. One is lucky to even get comments, and even luckier if they are useful ones from someone who has read an encyclopedia of the history of technology and other sources. It's a lot of work to do a major rewrite and practically no one I've dealt with on these topics is willing or able to do it. Again, I never said I would volunteer. For the two articles I rewrote I posted a notice saying the article would be under construction for while and went ahead with it unopposed. No one interfered and few people commented, but the articles were in solid shape when I finished. If editors had objected, I would have stopped.Phmoreno (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

How can you say "my experience is that one never get's a consensus" when you got a clear consensus (against your proposed merge) further up the page? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast. I count two people in your supposed consensus. The other two are undecided. Me being undecided is because I don't see any quality here, anybody willing to do work, and people opposed. I wouldn't want to merge the entire content, just parts of it, in shortened form. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a plan. Without a plan, this goes nowhere. People will post a little at a time and it will remain a random, disorganized mess. If everyone is satisfied with the existing article, then it can stay in this sorry state for years to come.Phmoreno (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Present a plan

This article needs significant improvement. What are your recommendations? Please be specific. How about an outline? Are there any technology editors here? Anyone read a history of technology who is willing to contribute? Phmoreno (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a plan, at least for the short-to-medium term, that might be good for the community and put content somewhere that might attract good editors eventually. Phmoreno, I share your opinion that this particular article seems unusual in its lack of emphasis on modern technology. This was also noted in 2010 at Talk:Technology/GA1#Not_for_GA_review. I recommend that you remove the (in my view, very misguided) mash-up of economic history and productivity from your creation at Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) and use the remaining bits that deal only with modern technology itself to create a new Modern technology article that deals solely with modern technology. Many of the statements at Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) such as Economic historians generally agree that, with certain exceptions such as the steam engine, there is no strong linkage between the 17th century scientific revolution (Descartes, Newton, etc.) and the Industrial Revolution. are poorly sourced and seem like bait for arguments. People will argue and have argued that the entire article violates WP:SYNTH and is incoherent, and I've been one of those people. Eventually, if people at Wikipedia care enough about it, that article will be deleted. If they don't care, it might stay for a while as an example of something that went awfully wrong, maybe when a bunch of articles spun off from Productivity#Productivity_articles_with_a_special_focus for no good reason. On the other hand, if there is a Medieval technology article then why not have a Modern technology article too? This technology article would then refer to both in a manner consistent with WP:Summary Style. I don't mean for that to sound like I'm giving anyone marching orders. It just seems like an easy solution to multiple issues in this niche of the editing community. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flying Jazz: Thank you providing a constructive suggestion. Comments like this are necessary for developing a satisfactory plan.

Regarding your quote above about the un-importance of science to the Industrial Revolution being WP:SYN, I will point you to the passage at the bottom page 19 of Joel Mokyr (2004):

As economic historians have known for many years, it is very difficult to argue that the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century we associate with Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and the like had a direct impact on the Industrial Revolution.

.

The part about the steam engine is mentioned by multiple sources. And calling Joel Mokyr a "questionable" source is incomprehensible. He is a former editor of the Journal of Economic History and President of the Economic History Association, he served as the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History. (Dr. Mokyr was also kind enough to give me permission to use one of his tables for another article, so I hope he doesn't hear about this.) David Landes and Vaclav Smil have discussed the fact that the Industrial Revolution wasn't science based, but the Second Industrial Revolution was.Phmoreno (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my main suggestion to be constructive. I hope you consider replying about that main suggestion at some point when you get around to it. As for the bulk of your reply, there is an important distinction between poor sourcing and a poor source. I certainly never meant to imply the latter. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good. Lets see if others agree. As for the article being poorly sourced, I'm not sure I understand. Some parts are very difficult to source because there are hardly any mainstream books on modern technology. Mostly one finds highly technical industry publications and manuals, unless you have access to an industry library. I can only write about some of these subjects because I worked a number of years as an engineer with a variety of technologies. It would have been impossible for me to write about Automation and Electrification had I not had theoretical training and hands on experience.Phmoreno (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)