Talk:Smart city

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 29 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thejohnpearson123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbw00007. Peer reviewers: Brinturner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

List of smart cities

In Germany a test-city, the 'T-City' Friedrichshafen, exists. Also see de:T-City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.187.57.48 (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In Slovenia, the capitol Ljubljana has recently become the Green Capitol of Europe being an example of a city of the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.20.174 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In Singapore the IDA is leading the development of the first smart nation, but to be honest the city-state is of course a smart city. See: http://www.ida.gov.sg/Infocomm-Landscape/Smart-Nation-Vision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggi (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The list of flagship cases has been rearranged into alphabetical order for ease of reference, and Manchester's CityVerve project (launched earlier this year) has also been included — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillPritchard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems evident that the 'adoption' section of this list is expanding rapidly; it currently takes up ~40% of the word count of the page. I think the community would be better served by a separate List of Smart Cities page so that the concept and its implementations can stand on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelst (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Added full definition

We've put together a full definition to replace the previous disambiguation page (keeping the existing links to MAlt and Kochi Smart Cities). Currently contacting some experts in the field for feedback, after which I will start adding link to this page in other relevant entries.

Comments and suggestions would be appreciated on this page. Thanks

--Spartakan (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Crosslinking now done --Spartakan (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a valiant effort to define this concept when there is no generally accepted definition. While I agree it is useful to disambiguate Smart vs Digital Cities. Primarily through the focus on "Intellectual and Social Capital" in Smart Cities. Note that I would remove "The latter form of capital is decisive for urban competitiveness", as social capital is ONE of the factors in urban competitiveness, but I find no evidence to prove it is more "decisive" than the many other factors. In fact the most decisive factor is probably economies of scale.

The differentiation between Smart vs Intelligent Cities seems more forced as, in general, these terms are considered synonyms, and the fact that knowledge communication and intellectual capital are state as part of Smart Cities, goes towards emphasising this link.

-- Neilireson (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem very informative or encyclopedic

Honestly, I didn't get past the lead paragraph. The article immediately seems laden with jargon, vague concepts, and perhaps even an ideology... I feel like I'm being sold something. I also don't feel the lead tells me anything about what a "Smart City" is.

This looks like the article is in critical need of a fix, and I'm not in a position to do so, knowing nothing about the topic. zadignose (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do agree. The key ideas may all be within the article somewhere, but the presentation is very messy. A good start would be 'A smart city is xxx' where xxx is replaced by a one sentence synthesis of the definitions given elsewhere in the article. The lead should of course note that the definition is not yet firm, and should also summarise the article better. Should we give the article a bit of a spring clean? Thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have now cleaned up the lead and the correctly/sorted some of the references. Do note however that although I am reasonably experienced with WP and do work in the transport info sector I am not a expert on the subject of smart cities. I am learning as I go along, but do please dive in if the text doe not accurately reflect the many sources. PeterEastern (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have now trimmed a couple of sections heavily. There is certainly content to add, but first I have been removing content which doesn't not seem to add anything to the article. I did also removed a 'multiple issues' banner added anonymously re POV and Accuracy - such banners should only be added after discussion on the talk page. I for one would welcome discussion on the subject here. PeterEastern (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sterling work, well done! I once had a keen interest in eco-city planning, Slow Cities etc. but don't have the time to analyse this article closely and spend a lot of time on it, apart from to agree with the above comment that it was a bit of a promotional mess! It's already looking 100% better. It could potentially be a valuable inclusion for Wikipedia, but had become a place for every Tom, Dick and Harry to promote their city or tech product. Well done PeterEastern so far! Sionk (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You could argue that it's important to make the reader aware that there is more to "Smart Cities" than nice ways to spend public money on private sector projects (which is what the reference to neo-liberalism is about). But entropy has been eating away at the article, so it definitely needs a refresh and an update. See also my comment below. --Spartakan (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Happy to work on this and appreciate the support. I think the timing is good in that smart cities are getting a high profile in the media, the term is possibly also getting more tightly defined and there is good usage of the article (circa 20K views a month). PeterEastern (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am continuing to work on the article. Yesterday I added am image to the lead from a hackathon in New York which seems appropriate and emphasises the importance of citizen engagement. I added links to 'external resources', trimmed the 'see also' section and removed the list of cities entirely. I removed the list because most entries didn't have citations, lists often get completely out of hand in WP and there is no obvious way to indicate notability. I do intend to add mentions to the most notably early ones, based on an official source from a good organisation to provide notability. For now I am continuing to slowly weed out materials that I don't believe helps the article, giving time for people to feedback if they don't like the direction I am taking. PeterEastern (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have worked on the characteristics section (see section below), integrated some good material from Intelligent Cities and reorganised the citations into a more academic format where we can refer multiple times to the same source, quoting a different page on each occasion. It gets a bit more fiddly to get the citations right when done this way, but for more academic articles I think it is worth the effort. Ordinary citations can still be used, the complex format is only used for longer works that are likely to be referenced multiple times.PeterEastern (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Integral city design

Perhaps the most important issue isn't mentioned, namely that by making integral city designs (so including power supply, water, transport, ...) and selling these designs, there is much environmental and economic benefit to be made. A downside is that the entire city becomes part of a single project developer, in some cases. See Studio de Stad article in Dutch and New Towns Institute 2A02:A03F:12AE:9500:F16A:1646:502:7A0F (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support the above comment? PeterEastern (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics section - start again?

What is this section trying to say? I find it almost meaningless and wonder if it might be best to delete it and start again. Any objections to erasing it? We can of course reintegrate any relevant parts of the deleted content and any important references into the content. I will leave a note on the talk pages of people who have contributed to the article to encourage them to engage. PeterEastern (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This page was created as part of an academic-led Smart Cities project which is maybe why the approach seems "jargonistic". I agree that it is probably due and update / refresh but the references did represent a consensus view of the position 5 years ago. I'm no longer working in the area so I'm not going to get involved in editing now. For what it's worth, my concern though is that the definition of "Smart City" allows that the term is about more than cool transport and power infrastructures. Lesson learning (knowledge management) by city managers and citizen participation in agenda setting are also important aspects of a "Smart City". You may also want to look at Intelligent city - can the pages be merged? Spartakan (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and context. Totally agree re citizen participation. I do agree that Intelligent city and indeed also Ubiquitous city should be considered for merging - I have put a formal merge proposal banner on Ubiquitous city and responded to an informal merge proposal on Intelligent city. I realise that I have not notified this article about the proposed merge into it, which I should do. Currently waiting for comments. PeterEastern (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have reworked this section, boiling it down to a few simple points. I hope I haven't simplified it too far, but I think the article is now usable by the average reader. PeterEastern (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging

I have now put merge banners of Intelligent city, Ubiquitous city and MESH city‎ and am awaiting comments on those articles. None so far. Unless I get comments without resolution to support the move, I will convert them into redirects to this article early next week and integrate an relevant materials. None of these other articles have high readership and don't seem to be very active. As such, I am confident personally that we are doing the merge in the right direction. PeterEastern (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have completed to merging of these three articles, which are now all redirects to this one. PeterEastern (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have now created a merge proposal for Digital city, which is another short article about a very similar concept. PeterEastern (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have just converted Digital City to a redirect to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• To note that I have also put a merge banner on Smart Nation, proposing that it is converted to a redirect to here, with a brief mention of the Singapore project of that name in this article. I have added a note to talk:Singapore suggesting that people may want to integrate more detail into the Singapore article. No one has taken me up on that yet. I think... that will complete the rationalisation of the articles, all mentioned in this section, with all of redirecting to here with no objections to date. PeterEastern (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems a bit hasty. I've just had a look at the Intelligent city article, which had a number of believable sources about that very subject, so clearly wasn't an invention of someone's mind. I would tend to give more than 10 days to allow people to comment on the proposals (people lead busy lives and the concepts are not straightforward to disentangle).

From what I can see from a cusory reading of each article, the Smart City concept seems much more practical and grounded in reality, while the Intelligent City idea seems more conceptual (and no evidence it's yet been explicitly applied).

I would be inclined to revert the removal of the Intelligent city article. There's no evidence it has been merged at all into this article and it would be a shame to lose it.

-- Sionk (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sionk. I have responded to this to on talk:Intelligent city. Totally support discussion on the subject, but suggest we do it all in one place and use talk:Intelligent city for that purpose. When we have a conclusion our conversation there we can close this thread off with a brief note on what we decided. Does that makes sense? PeterEastern (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Sionk (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To note that a proposal was added to this article recently proposing a merge of Spatial intelligence of cities. PeterEastern (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Integration of content

This article now contains content from a number sources that have been cut/pasted from other places, notably from Intelligent city and Spatial intelligence of cities. The next stage is to create a single readable article which ideally be shorter and clearer than the current text as duplicated concepts are merged. I will have a go at that over the coming weeks, but it would be much better if this was a joint project with others getting involved, so do please WP:be bold and get editing! PeterEastern (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now completed a pass to clean up references and do some basic integration of existing content. I have to say that I don't like this article as it stands. It seems a rag bag of concepts with a lot of overlap. It is also very academic, and was, I understand initially created with a lot of academic viewpoint. It is also very much frozen in about 2007-2009, which for a fast moving concept like this is old. I will continue to work on the article, integrating ideas from more recent material and weeding out the old over the coming weeks. Would very much encourage others to get involved. PeterEastern (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just completed a big edit to the article, trimming a considerable amount of the words to try to get closer to the essence of the article and remove duplication. PeterEastern (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can revamp this cumbersome system--having notes (linked to a list of citations where the name "Komninos" is ommipresent)) and references, besides a "Further Reading" list, is overkill and makes for difficult editing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Komnios is too dominant which is why I have collected the further reading and external links that I have done. Will weed the links now, but please can we keep them associated with the article until I have had a chance to use some of them as references? As for the 'cumbersome system', I suggest it is the best way to organise sources when one has multiple references to different pages of the same source. If you can suggest a better way then please let me know. PeterEastern (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not difficult to solve: you do all the references in one system, like in Bramshill House. Right now you have bibliographical notes in two different systems. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much simpler. Have adjusted as per Bramshill House. Is that better? PeterEastern (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Have trimmed further reading of some older materials, and also edited out the references to Komninos 2002 and Komninos 2006 to reduce the over-reliance on his work. Still loads of work to do on the article, and probably still worth doing a but more pruning, but soon at the point to review the materials in external links and either use them as reference or probably ditch most of them from external links. Have just read the Townsend book 'Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia' which is full of great stuff. Do please get involved in the process - this is an important article, and needs loads of input. PeterEastern (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Links cut from 'external link'

Following prompt by Drmies, I have removed these links from the article, as they don't belong in a WP article. They may however be useful when developing the article:

• Smart Cities Group at MIT
• IBM Smarter city challenge - IBM
• The Smarter City - IBM
• CityNext - Microsoft
• Smart connected communities - Cisco Systems

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

History?

The article is self-absorbed to me, and the criticicm by zadignose above is still completely valid even though there seems to have been some work since. the definition is so slopppily referenced and presented I cant make head or tail of it. A definition must include time, some words where the term comes from etc.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above. To date I have successfully merged a bunch of articles on overlapping concepts and then removed the duplications. I am currently reading around the subject and my next move is going to be to add a history section and improve the definition. Would love to have some help with this if anyone is up for that.. PeterEastern (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Future

How to link to: Lpwan and Lorawan, these two technologies/topics/protocols are now developing, one of the early adopters is Swisscom, see: http://lpn.swisscom.com/E/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggi (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mesh City

This comment has been copied here from talk:MESH city. The MESH city article has now been converted into a redirect to this article PeterEastern (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

MESH Cities are an evolution of the concept of smart cities and, because of that, deserve recognition as a distinct entity. The late Dr. William Mitchell of MIT embraced the term Smart Cities in the 1990s. As someone who was advised by Dr. Mitchell, I'd suggest that he did not envision the term being a final, generic descriptor. He would have encouraged that intelligent cities be shaped by new methods and approaches never envisioned under the Smart Cities umbrella. MESH Cities are to Smart Cities what a Boeing 787 is to the general topic of commercial passenger aircraft. We allow those distinctions in fields like aviation, why lump distinct innovations in a category back to the initial concept? In the past MESH Cities was linked as a reference in Smart Cities. I suggest we return to that approach. Many thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertyyz (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggest that we add content to this effect to the Smart City article rather than reinstate the MESH City article. I intend to get to this soon, but others are of course welcome to do so before then. PeterEastern (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

Beyond previous comments that challenge the encyclopedic character of the writing, the 'Criticism' section needs to be expanded. There is plenty of critical views (from academia as well as civil society) on the concept. I will add to that progressively in the coming weeks, further contributions/additions are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrienberlin (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do! This was clearly a dumping ground for all sorts of groups trying to market the latest buzzword. Use neutral language please, and see WP:SOLUTION for example. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is being used by thousands of people on their PowerPoint slides as the definition of a smart city, and as others have alluded to above, it's not reflective of where the smart city agenda is now and is heading. I tried to apply some very minor edits to rectify this issue, e.g. by alluding to the current focus away from a technocratic / tech vendor perspective and towards one that focusses on people and sustainability. Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr thinks my edit was "just too fluffy/promotional" – I obviously disagree with them, and welcome others to chime in, as this page needs to be updated urgently considering how many page views it gets on a regular basis. To see my version, please access the page history. sunday9pm (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should follow a WP:TONE. The lead change simply reworded everything in the form of WP:BUZZWORDS such as "foster sustainability", "Urban assets", "achieve sustainability". Not an improvement. Who said what did what where and when is what the article needs, its not a promotional template for PowerPoint presentations. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The term "assets" was and now still is used heavily in the opening paragraph. I did not add that, it was already there. It is not a buzzword. The re-focus of the smart city agenda in recent years on people and sustainability rather than simplistic tech solutions is real, and anyone who actually knows something about smart city research and practice will confirm that. Just look up any smart city event, research paper published after 2013, city government policy direction, and check what they focus on. Neither people nor sustainability are buzzwords or fluffy or promotional. Your blunt reversal of my edit is not an improvement, it just represents protectionism it seems for no reason. Further, you may not want the article to be "a promotional template for PowerPoint presentations" – but my experience going to such events and reading student papers shows that the definition is used on such PowerPoint presentations, and it is wrong. I'm a Professor of Urban Informatics, I have researched and worked in this space since 2002, and I'm working with hundreds of colleagues in academia, in local municipalities around the world, and in industry. What are your credentials to tell me I'm wrong? Your user page does not tell me. sunday9pm (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look through Wikipedia policy and guidelines, its not a matter of what you know, its what you can cite. If you are an expert on this then you can readily bring up reliable citations on it. The corollary of that is anyone else can edit an article on any given topic because they can also look up the citations. Please note, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, an article should be able to explain something to an average reader and follow WP:TECHNICAL. In other words, how would you explain this to a non-student who just walked through your office door? I took a whack at the lead re: basic definition referenced to a secondary source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much better and constructive advice than just reverting an edit willy-nilly. I have edited your edit, and added further references. However, I believe your edit removed crucial references to other Wikipedia articles that should be kept, so I have re-inserted them. sunday9pm (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup lead again for MOS:BEGIN. WP:JARGON such as information and communication technology (ICT) and Internet of things (IoT) should not be in the lead sentence - "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject" - and needs some parenthetical explanation.

The lead is a summary of items in the article ---> I do not see "urban informatics" described anywhere in the article, it definitely should not be in the lead, if it shows in the article it should have parenthetical explanation, and it needs independent referencing. Its in "See also" and still needs parenthetical explanation there.

Non-neutral language such as "improve their quality of life", "foster sustainability", "improve the wellbeing of citizens", "achieve sustainability outcomes" "improve" should not be stated in Wikpedia's voice (WP:YESPOV #1 and #4) (especially in an article that has a " Criticism" section). If an author of a sources expresses this opinion then it should be covered somewhere in the body attributed to the author as opinion (maybe a "Goals" section?). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Roadmap section

The Roadmap section is a summary of a single source, which happens to be the author's own self-published paper. Perhaps this section would have some value if it included an impartial definition of the term followed by a linked list of the dozens that exist; but in its present state it is misleading and inappropriate. It should be expanded or simply deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdaugherty (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Smart Cities, along with other similar ideas, is a technocratic attempt to seize control of the world. Mixing the "nanny" state with developers' & certain elements' desire for profit at other's expense, it is an elite group hoodwinking people, under the guise of safety, profit, & "green", yet, is just the newest form of gentrification that is not safe, profit only for the few, using people's desires to undermine their power & freedom. Nantucketnoon (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it WP:TALKNO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Tense Structure and Article Tone

Especially focused on the Frameworks section, tenses on this page need to be organized around "current state," "future state," and "ideal state" specifications. As with the Smart Cities section, "current state" discussions should adopt the appropriate neutral tone as dictated in Wiki guidelines. "Future state" discussions regarding the planned roll-out of Smart city capabilities should clearly cite sources for those plans and avoid extrapolating on the possibilities of the new technology or interconnectivity. This is directly related to "ideal state" language which should frame all such speculations with cited academic or journalistic articles outline the potential of proposed developments. I will be hunting down sources relating to the Framework section in particular and working to align tense and tone along the lines and with Wiki best practices. GroundFloor (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Much of the tone concerns in the first two framework sections are now addressed. I located a source, previously un-cited, that seems to be the source for the Framework section.GroundFloor (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://hub.beesmart.city/city-portraits/smart-city-portrait-barcelona. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Finland

What cities could be classified as smart city?--2A00:1D50:3:0:9C14:33AE:5AF9:DBB5 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Smart grids and prioritization of renewable power

Can't smart grids also have a role in prioritizing renewable power (ie reducing fossil fuel power plants power production whenever there is enough renewable power being produced ? It's neither mentioned at the smart grid nor the smart city article. Genetics4good (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Urban farming and online platforms

Perhaps the link between urban farming and smart cities can be better explained in the article. The most obvious here are online trading/selling platforms and perhaps delivery of greens, ... I read this seems to be done to some extent already, see https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/4330 I also remember that some of the Vertical farms had power production (microgrids ?) which they could feed back into the power grid (biogas production from anaerobic digestion which is used to power an engine which drives an alternator, ...), microbial fuel cells, ... See also https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-cities-will-feed-their-citizens-future/439071/ Genetics4good (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Do ebook libraries exist btw ?

Genetics4good (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert

I agree to some extent to what user Fountains of Bryn Mawr mentioned in this revert, but the term "smart city" is open to much interpretation and of some topics mentioned I do have a source confirming that the term "smart city" is linked:

• blockchain, see here and here
• fintech, see here
• online banking, see here

Personally, I think a clearer definition for smart city is that it uses technology which is connected to a network in an electronic way (ie internet, through ICT). That hence also includes any activity in which you for example sell or trade stuff, or do something remotely rather then physically needing to go to a place. (and those others terms linked fall under this). I also consider this "smart" since it not only uses ICT, it also reduces vehicle traffic, use of resources, carbon emissions and pollution. Genetics4good (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

per MOS:SEEALSO, "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article". Smart citys use technology. blockchain, fintech, online banking use technology but they are not related to the topic of the article, they are only related to that third thing, technology. You are citing opinionated sources on something tangential to the topic, but trying to give the reader a clue in a recommenced MOS:SEEALSO "annotation" would be beyond the purpose of "See also" They are opinion, and opinion needs to be written and cited as such somewhere in the article (see WP:YESPOV). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision 978244142

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if there are any specific concerns regarding revision 978244142, please mention them in this section, so the text can be modified to address these concerns.

Regarding the COVID-19 text: I removed this but note that I didn't add that text. I just placed that text (added by someone else) in a new headline and didn't notice hereby that it used a 2013 paper as a reference.

What's the promotional fluff you refer to ? If anything, I want to make it more obvious in the text that smart cities don't need as much tech as is depicted by tech companies (they tend to focus very much on electric cars, but really, there is a move to use a multitude of transport modes (including bicycles, electric light-weight transport (i.e. electric bicycles, electric kick scooters, electric skateboards and what not as well as walking, ...). The smart city tends to focus on having people use the most efficient and less CO2 emitting transport mode for each trip as well as making it possible to combine multiple modes of transport in a given trip in the most seamless way (i.e. walking and bus, train and bicycle, ...). It still needs a bit of more tweaking, but I already think the text starts to make that a bit more clear, and everything has a reliable source to back it up. User:Genetics4good

"I want to make it more obvious", "Smart mobility is also important to smart cities.", "Bicycle-sharing systems are also important to smart cities.". Other editors have pointed out that fluffy material in the form of WP:ADVOCACY or ADVICE is not encyclopedic. This is also not a place to WP:SOAP about " tech companies". Reliable sources in Wikipedia are secondary source, not the primary source policy papers and academic papers you are interpreting. Those sources are also advocacy on how to build Smart Cities, Wikipedia does not describe how to build things, it describes things that already exist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not promoting anything rather the exact opposite. As mentioned earlier, the article still puts too much focus on high-tech, whereas smart cities tend to make a lot of use of low-tech too (such as bicycles, even just walking). Electric cars are mentioned at least twice, and there is the general perception that electric cars are an essential part of smart cities. That is wrong and needs to be made clear. Whereas electric cars do have a role to play, it's a small role and it needs to be viewed in a shared mobility context.

As for reliable sources to be secondary source: other wikipedians seem to prefer academic papers and find them more reliable sources of information (because they're written by experts on the matter, not by news agencies and the like). Also, there is no clear definition on what a smart city is (as there are many definitions of it) and there is no organisation giving a certification for smart cities. So how can you be sure that the example cities listed in this article ("the so-called smart cities that already exist and which the article needs to describe) are truly "smart cities" ? I think the academic papers are better sources to describe the smart city.

Regardless, I'll make changes to the text and we'll keep working on it together.

User:Genetics4good

the article still puts too much focus on high-tech, whereas smart cities tend to make a lot of use of low-tech too (such as bicycles, even just walking) ... so, you need to cite secondary sources that state that explicitly. And you need to follow WP:TONE. If the sources are saying one thing and you think it should say something else, well, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

Wikipedia has clear policy on using primary sources. Since that is established policy it is what wikipedians prefer.

If there is no clear definition on what a smart city is then the article should state "there is no clear definition on what a smart city is" backed up by a reliable source that states "there is no clear definition on what a smart city is". We do not make up our own definition, no matter how well intentioned. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Data Collection

This section reads like a CS student's term assignment to chart analogies to the OSI model, not sure how appropriate it is for this article or really what to do with it, maybe the entire section should be elided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelst (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Implementation of new literature

Hi all. My name is Theo and I'm a freelance Wikipedia editor and I am currently editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of the University of Virginia's Department of Data Science. This is one of the articles I have been asked to work on.

I have been researching this topic for about a month now and I am now writing up some of my research. I will be building on some of the existing sections of the article whilst also adding some new ones.

I am very open to all comments and please feel free to make changes/call me out on any changes you don't believe are faithful to the topic or the research.

I'm hoping to start properly editing the article soon! Theobrad (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)