From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

HIST406 Critique, October 2011[edit]

I read about the history of the clock on Wikipedia by going to the "Clock" entry on Wikipedia and reading the "Early mechanical clocks" section and subsequent subsections. The section is about 2,000 words. The section itself is easy to read, which is one of the big benefits of Wikipedia -- the content is easy to follow and a lot of the more complicated terms are clickable, so you can find out exactly what the terms mean on other Wikipedia articles.

Still the section is a bit cluttered. The one big suggestion for the section I'd make so that it reads a little better is to knock out some of minor information about each step in the timeline of developing clocks so that the section doesn't read as a repetitive timeline of minor events. I'd try to focus on some of the bigger events a little more. Britannica's entry on clocks runs through the history of the clock in a little easier to understand and there's an emphasis on the bigger takeaways a reader should have. That said, the Wikipedia section covers the history of the clock extremely well. It touches on clockmaking from 1176 to the 20th century, hitting on tons of clocks, including water-powered clocks, astronomical clocks, and different mechanical clocks.

There are five illustrations within the confines of the section, and they add little if anything to the reader. None of the illustrations shown link back to anything said in the body of the section. I like when I see something written down in a paragraph and I can immediately see something that illustrates what I'm reading about. Two of the illustrations are of a pocket watch and French bracket watch, none of which are directly mentioned within the body of the section.

There are 23 sources tied to this section of the "Clocks" entry, so it's a fairly heavily cited section relative to Wikipedia standards. The majority of the sources are both authoritative and clickable, so I can easily go right to the linked source and make my own judgment on the source if I so please. But one of the source stands out over the rest due to its incompleteness. It just reads "History of Song 宋史, Vol. 340," without any link to take me to what the "History of Song" is. I found that odd and would want to have a better citation for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11wjackso1 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent, detailed critique! It's really helpful to have someone with "fresh eyes" look at the article. I agree with most of your criticisms. --ChetvornoTALK 08:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of Cell Phone[edit]

I have changed this to mobile phone from cell, a term recognised (or handy) in the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


"A clock is an instrument to indicate, keep, and co-ordinate time." Speling12345 (talk) 8:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Keeping time[edit]

If time is considered to be "what a clock reads", it is tautologous to say that a clock keeps time. I suggest that the word "keep" be deleted. DOwenWilliams (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. In the first place, even granting your definition, time is not what any one clock reads. Every clock has error. It is the task of a clock to "keep" as close to the scientifically defined ideal of perfect timekeeping as possible. More importantly, "timekeeping" is a common description of what a clock does, and perfectly appropriate for the introduction. That's why our article History of timekeeping devices includes clocks. --ChetvornoTALK 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Clock accuracy as an indicator of political and economic power[edit]

I am not sure if this is the right article for this discussion. However, this is the discussion that I expected to see in this article and I did not find it. Accurate timekeeping is critical to accurate seafaring navigation. Through great effort, the British invented the chronograph. To this day, time is expressed as a differential from GMT, Greenwich Mean Time. Jump forward: when you pull your boat into a London boat dock, you see Big Ben. That clock is not there to tell the locals what time it is. Big Ben is a huge proclamation of British technological dominance. It is there to proclaim that the British are supreme in the technology of time and therefore dominant in the navigation of the seas. Like a king of England, I would expect any foreign monarch, seeing Big Ben, to understand what this extremely ostentatious display of superiority to mean. I would expect any such monarch to hang his head in apathy. Anyway, that is the discussion that I expected to find in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Pendulum Clock Invention[edit]

" after 1656 with the invention of the pendulum clock. " - it is worth mentioning that pendulum clocks are mentioned in Arabic manuscripts from 1009 and 1242 CE (Source is in Arabic, though, hopefully I'll find English sources soon).--عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about 10th century Egyptian astronomer Ibn Yunus? --ChetvornoTALK 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A disambiguity for Wiki Clock ?[edit]

This alternative description is offered as the basis for a more factual, universal, permanent description, for all clocks of every type. All clocks, including the atomic clock, operate on the same basic principle expressed here. Use this, edit it, or discard it, as you choose.

A clock is a constructed device. The essence of the device is the "measured motion" within the device. The measured motion is harnessed, as an "iterative Count". The count is displayed incrementally, and the increments are summed on the display as units of time.


The essence of all clocks is the motion within them, which is harnessed to provide a usable Count. The source for the motion that is harnessed for use, can be described as natural (planetary), mechanical, electrical, atomic (radiated).

When the motion is consistent (undisturbed) the Count is reliable and useful. When the motion is inconsistent (disturbed) the Count is unreliable. (The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom - is one second). That is a description of undisturbed measured motion, used for a Count.

Acceleration is a "g" force, I'll refer to it as being pseudo gravity. Resistance to gravity consumes energy. The effect of pseudo gravity, on the motion that provides the Count of the flying clock experiment, is to slow the motion within the clock.

Pseudo gravity (force of acceleration) began affecting the motion of the "flying clock" from the moment the engines were started (airframe vibration, taxi, takeoff, turns, any turbulence, landing). Throughout the experiment, pseudo gravity (from several sources), continued to affect the motion within the "flying clock". The effect was cumulative. To my knowledge this effect was not measured or accounted for, before drawing a conclusion from the experiment.

If my assertion is correct, then may I humbly suggest, that the conclusion drawn from the experiment is questionable, and the basis for "time dilation" theory is therefore questionable. Nothing is immune to gravity or pseudo gravity, not even an atomic clock. Layman1 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)