From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Technology was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 28, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

== Definition of technologys technologys == "Technology is the knowledge and practice of how to produce things."[1]

Technology: “A knowledge of techniques, methods and designs that work, and in certain ways with certain consequences, even when one cannot explain exactly why.”[2]

Technology as distinct from science: “It is important to distinguish between science and technology, for science as such can have no place in the present volume. Though the dividing line is sometimes imprecise, it undoubtedly exists. In our context, at least, science is the product of minds seeking to reveal natural laws that govern the universe. Technology, on the other hand, seeks to find practical ways to use scientific discoveries profitably, ways of turning scientific knowledge into utilitarian processes and devices.” [3]

It should also be noted that technology before the late 19th century was not based on science. Also, engineering did not arise until the early 19th century.

“Throughout the period and indeed well into the 19th C, theoretical science was in large measure devoted to understanding the achievements of technology.”[4]


  1. ^ Bjork, Gordon J. (1999). The Way It Worked and Why It Won’t: Structural Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96532-5. 
  2. ^ Rosenberg, Nathan (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 143. ISBN 0-521-27367-6. 
  3. ^ McNeil, Ian (1990). An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology. London: Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 0415147921. 
  4. ^ Landes, David. S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge, New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. p. 32. ISBN 0-521-09418-6. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talkcontribs) 14:51, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Article organization[edit]

If anything other than contemporary technology is discussed, then it is commingled with the history of technology, which should be removed and linked to. A more appropriate approach for this article would be to discuss the hierarchy of technology, starting with basic divisions or disciplines (mechanical, chemical, electrical and electronic, civil/structural, biotechnology, etc.) The level below that is the industry level (See: Standard Industrial Classifications) where several of the disciplines are combined, and more importantly, industry specific technology is applied. The bottom tier is specific industry classifications, which is too broad to discuss in further detail. Engineering needs to be given a paragraph or longer description in the context of technology. Industry specific technologies need to be defined as the type of things known to insiders and typically discussed in industry specific publications or trade secrets and proprietary information. Industry specific technologies do not need to be discussed by industry. This type organization will result in a stable article that can be used to link to other related technology topics. That will end the free-for-all conglomerate mess that exists now.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I also recommend discussing inventions and research and development.Phmoreno (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You're describing a listing and categorisation. That can be done elsewhere and to a great extent it already is. This article situates technology in human society and history, making it much more interesting and useful than a catalogue of technologies. NebY (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The question is: should this article "situate technology in human history" or should that be done in History of technology?Phmoreno (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Category and hatnote changes[edit]

It should be in Category:Technology instead of the current one. The hatnote about History of technology should be removed along with "See also: Productivity improving technologies (economic history)". (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Also need an explanation of the reasoning behind this request.Phmoreno (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Category:Technology is the main category and Technology is the main article. Category:Technology systems is merely a subcategory of technology. More info can be found at WP:CAT. The hatenote about the History of technology is redundant since it is self explanatory and is already linked in the article. The link to Productivity improving technologies (economic history) is not something that needs to be in a hatnote because it is not somewhere that the vast majority of readers would want to go to if arriving at this article. (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The History of technology main is redundant, but I don't see that as a problem. The link to Productivity improving technologies (economic history) has important details on technology that are not found in other articles, and whether the vast majority of readers would be interested in that detail is irrelevant, but because the article title is not something most people would think to look for is the reason the link is necessary. The option is to move some of that material to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yellow check.svg Partly done: Per Phmoreno's feedback, removed History of Technology hatnote. Closing for now until clarification and consensus is reached on Productivity improving technologies (economic history). Inomyabcs (talk) 07:32, August 2015 (UTC)

So it's not alright to have a redundant main article template for History of Technology, but is acceptable to actually have some poorly chosen paragraphs about the history of technology?Phmoreno (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015[edit] (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I love technology, but it does seem like the word "opining" in the fourth paragraph should be replaced with "arguing", both because it is a more neutral term and a more accurate term describing what the philosophers are actually attempting to do. Davidmbradford (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Chamith (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It’s been said that honesty is the best policy, so letting people in is good for a relationship. However, phones can be locked with a fingerprint, secret passwords are used to get into computers, and even locks are put on drawers to stop anyone else from getting into them. This leads to many secrets and many reasons to lie to someone. Due to the mass amounts of secret codes and locks, a sense of dishonesty happens in a relationship and it causes hurt and strain between two people. Constantly being accused of cheating or hiding something becomes annoying and irritating, its hard on a person who doesn’t feel like they can be trusted. It’s just as hard on someone when they feel they can’t trust their partner. All this hurt and frustration comes back and starts to hurt the relationship. The hurt from not being trusted or from not trusting the other creates a lack of empathy in the relationship due to the fights from having a feeling of distrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) By Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017[edit] (talk)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 21:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a level-one vital article. To prevent vandalism, I think that this article should be fully protected. This is to protect against vandalism and controversy. Only admins should be able to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoldenParadox (talkcontribs) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for tips Helenagriffing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)