User talk:RonaldBaecker

This is RonaldBaecker's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hi Computers&Society! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Computers and society (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

"Computers and society is an academic discipline" is the start of this draft, but is it? Where do I go to study it? Where to I get a degree in it?

This draft is well referenced, well researched, but appears to me to be WP:OR OR WP:SYNTH, an interesting essay.

"The discipline provides a framework for individuals, groups, organizations, and governments to thoughtfully consider issues, take positions, make decisions, and act with respect to societal challenges such as digital inclusion, technology addiction, privacy, security, safety, autonomous vehicles and weapons, intellectual property, automation, artificial intelligence, and digital risks and threats. Computer ethics is a sub-field focused specifically on ethical issues." Perhaps it is, but where are the boundaries of this putative discipline? Where are the rules, where are the Professors of the Foo Chair of Computers and Society? Instead it appears to be a WP:COATRACK on which and from which to develop other material.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Computers and society and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Computers&Society! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You raise 2 issues, asserting that the submission errs in calling "Computers and Society" an academic discipline, and that the submission is an essay and not an encyclopedia article.

With respect to the first issue, you write:

"Computers and society is an academic discipline" is the start of this draft, but is it? Where do I go to study it? Where to I get a degree in it? ... Perhaps it is, but where are the boundaries of this putative discipline? Where are the rules, where are the Professors of the Foo Chair of Computers and Society?"

:

Examples of books (there are dozens that could be included in the reading list for a course):

Gotlieb, C.C. and Borodin, A. (1973). Social Issues in Computing. Academic Press. This was the first Computers and Society textbook.

Kling, R. (1996). Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd Ed.). Morgan Kaufman.

Baase, S. and Henry, T. (2017). A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (5th Ed.). Pearson.

Baecker, R. (2019). Computers and Society: Modern Perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Typical examples of courses and professors (There are likely close to 1000 worldwide):

University of Toronto CSC 300, Computers and Society: Professors Graeme Hirst, Ishtiaque Ahmed

Columbia University COMS W3410, Computers and Society. Professors Steve Bellovin, Ronald Baecker

University of North Carolina, INLS 384, Information and Computer Ethics. Professor C. Dianne Martin

University of Washington, INFO 350, Information Ethics and Policy. Professor Melanie Walsh

University College Dublin, IS 30370, Digital Media Ethics. Professor Professor Marguerite Berry

University of Technology of Compiègne, SOC I3320, Technology and Society, Professor Karina Jeandel

Universitat Politecnika of Catalunya, ASMI 270162, Social and Environmental Issues of Information Technology, Professor Maria Guerrero

Tokyo Institute of Technology, IEE D435, Computers in Society. Professor Katie Seaborn.

Special interest groups in the professional societies of computing and electrical engineering

SIGCAS is the Special Interest Group within the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) that addresses the social and ethical consequences of widespread computer usage.

SSIT (Society on Social Implications of Technology) is a special interest group within the IEEE (Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers).

Both publish magazines.

The subject has boundaries with computer science, information studies, science and technology studies, sociology, politics, law, and ethics.

With respect to the second issue, you write:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

The article was planned and written to be an encyclopedic summary of information as detailed in 50 authoritative books by respected academics and investigative journalists. I believe it is written from a neutral point of view. I respectfully request that you point out the sections or statements that concern you.

Thank you. RonaldBaecker (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, club, organization, company, or website, I have blocked this account from editing. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must represent you as an individual person, and it must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
If you prefer to change the username on this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken or in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Appeals: If your username does not represent a group, organization, website, or other entity described above, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your statement here implies that this is a shared account being used to publish your essay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RonaldBaecker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

RonaldBaecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Your reason here Computers&Society (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Changing username to author's real name.

Accept reason:

Rename queued up and will be processed shortly. As such, I have lifted the block. Welcome back, happy editing! Yamla (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Draft talk:Computers and society while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this. I have just checked "Keep me Logged In", so I hope this will not occur in the future. RonaldBaecker (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, RonaldBaecker. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Computers and society (March 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Asilvering was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Previous decline reason still stands, and I see no reason for this decline rationale to ever change, so I am rejecting this article. My institution, like many others, teaches a course called "Computers and Society", but this doesn't make it a "thing"; it is not an academic discipline, and you cannot become a "Professor of Computers and Society" (there is exactly one google result for this string). The course with that title is about ethics in computing - and we already have, for example, Computer ethics.

asilvering (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a fuller and more helpful response, that I hope clears up some of Wikipedia's idiosyncrasies, and why writing Wikipedia articles like normal encyclopedia articles doesn't really work out:

Wikipedia wants articles about obvious, clearly delineated topics wherever possible. The draft you've written is an article about scholarly findings about topics related to computers and society, not a distinct academic discipline or method called "Computers and Society".

This might sound like splitting hairs, but it becomes especially relevant when other editors are trying to evaluate whether content is WP:DUE or not, or whether the article should exist at all. See WP:COATRACK for hyperbolic examples of how topics can get away from themselves.

Critically, Wikipedia editors want to be able to attribute basically every sentence to a "reliable source" (WP:RS). When sentences can't attributed like this, you'll see a variety of responses, including "essay like" and "original research". These don't mean what they sound like they mean.

"essay like" tends to mean something more like "persuasive in tone" or "evaluative". An example like Good examples are the social medium NextDoor which supports neighborhoods, and the organization Voices of Youth set up by UNICEF to facilitate worldwide exchange of knowledge and ideas among children might trigger this tag, because it looks like you, the editor, have chosen those as good examples, and what Wikipedia would prefer is that you, the editor, are merely referring to a published academic work that has specifically and explicitly chosen those as good examples.
"original research" means more like what is referred to in composition as "synthesis". ("Synthesis" on Wikpedia is WP:SYNTH - something else entirely.) Electronic health records support a more systematic practice of medicine but suffer from a continued lack of interoperability and can pose a threat to the privacy of personal data is, as written, an essentially uncontroversial statement. But if it's a statement you've formulated in your head, having read various reports about how electronic health records behave in various ways, that's prone to triggering "original research". What you want is a source that says basically the idea of that whole sentence, if possible.
yes, this sometimes means you have to cite actual encyclopedia articles in a Wikipedia article; very irritating.

What you could do with the content of this article instead:

sprinkle bits of it through the articles to which it refers, eg Misinformation (which, by the way, could really use some help)
draft articles on the more "thing-like" Computers and Society topics, like SIGCAS, or individual books called "Computers and Society" (a book with two or more academic reviews is normally considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards, which should easily cover all the major ones); you could then make Computers and Society into a disambiguation page
expand relevant biographies, like Calvin Gotlieb
write a short bit about the topic onto Computers, under a new heading "Social impact of computers", and use most of this article (but with attention to "essay like" and "original research" as mentioned above) to write Social impact of computers as a standalone spin-out of that article. There are a lot of "social impact of..." articles, so I think this might work. I worry a bit that it would be prone to the same "not a Wikipedia topic" issues as "Computers and Society", but at least then it would be a title and scope that more clearly agrees with the content of the article you want to write.

asilvering (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is, by the way, an extremely clearly written article. I really appreciate it! -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your helpful comments. We have made the requisite changes, and have resubmitted. RonaldBaecker (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple people writing this article together? That's fine, by the way, but you should all have different accounts if so. WP:NOSHARING is the relevant policy. (You should also look at WP:MEAT for what not to do.) -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Social implications of computers (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

In addition to having the tone of an essay (non-neutral language like "profoundly impacting society"), this has the scope of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It is true that we have some articles with wide scopes, such as Computer and Ethics of technology, but it is not clear how this article would fit into our existing ecosystem and be expanded or split based on clearly defined criteria of what should be included. I recommend abandoning the idea of this draft becoming a single Wikipedia article and instead improving existing articles with the sources and information that has been found.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Social implications of computers and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have independently been given earlier feedback similar to the comment I have just written for an earlier draft. I would strongly recommend re-reading that excellent advice from asilvering. Wikipedia does not work like, say, a collection of essays comprising a book, where authors independently write content on a given theme and there is an editor to tweak and approve it. It is built piecemeal by hundreds of volunteers collaborating on the same article (often just by adding a sentence and a source at a time), and the entry point is to improve an existing article rather than write a new one. — Bilorv (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this second draft to the original one. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Computers and society

Hello, RonaldBaecker. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Computers and society, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]