Talk:Information revolution

message: The Information Revolution technically goes back to Gutenberg if not clear to the papyrus or the invention of written or spoken language, but what's generally being discussed here is the changes digital technology has made to information retrieval and propagation since the 1980s or so when microchips became widespread.
Thevideodrome (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, for the most part, although I question the part about Gutenberg. I don't know, I guess this is a broad and fuzzy subject.
Malik Conn 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Some of it probably belongs elsewhere (if on WP at all, per WP:NOR), and Digital Revolution should be lower cased as digital revolution, like scientific revolution. It was not a war.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be merged with Digital Revolution

message: This page sets off my nonsense and auto-generated thesis alerts.  How about you? Philip (Respond?) 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense? 

message: This article does not provide a definition of the term and its historical context and does not provide examples. A reader trying to find out more about the term will find it's usefullness quite doubtful.
62.90.164.39 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsatisfactory 

message: I agree that the article as it stands is full of unexplained jargon, as well as being in need of copy-editing, and is lacking in clear information.  The term "informational" isn't standard English, and reseasrch shows that it's mainly used by people whose first language isn't English; I've therefore renamed the article. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This article seems to be (in addition to very poorly written) full of original research - that at best describes a series of personal essay/viewpoints that are in no way accepted or viewed as "the norm" - and at worst is someone's pet OR soap box for a social science hypothesis.  Major clean-up is needed.  Given how impenetrable the current version is it may be sensible to delete and see if it is naturally recreated in time where it is able to follow WP policies of V, OR and NPOV.  The term does have usage - but it has no defined or accepted usage - that is a problem, and leads to the current jargon/junk that is in this article. SFC9394 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's significantly worse than that, almost the entire article appears to be self promotion for this "Veneris" idiot. Half the citations are from a doctoral thesis that wasn't even accepted to a peer reviewed journal.--122.106.251.190 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The above ^ anonymous slander hidden behind 122.106.251.190 is defacing wikipedia and open media... What are his academic qualifications, if any? Environment and Planning A by Pion Press, IS a top quality peer reviewed journal.
(Has anybody seen a PhD Thesis "accepted to a peer reviewed journal"?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.109.235 (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A thesis/dissertation should not be cited here, unless after its presentation and acceptance, later work validates it; otherwise it's not a WP:reliable source. PS: Don't make hyperbolic claims of libel (or "slander" as you incorrectly put it – slander only applies to spoken defamation, not written), or you may be blocked from editing indefinitely for making legal threats.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: The WP editors should read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. At least, they should try to be more specific (especially about jargon/junk). If SFC9394 agrees that the term has usage, but lacks definition, then an article like this could be very helpful.PlatonicIdeas (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The information revolution and the digital revolution are two separate things. The digital revolution is the trend of computers getting smaller, and started in 1980's. The information revolution started in the late 1890's to the early 1900's. It was the start of new technology being planned and developed. Two different revolutions here. 
Malik Conn 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's highly debatable.  Most of the commentary on this talk page suggests that much of the present article is WP:OR nonsense.  About 1/3 of it looks like material that belongs at scientific revolution, 1/3 at digital revolution and 1/3 in the trash can.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose: The topic of this article, "current economic, social and technological trends beyond the Industrial Revolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scientific Revolution (the emergence of modern science during the early modern period).—Machine Elf 1735 05:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Different subjects

message: Should the article information revolution be merged with one or more better developed articles, such as digital revolution and/or scientific revolution? If so, how you would prefer this be done?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: The topic of this article, "current economic, social and technological trends beyond the Industrial Revolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scientific Revolution (the emergence of modern science during the early modern period).—Machine Elf 1735 05:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments

message: See Talk:Information Age#Suggested merges  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge discussion notice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Information revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118072720/http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0 to http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Information revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417065854/http://home.lu.lv/~s10178/sixrevolutions.pdf to http://home.lu.lv/~s10178/sixrevolutions.pdf
*Added  tag to http://sparky.ncl.ac.uk/F/G8521LMQB43XGTBF8F9TTGLAET3TICLYU61CSXP5SVNC1DEPTS-69792?func=full-set-set&set_number=004195&set_entry=000001&format=999
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307062243/http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/productive_forces/information_English.htm to http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/productive_forces/information_English.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Society 5.0 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Society 5.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Society 5.0" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]