Talk:Computer science/Archive 3

message: A new article, since history of computing didn't cover the right topic. I've written tons of content there already, but it's definitely not finished... since it ends with Turing right now ;-) Anyway, the material here on academics needs to be added to that, and then a summary for here compiled from that article, or whatever. That's my suggestion anyway. Sbwoodside 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we merge the "history of computer science" section here out to that article, or at least shrink it?  The section in this article is a bit long for a mere summary, I think.  --bmills 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The problem here is that the history of computer science] is not finished yet, so we can't summarize it. —Ruud 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, most of the "history" section here seems to have more to do with the history of computing hardware, which has arguably less to do with modern CS (except that it's taught in high school CS sometimes).  What if we just add links to both somewhere?  --bmills 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Evolutionary section, I wrote based on sources about the thesis. Do consider the emphasis of the section and not that it includes statement to help the reader understand some terminology. — Dzonatas 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[history of computer science]] 

message: Powo and Dzonatas: you might want to have a look at the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I've listed Computer science at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Computer_science because of the edit war that seems to be going on here. Sorry, but it seems necessary, because the history is getting pretty polluted. I'll just repeat again that it would be far more useful to add content to the article rather than quibbling over the summary at this point, given how lean the article is. Sbwoodside 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR]]

message: The statistics given are very interesting. Nice work. I would like to make the following (hopefully constructive) remarks:
* The statistics are not so much about computer scientists, nor even about people who received a training as a computer scientist before doing another job. Could we find statistics about what carreer computer scientists embrasse? (Obviously, only one in fifth computer programmer received a basic training as a computer scientist).
* These statistics are for the USA. What about other places? (They could be quite different, since e.g. a lot more people have a BS in the states than in Europe).--Powo 21:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you refer to is a web-administrator? An admin does, like you said "administrative" jobs, a developer certainly does more than that. --Johnnyw 03:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for showing me the light!--Powo 09:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Web-admins" are also called "webmasters." — Dzonatas 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carreers and demographics

message: Please attempt dispute resolution if you haven't already. And please, no labeling of others edits as "vandalism". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Page is unprotected per request. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I move that we completely remove the career section (Computer programmers, database administrators, web developers, etc).  I'm not sure why this topic was included in the first place.
If it's to point potential and current computer science students to career opporunities, then we might as well include technical support into the list, since that's where many CS grads end up.
Or is it because people working in the listed careers are somehow involved in the science of computers?  Certainly nobody is trying to say that the guy who picked up "HTML for Dummies" and has a job designing websites could be considered a computer scientist? jonovision 07:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. On that note, I looked at the page for Biology. They have a very nice layout for the article. How do you feel if we used something like that to show the principles and the scope of the studies and careers? High-level programmers, network administrators, and database administrators are now taught mainstream under Information Technology rather than CS, so do you think this CS article should only include the low-level aspects? A web developer is like a programmer-analyst position, so we can merge that into the others. — Dzonatas 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Career section 

message: For an article that covers as much detail as this one does, surely there should be some references listed. I noticed a couple under the demographics section but I was surprised not to see a references section near external links. From reading the talk pages, I see there have been some arguments, some of which could have been settled easily with some references. - Squilibob 06:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Please see initial questions and comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_December_2005/Computer science#Mediator.27s_initial_comments.2C_observations.2C_and_questions
Steven McCrary 22:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: The current intro says:
[...
others have tried to use computer science to denote specifics related to computational science.
...]
And computational science links to scientific computing. However, I think that when one thinks of scientific aspects of CS, one has not scientific computing in mind (which is argualy not even par of CS...) What do editors of this page think?--Powo 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Foolish change by you know who. change it to computation until we have a proper introduction. —Ruud 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific definition of CS

message: Transferable voting system, number in order of preference (1 high). Admin votes count double. Democracy in action! Only people who have previously made non-minor edits to this page are eligble? Agree? Fair? I can't think how else we can agree.
The candidates are (in order of my preference):
# "Computer Science is the academic field of computer related science and technology. It includes fields including but not limited to Algorithms, Graphics, Computer Architecture and Complexity. It does not however encompass the use of computers, as is the case with computing."
# "Computer science, an academic discipline, is the study of computer-related science and technology. Areas that it includes include algorithms, computational theory software engineering and systems analysis. Its concern is with the design and operation of computer systems, not their use, as is the case with computing."
# "Computer science is the study of computation, information and complexity. It includes areas such as the theory of computation, analysis of algorithms, formal methods, concurrency control, databases, computer graphics and systems analysis. Its concern is with the design and operation of computer systems, not their use, as is the case with computing."
# "Computer science is the science of computer systems and related computation. It studies on the management of the complexity in the construction and analysis of its systems."
# "is the study, or science, of computer systems and related computation. It focuses on the management of the complexity in the construction and analysis of its systems."
Have I missed any alternatives? -- Tompsci 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't admins voted for? Do you think that's stupid too? Obviously concensus is prefereable, but this is better than nothing. -- Tompsci 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd prefer some more discussion, I believe several people together will be able to come up with a better definition than a single person would. —Ruud 17:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a vote? 

message: * Katholiek Universiteit Leuven (Belgium)  de wetenschap die zich bezighoudt met de beheersing van complexiteit ("the science which concerns itself with the control of complexity").
* Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands)  Informatica gaat over informatie en de manieren waarop je informatie kunt bewerken en verwerken. ("Computer science is about information and the ways in which you can modifiy and process it.")
* University of Washington (United States of America)  Computer science is the study of information and algorithms within the context of real and abstract computing devices.
* University of Camebridge (United Kingdom)  Computer Science is the study of information and computation. It asks questions about the nature of information and the operations which can be performed on it.
* University of Camebridge (United Kingdom)  Computer science is an interdisciplinary subject. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics, with links to linguistics, psychology and other fields. When concerned with hardware design it can overlap with electrical and electronic engineering. The development of circuits made directly on silicon chips gives a link to solid state physics. Formal methods for the construction, analysis and validation of software can, on the other hand, involve much mathematics.
* University of Oxford (United Kingdom)  Computer Science is the study of problem- solving using computers.
* Victory University of Wellington (New Zealand)  Computer Science is the study of computing. This includes the engineering aspects of the design of complex systems, fundamental theories of computer science, and techniques and tools used in a range of applications.
:Conclusion: there is no agreed on definition, so we should have one which explains most to the casual reader as the introduction.-- Tompsci 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but this might help to get some inspiration. —Ruud 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for doing this.  Here are the bits I especially like:  "Computer science is the study of information and algorithms" ... "Computer science is an interdisciplinary subject. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics..." ... "Computer Science is the study of problem-solving using computers."  This last bit, especially, nicely avoids the question of whether we're talking about practical problems and engineering know-how or formal mathematical problems and proof. Jorend 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That are the same bits as I like, although I think computation is bit more genral than algorithms. —Ruud 12:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: What do people think of the careers section? It could be incorporated in a paragraph that outlines the differece between computer science research, education and what graduates end up doing, but as a list I'd say it provides a bit of an unbalanced view. —Ruud 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  careers section 

message: Do we really need links here to lists that are already in :Category:Computer science?  If we were to link to every CS-related list, it would be rather confusing to readers &emdash; and some of those lists are widely CS-related, whereas others are only applicable to certain fields...  I think we should just "See also" :Category:Computer science and focus on making that a useful tool for further reading.  --bmills 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The see also section needs at least some links in it because of the templates it also contains. I think the lists were the most relevant from the old see also section. I wouldn't mind if they were replaced with some thing more relevant, although it think the lists are usefull, because they contain a lot of links to other articles. It is also how it is done in the physics and chemistry articles. —Ruud 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right.  The templates won't float without some text to float alongside.  I do think we should link the category, though, just as a reminder; and perhaps un-link the field-specific lists?  --bmills 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the list of algorithms and data structures. Categories are never links from in the see also section, because you can access them from the bottom of the article. —Ruud 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the casual WP readers I know forget that categories exist -- since this is the main article for that category don't you think a link would be appropriate?  --bmills 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it's just one of those don't do things. Also the see also section is really close the bottom, so the category is pretty hard to miss. —Ruud 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists in "See Also"