Talk:Technology/Archive 2

message: In light of the quite fervent response and wholly negative I have received to my changes and suggestions, I'll leave this article to Steven and Rossfi to continue to develop as they see fit, since I think I am alone among the three of us in suggesting changes.  I would ask that you leave the cleanup tag in place, and I'll wait until there is editorial consensus for a change before I bother to push any more. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, thanks for the nice words, I really appreciate it.  On the other hand, I really do think that we have a fundamental difference of consensus here between your approach and my own.  I continue to worry that this page feels very ideosyncratic, since each piece relies on one source, with no clear sense of whether it is authoritative or even how these sources relate.  For example, things like the 4-value description of McGinn and the division of technology into energy and tools in the history section seem very specificly somebody's theory, and they don't really speak to each other, nor do the other parts of this essay.  Similarly, the effects of technology differ depending on definition and time -- the sociological effects of the automobile and fire are hardly "The most subtle side effects."  So I still have fundamental problems with the approach. On the other hand, you guys seem to be making progress, but since there are so many articles to work on (and I want to keep hammering away on the innovation side of technology) I have learned that, in the face of consensus, it is often better to check in occasionally than to engage in long debates that won't change minds.  If you disagree, I am happy to continue to discuss. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backing away

message: P.S. I actually preferred most of the oringinal lead-in, it was simpler and more pointed and I like the summary sentence at the end of the definitions Thus, usefulness is the essential feature of technology.. Also the paragraph starting As a cultural activity, technology predates both science and engineering. It is a far-reaching term including both simple tools, such as a wooden spoon, and complex tools, such as the space station. Its scope includes any tool in any discipline. This is not to imply that technology is the only cultural forming activity, nor that it is the primary culture-forming activity. Often, it is dominate in cultural formation; often, it is not. In addition, culture may act to form technology. This relationship between technology and culture could be called symbiotic, and is explained futher below. forms a good base to develope the article.
I like the "economics" definition too, particularly the bit abount combining resources - may just have to try it out as a bullet . . .
If technology is "also a cultural activity" then you conflict with the "culture-forming activity" definition and imply a whole lot of other activity types?
Rossfi 15:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Modified, any better?  Steven McCrary 16:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yea - Excellent - probably need to wrestle some with the definitions but they'll hold for now . . . 
See above for responses on History
Rossfi 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: hello all,
i'm going to try and keep it simple.  i'm in my masters at asu studying rhet/comp with a focus on technology.  after much reading (which i've been doing for a few years) i've noticed a glaring problem with theory on technology as related to anything else - the word technology is SO multiple in its definitions that, rather than creating value of diversity in the field, it hinders progress, obscures meaning and keeps theorists who could be working on parallel and progressive themes essentially divergent.
so i built a wiki.  i call it techniki.  my plan is to keep it simple for a while.  it is focused on gathering definitions and usages of the word technology with a goal of creating a stable (not fixed, caged - nothing fascist) definition.  
my problem so far - no community for creating knowledge. i am hoping that by posting this i can begin the 'tell 2 friends who tell 2 friend' (i hope that came across as humor.)  
i've noticed very few names on this site, so i figure there is a tight-knit community who gives a damn about these topics.  can any or all of you help me?  my wiki is at this address:
http://brain.brainery.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
you can contact me at james.palazzolo@asu.edu.
thank you...james palazzolo
Hi James, Not too sure if your 'posting' is an appropriate use of this discussion page but  . . .
By way of a response I would ask if you noted the earlier exchange between Steve and I under Definition and Comments. 
If you get this sussed then jump in and help us mate - the definitions part is tough and any help is appreciated. . .
Rossfi 16:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  in keeping with this "be bold" concept... 

message: I am not sure about the meaning of the following sentence: "Again we are confronted with an impractical vagueness as we categorise the lever with the jet engine." I have deleted it once, does anyone else understand what it means?  I believe it should be eliminated.  Steven McCrary 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my concurrance. I see no reason for that cryptic remark except the hubris of a modern engineer.  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of phrase "practical vagueness as we categorise"

message: hopefully without major change, except that I saw no reason for the Disambiguation part not to appear within the writup.  It is not a final cut by any means, and I think the History should be expanded.  But, I think it will do for a start.   ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Have "Cleaned Up" the First Three Sections,

message: I have restored the Greek words in the introduction, the question marks will not do the job.  Do we need to discuss the removal of the Greek words completely fromt the text? SteveMc 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Normxxx, but it looks like you're the one who messed it up in the first place. Revision as of 06:47, 27 January 2006 :-( Is it possible your computer didn't retain the greek letters? Did you maybe use an external text editor? If the greek letters could be replaced with some escape codes that should prevent this from happening again, but it does make the page a little harder to edit. Ewlyahoocom 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, now that I know I'm the problem! I use a fantasticaly powerful little text/html editor that is orders of magnitude simpler than anything MS puts out.  It's called NoteTab Pro and is put out by Notetab, but its native font set is quite limited. In future, I will be careful to avoid sucking in the Greek and/or reset as necessary.  Thanks for the tip.  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek words 

message: Meanwhile, I have extended my edits down to (but not including) Economics and technological development.  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Editing 

message: This is going to be a very long article which, eventually (but not until we have a final cut), will need to be broken up.  In the meantime, sections alternate between American and British spelling, and I think that is confusing to the reader.  I will be honest: I prefer American spelling because (1) I have a hard enough time spelling in American English; learning to spell in British English would be that much harder, and (2) American spelling is usually simpler.
Thoughts anyone?  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'll be ok to use American spelling throughout the article. Gflores Talk 17:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any opinions from any Brits on the wiki?  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brit here; I'm fine with American spellings. Although... technology *is* an international thing and therefore International English should probably be used - recall that nearly all other countries that speak English use Commonwealth English. I say write in American for now, as that seems to be the language of technology. AKismet 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I'm wondering if the article should cover or at least mention 'technology' in non-humans. There's Animal_cognition#Tool_use, but it's breif. If tool use or construction (e.g. nest building) in non-humans counts as technology then a section on it would be cool. If technology is something different than what animals do, then a paragraph or two that contrasts human technology with similar non-human behaviours would be good. Matt 18:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_"great_apes" with free pictures. Matt 18:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also  (wikipedia's coverage of this is slim and unreferenced). It documents tool use in dolphin's being taught by mother to daughter. It discusses the tool use as evidence of culture. Matt 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know who ScienceWeek is, or if they're reliable, but  is informative. Matt 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: talks about primate and early human use of tools. Mentions Capuchin monkeys learning tool use from observing others. Matt 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And finally (for I do need to get real work done),  Talks about technology in general, including some definitions that distinguish different levels of technology. I don't know who the fellow is, but it's from NASA so it's somewhat credible. Matt 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-human technology 

message: Does anyone care about the style for BC? We have it with and without periods, with and without "E". Maurreen 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BC style

message: Does anyone else think this article is overly abstract? Maurreen 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstract

message: The "History of technology" section is a great overview.  However, it is overly long, given that there is a full article on that subject.  Also, I note that the History of technology article lacks an overview.  I therefore propose a shorter summary of the history of technology in this article and a move of all but the first paragraph of the section to the "History of technology" article, where it would become the first section and perhaps be titled "Overview."  What do folks think?  Any objections? Sunray 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the history section is one of the best parts of the current article. The rest is too academic for my taste. But if it's important to you, go ahead. And nice to see you again, Sunray. Maurreen 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been out of it for a while (moving from UK back to Oz) but I love the way this Topic has moved on - I too think the history section is great, its greatest strength being that it focuses on the progression of technology rather than time periods or cultures. I do however have my doubts about the place of the electronics sub-section and will remove it if there is no objection as I don't see any good reason for electronics to have any special prominance (much as I like the the subject). This should shorten the section adequately, removing any more would lose valuable info. I think adding an overview would defeat the purpose. Rossfi 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you hold off on removing the electronics section? How about instead if I add more types of technology, so that electronics wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb? Maurreen 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has added any additional sections for other technologies, I'm going to remove "electronics". Elliotreed 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maureen, I agree that most of the article may fit better on a Technology and society, in fact, I almost started one last night.  SteveMc 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea but the section is too long already - Note that previously I wanted to make Fire a sub heading - Electicity/Electronics is also a key turning point but it is all part of a much larger treatise. The bit on the wheel is also a bit verbose I think and could do with a trim. 58.168.211.79 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As with Rossfi, I have been out of it a long while, and I am happy with the progression of the article.  I concur, however, that the electronics section is too long.  I do not believe that adding more technology is the cure.  If we begin adding technologies to this page, where will we stop?  See for example the List of technologies and   and the .  Electronics should be minimized to its appropriate context in history, not in pop culture.  As such, I also deleted the paragraphs on the wheel.  SteveMc 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of technology

message: We would like very much to include this topic in [[WP:V0.5}}, but this article clearly still needs a lot of work.  It has improved greatly since we first looked at it in autumn 2005, though, and so I have now classed it as "B-Class" instead of "Start".  I very much hope it can be cleaned up before August, so that we can renominate the article and include it on our test CD. Walkerma 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected for Version 0.5

message: I restored the section on the "Nature of technology" since its seems, to me anyway, to be an important topic.  That section gets to the heart of the comment made by Maurreen, above, regarding the academic nature of this topic.  Without these types of technology, the article misses a major point. SteveMc 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of technology 

message: Should we include maybe a few paragraphs on patents and related? Maurreen 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on patents, so a few paragraphs would be too much.  The article is nearing the "bloated" stage.  How about a couple of sentences in "The nature of technology"?SteveMc 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see your point, it was mainly food for thought. Maurreen 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am eating it up.  Good thoughts! Those are the types of thoughts we need for this article.  SteveMc 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Maurreen 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome, I added something on intellectual properties. SteveMc 21:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patents

message: What does the article need to make it ready for Wikipedia:peer review?  Please add comments here and in the to-do list at the top of this page.  Thanks, SteveMc 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gone over the whole article; I have a short attention span. But maybe I could put a little in the current stub sections and then we could submit it for GA. Thanks for all your work on this. Maurreen 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review?

message: Unfortunatley, this artcile is not a GA, due to the fact that there are very few references, and none are mentioned in the body of the text.Some P. Erson 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GAC

message: Sadly, I cannot pass the article in its current form. Besides the lack of references and inline citations, there are several sections that are simply too stubby to be useful, bare external links on the prose, among other things. I would follow the suggestions given on the peer review above. Titoxd(?!?) 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5 again 

message: Regarding the opening paragraph, it sets out the distinctions/overlaps well but the only problem is that the citation is not made explicit, i.e. Rousell et al, wrote what? 134.226.1.229 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: This article is getting worse not better.  I have spent too much time to see it go that way, so I am resigning from it.  Adios and good luck. SteveMc 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrading article