Talk:Information science

message: Removed the following, which appeared a week ago.  I don't believe its a significant event in the history of information science or informatics.  If reincluded, it belongs in a more specific article.
:"Although courses in Informatics are now available in universities such as in the Informatics department of Buffalo University, the first known educational course was established as long ago as 1983 in an Elementary School in Australia. The teacher there, Mr. Kevin Nicholas, had -vision and taught the whole school information handling, even surfing an existing web (London Times Database) before the World Wide Web existed. Kids were exposed to a wide range of activies from information handling, publishing and storage to problem confidence. People visited the school's Informatics Centre from all over Australia and New Zealand, but people are only now catching up with the need to educate children in Informatics."
Jihg 02:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I do not agree with the equivalence of Informatics and Information Science in general.  They might be used syonymously in some contexts, but in my experience they are considered different but related fields.  I'm not going to make any edits to the page until I can back up my statements here with some sources to cite, but I wanted to bring this up.  I am an "informatics scientist" in a global pharmaceutical company, and the group that utilizes the "information science" skill set is separate with distinct tools, methodologies, and responsibilities.  Also, the Journal of Information Science does not purport to cover the realm of "informatics".
I understand how others might disagree with the distinction I make here, but it is a matter of evolving terminologies.  For instance, about every 5 years, the term "bioinformatics" takes on a slightly different shaded meaning.  What I do for a living is better characterized as "biological informatics" than either the general "informatics" or "bioinformatics", in the same sense that "medical informatics" is a disciplinary narrowing if the general "informatics" area.  Following from this, I doubt that "medical informatics" could be considered synonymous with a "medical information science" field (which I've not heard of to date).  Even more drastic is that, according to a colleague in the UK, former IT departments are re-branding themselves as Informatics departments .. though I have no idea how prevalent this is.
Perhaps we can discuss this here at some length, but I really do need to get some time-appropriate information cited here to support my statements here.  The reason why I bring up the peer-reviewed journal example, by the way, is that the scope of a journal tends to shift to the generally accepted meaning of the title over time, or the title changes to reflect changed terminology for a scope that the editors wish to retain.  Journals evolve at different rates, of course.
Courtland
:I agree, for British usage at least.  There are three meanings:
:# The old usage: a generalisation of "library science", used to be synonymous with information science (e.g. medical informatics). 
:# The new usage: the study of natural and artificial computational systems, a union of computer science, AI and cognitive science.  This is the sense used by bioinformatics, or the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh (see link on page).
:# The international usage: computer science.
:The article kind of covers this, but should to be rewritten to make it more explicit.  Personally, I think (2) is now the dominant meaning, but some information scientists may disagree. Jihg 08:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
::It is the first of your meanings that is prevalent in the United States it seems, but broadened to include all manner of indexing and meta-data organization related to the organization and collection of documents, regardless of the topic those documents deal with or the medium they utilize.  In the broader sense, it seems that the scope of Knowledge Management (an even fuzzier, more disputed term) sometimes includes information science in the sense I've noted here.
:::Courtland 2005-01-28 USA 22:00 EST
Perhaps we should go so far as to 'demerge' this article and informatics (currently just a redirect here)?  At any rate it needs to be clarified to reflect the two senses considerably.  Alai 07:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informatics is synonymous with Information Science? 

message: The revision at 18:36 of 20 February 2005 seems to be an interwiki copy from computer science which made false interwiki updates on many languages messily. Could someone recover this? -- PaePae 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False interwiki 

message: For anyone who might want to include it, The University of Manchester now has a school of informatics, http://www.informatics.manchester.ac.uk/
--RickiRich 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New school of Informatics at University of Manchester 

message: Currently Computer Science is listed as a sub-category of Information Science and Information Science is listed as a sub-category of Computer Science. Is there general agreement that Information Science is a sub-category of Computer Science? If not, then should we make it a sibling of Computer Science? Dfletter 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Informatics (US) / Information science (EU) evolved out of computer science, just like software engineering. Therefore sujects studied by computer scientist a decade ago, like human-computer interaction, are now studied by information scientists. For that reason I think it would be best to leave information science as a subcat of computer science. The other way around, information scientists do study databases and programming, however this might not warrant including CS as a subcat of IS, however I don't think it would hurt if it was. Another problem is that CS and IS don't have a clear parent category that would identify them as siblings. —R. Koot 18:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do you state that philosophers are the relevant "professionals"?  It seems to me that if we depended on the philosophers for definitions, we'd have a few dozen contradictory definitions, leaving the matter more in doubt than currently.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Good question.  We out here seeking to define and clarify these issues I suppose are all philosophers. My main question is trying to understand precisely how information technology differs from information science.  Looking to the definitions of the words information, technology and science might help. Admittedly these are vast topics, much has been written. Why is there so much focus on the word informatics?  What precisely does the word bring to the discussion that the science/technology distinction lacks? Also, this page as it stands makes no mention of spatial information technology versus temporal.  This seems a major omission.  Perhaps we could move Geographic Information Science into this article or link to it. — Andresswift  —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of Information Science 

message: I recently spent some time cleaning up this article. Do we still need the cleanup tag? If so, what remains to be done? MaxVeers 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the article has been "cleaned up" (proper formatting, clear organization, no spelling or grammer mistakes) and we can remove the tag. I agree that this article needs to be expanded, but expansion is different from cleaning up. A tag like  seems more appropriate than the current one. MaxVeers 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "no spelling or grammer mistakes" <-- Such as spelling "grammar" incorrectly? ;) Brolin Empey 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup no longer needed? 

message: I added a little information relating to the use and origins of informatics in computer science. Unfortunatly I didn't realize that I wasn't logged on. I agree with the above posted comment about differetiating between the three uses of the word. If only someone would take on such a project! Take a look at the french language entry for informatique, it's huge.Elmers 13:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that even tho informatics and information science have been de-merged the talk pages are till the same, so all you information science editors please disregard that prvious comment :D Elmers 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informatics in Computer Science 

message: you do know that the merge with informatics the other day failed and that someone has already recreated an informatics page.   it might be best to move information science back to information science and informatics back to informatics.   in the u.s. many people see them as fundamentally different things. --Buridan 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you right now, people all over the world see them as fundamentally differnet things :D Seriously informatics should have its own page, even if only in the context of computer science. Elmers 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This articles describes the information science which is related to computer science not the one related to library science. Both MW and AHD say that the term Informatics is "chiefly British", so I suspect that the term information science is used to refer to the computer science related field. Also, I study at the department of "informatica en informatiekunde" in the Netherlands and this is always translated into Englsh as the department of "computing and information science". Here the "computing science" refers to computer science and information science to information science as described in this article. —Ruud 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it really doesn't matter.... what matters is that it didn't take and it likely will not take.   --01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really understand why this page was split, as the unsplit informatics is nearly identical to the start of this page. I moved it here during a page history merge, so I don't really have an objection to move it back to informatics, but I prefer to have this article at the most commonly used name. —Ruud 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think the pages should be re-merged.  That said, there's really nothing wrong with having separate articles if there's enough distinguishable content.  Otherwise, it just seems like a lot of effort to maintain two separate articles that say mostly the same things. *shrug*  --Alan Au 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems the community or at least some people thought that informatics was a separate thing.  if those people are maintaining and developing that article, there is no necessity for you to maintain it. --Buridan 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  See also User talk:Michael Fourman and User:R. Koot/Informati. Pretty much every encyclopedia and dictionary lcaim they are equivalent, however there is a movement in Britain that is trying to define "informatics" as a term referring to the collection of computer science, software engineering, cognitive science, ..., information science, while reserving the term "information science" for an actual academic discipline. I find this split of terminology a bit artificial (especially considering that both "science" and "-ics" mean knowledge) and don't think that splitting would help the reader here. The various subtly different definitions should be expalined in one article. —Ruud 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that the people who think they are doing social informatics know very well that they are not doing information science for the most part, though perhaps museum informatics might be closer to information science.   in short, informatics is perhaps thought of as applied information technology, whereas information science is thought of as the management, application, and research of information. --Buridan 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informatics merge failed 

message: While all these definitions are nice, it might help to have some sort of example of the sort of question addressed in Informatics, and how they differ from questions in related fields.  -Finn
: Do you mean giving examples of how informatics differs from information science ? Elmers 12:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Informatics 

message: There are ton of misclassfied interwiki links between the international wikis alternately pointing to informatics, information science, and computer science.  Anybody interesting cleaning this up? --Alan Au 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the problem seems to be that the German word Informatik relates to CS while in the US information science (aka. library sciences) is a subset of informatics which is a scientific branch in the making - covering social, political, technical, economical and health aspects of information systems and their use. Given this confusion it will be really difficult to maintain coherence. By the way, I object to merging information sciences and informatics. Linking the two should be sufficient - the battle goes on. Iancarter 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me it is still not 100% clear what the exact difference is? Can please anybody make this difference very clear. Otherwise I do not see how we can solve the linking problem. JKW 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think you will be able to define this issue away by spurious construction of differences.   the interwiki problem is probably best solved by having a disambiguation link at the top of the appropriate pages that encourages people to look and see the differences for themselves--Buridan 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Buridan. The problem with trying to define 'information science' is that it is such a new field. Unlike computer science, it has only been around for a few decades -- and the interdisciplinary nature only complicates things. If you took all the people who consider themselves 'information scientists' in the world, put them in a room and told them to come up with a definition, they would never come out. Everyone in the field has a different idea of what information science is and should be, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that we should be hesitant to merge two topics simply because there is confusion between the two. Rather, by providing two separate pages with links between them, those who are really interested can take the time to compare and contrast themselves.TooManyEggs 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Interwiki Links (ComputerScience vs. Informatics vs. InformationSciences) 

message: we have 3 pages for what is likely two topics.  i suggest we delete the information science page, put the informatics content on the informatics page and forward information science to LIS. --Buridan 09:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: veto information sciences is not LIS, it would more likely be informatics since it encompasses CS and IT issues as well which LIS clearly does not. --Iancarter 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: LIS encompasses plenty of CS where CS deals with information.--Buridan 10:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lis/is/informatics 

message: I was looking for sources to back up the Virtual community article and I found quite a bit out there about Cues-filtered-out theory which I redirected to social informatics. The theory deals with social cues (gesture, facial expression, voice tone, etc.) being filtered out in "computer-mediated communications". Proponents of the theory are concerned that text-based social networks such as newsgroups, forums and chatrooms foster anti-normative behaviors. See also: Community informatics, m:Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization • CQ 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cues-filtered-out theory 

message: We got blogged. —Ruud 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We got blogged 

message: ::Please see: Portal:Library and information science
 User:Ruud Koot keeps removing "‎" from this page. It was on the Portal:Library and information science, but he's removed it from there too. He claims it's not accurate for information science, but there are information science schools  that use silimar symbols. If this symbol is not accurate, then what is!?
:I don't think  is appropriate here.  Please discuss the issue with Ruud Koot directly. You could also consider positn on WP:3O.  CMummert · talk 18:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see little resemblance between the symbols and even if there was it is in no way a universally accepted symbol for the discipline of information science, meaning it adds no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. —Ruud 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Image:Messagebox_info.svg‎

message: In my opinion, this wiki article is slanted toward a 'soft science' interpretation of Information Science. Please consider the following...
Here's the description for Penn State's MSIS degree: 
"The Master of Science in Information Science (MSIS) prepares professionals to design and manage information systems.  The program offers a balance of information systems and management courses offered through the Management and Engineering Divisions. The program includes
    * the role and management of emerging information technologies
    * system design
    * software engineering methodologies
    * information ethics and management
    * contemporary IT architectures
"
http://gv.psu.edu/Current_Students/Academics/Engineering___Information_Science/ 
Also, here's a link to University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute.  From their site: 
"ISI research divisions and groups cross traditional disciplinary boundaries to investigate a broad range of advanced topics in computer science, information technology, and electrical engineering."
http://www.isi.edu/research/
Then, there's Stanford's Quantum Information Science Group:
"The group conducts the basic research on quantum optics, semiconductor mesoscopic physics, nuclear and electron spin resonance, with emphasis on quantum information system applications."
http://www.stanford.edu/group/yamamotogroup/
As I initially stated, I believe this wiki article is slanted toward a 'soft science' view of Information Science.  Even the opening paragraph equates Information Science with Information Studies. I don't think they are the same; the latter should be a (soft science, strictly non-technical) subset of the former.
I would suggest that Information Science encompasses a much wider range of topics, which include limited aspects (=only those aspects which pertain to the physical components and processes of the infomation system itself) of mathematics, physics, engineering, computer science... But also  soft science topics such as HCI, user psychology, etc.  
Hence, Information Science should be used as an all-encompassing term to describe ALL aspects of storing and processing information---everything from analyzing the user's perspective, to the wires and semiconductors that comprise the machine. In my opinion, this definition would match how the term Information Science is currently used, in practice.
84.179.245.70 17:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information Science - article slanted?

message: Hi there, I'd like to suggest a new article on the full history of information handling/management/techonology (details). I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it myself, but contributors here probably are. Thanks, JackyR | Talk 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article request 

message: Is wiki an effective knowledge organization tool?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of wiki?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengjingangela (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  about wiki 

message: Text in "Information science" states "not to be confused with Informatics".  :Category:Informatics is a category redirect to category Information science!
This is a contradiction. Not involved in these fields at all, my naive assumption was a relationship between the two topics similar to that between "flight" and "birds, airplanes".  The difference between "the study of" and "doing".  Read much of this discussion page, hope someone can at least repair the this confusion. tooold (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: "Information science" and "Informatics" 

message: — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information science, yes; information scientists, nope? Is this marvelous information society, if not information revolution, as marked by Google, Wikipedia, etc., just evolving of itself, without them? Should those Information science#Important historical figures never be called information scientists? --KYPark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Information scientists 

message: : Excerpts from: Nicholas J. Belkin and Stephen E. Robertson (1976). "Information Science and the Phenomenon of Information," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, July-August 1976, pp. 197-204. 
; Information in social context
 
:: Wersig G.; Neveling, U. 1975. "The Phenomena of Interest to Information Science." The Information Scientist. 1975; 9(4): 127-140. 
Note: The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) was founded in 1975. 
; Information in cognitive context
Note: Jerome Bruner denies that the cognitive revolution occurred around 1956. But, from 1975, strong cognitivism started moving especially, along the West Coast and along the emerging transatlantic Internet. Psycholinguists unusually crowded BBN, Xerox PARC, and the like, from the Bay area to San Diego to Urbana-Champaign, while building network-like mental and verbal (psycho-linguistic) models of their own! --KYPark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected Popper's world 1 and 3. By the way, in 1978 rev. ed. he added world 3 to world 1 and 2, arguing that it is where his main concern "objective knowledge without a knowing subject" (1972) resides. Hence, he remained reactionary, perhaps for Catholicism! The fundamentalist bible may as well be a metaphor for textualism or literalism as the librarian book, whence the very revolutionary set out to look for the full meaning of information, or significance of signification. --KYPark (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurekas since 1975 

message: Within librarianship	Without librarianship
;	Librarians
* Gottfried Leibniz
* John Shaw Billings
* Melville Dewey 
* S. R. Ranganathan 
* Jesse Shera
* Seymour Lubetzky
* Frederick Kilgour
* Michael Buckland*
;	FID people
* Paul Otlet
* Henri La Fontaine
* Suzanne Briet
* Alexander Ivanovich Mikhailov	
;	Auto. text analysis & retrieval
* Gerald Salton - SMART  
;	Hypertext synthesis & retrieval
* Vannevar Bush 
* Tim Berners-Lee*   
;	Others
* George Boole 
* Wilhelm Ostwald 
* Warren Weaver 
* Luciano Floridi*
classified by --KYPark (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A word to real information scientists, if any  Just boil it down! --KYPark (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important historical figures 

message: : More:  ACM Portal 
* No information without physicality, as no rain without humidity. Culture or handling of artefacts has existed with mankind, hence absolutely regardless of Michael Buckland's argument for "information as thing" overlapping with Jason Farradane's (1979) argument that "'information' should be defined as any physical form of representation, or surrogate, of knowledge, or of a particular thought, used for communication." (p. 4)
* That is to say, CSCW (computer supported cooperative work) and other AI fields handling artefacts need to thank neither Buckland nor Farradane at all, so as neither to appear foolish nor flattering, except that they should do that for some unspeakable reason. 
* Farradane's argument for the "physical form" of information (1979) may have responded to an argument for the user being "little conscious of the physical form of document" (1975) as a matter of fact! Try to google with this search term. 
* What's wrong with the self-evident physicality of information? Information is simply speech necessarily consisting of both physical sound and logical meaning, the signifier and the signified. <P> In a sense, information retrieval (IR) looks for one or more physical patterns, as may be best illustrated by the punched card system. In another and certainly far more importantly, however, it looks for a certain topicality and utility of information, varying from context to context. <P> The very synoptic view forces information science to distance from monocular librarianship and computer science insisting on the objective physicality and textuality of information. The information revolution perhaps since 1975 was a paradigm shift from dehumanized (maybe objective) textualism to humanized (even subjective) contextualism. More precisely, it was synoptic and holist. Until then, even scientists had been so used to think and speak of things in isolation, out of context. 
; References
* Jason Farradane (1979) "The Nature of Information." In: G. Walker (ed.), The Information Environment: A Reader. pp. 4-11. NY: G.K. Hall & Co. 
* Michael Buckland (1991) "Information as Thing." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351-360.
--KYPark (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicality or materiality of information  

message: In 2.1 Early beginnings: instead of " Abyssinian Empire" the correct should be "Assyrian Empire"
a serra niterói brasil  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.110.159 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  INFORMATION SCEINCE 

message: I've completed the conversion of the article from list form to prose per WP:PROSE and WP:SS.  List content was preserved by moving it to the Outline of information science. The Transhumanist 13:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp completed 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.capurro.de/tampere91.htm http://books.google.be/books?id=K2Zo8wAymHAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79#v=onepage&q&f=false. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  SchreyP  (messages) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The author of this article at different sections have struggled to differentiate library science and information science. But the fact of the matter is that both areas deal with collection, organization, processing and dissemination of information. Libraries and Archives are information systems and there area lots of scholars in information science that did researches related to libraries. 
Therefore, I think the writer(s) of this article lack the basic knowledge of those disciplines
Libraries are subset of information systems. That makes library science subset of information science. It is a matter of terminology in some universities. For instance most LIS schools in the US are now IS schools while in Scandinavia they still maintain the term LIS.
How can the field of Library and Information Science completely different from Information Science?
The whole article is flawed and need to be rewritten with actual facts, not by someone who is biased and evidently lacks knowledge of the two disciplines  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite a Negative Tone about Library Science 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Information science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120425073115/http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2000/monarch_2000.pdf to http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2000/monarch_2000.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw that there was a direct quote from a book giving a brief description of information science is that necessary or could it be rephrased? Manalxx (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Information science. 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/20120316090017/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pci/downloads/introduction.pdf to http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pci/downloads/introduction.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017174807/http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tm-vs-thesauri.html to http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tm-vs-thesauri.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928060217/http://www.scribd.com/doc/13742235/Information-Retrieval-Data-Structures-Algorithms-William-B-Frakes to https://www.scribd.com/doc/13742235/Information-Retrieval-Data-Structures-Algorithms-William-B-Frakes
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: I often do this in my own notes to make the notes quicker to scan. This instance did not go well. After exploding it out, I didn't feel like I had much of substance. 
Anyone else find the following rather shallow and uninformative? 
Information science is an interdisciplinary field primarily concerned with:
* analysis
* collection
* classification
* manipulation
* storage
* retrieval
* movement
* dissemination
* protection 
of information.
:
Practitioners within the field study:
* organizational:
** application
** usage of knowledge 
* interaction among:
** people
** organizations
** any existing information system
with the aim of:
* creating
* replacing
* improving
* understanding 
information systems. 
:
Information science is often (mistakenly) considered a branch of computer science.
:
IS predates computer science and is actually a broad, interdisciplinary field, incorporating not only aspects of computer science, but often diverse fields such as:
* archival science
* cognitive science
* commerce
* communications
* law
* library science
* museology
* management
* mathematics
* philosophy
* public policy
* social sciences.
:
Information science as an academic discipline is often taught in combination with Library science as Library and Information Science. 
:
Information science deals with all the processes and techniques pertaining to the information life cycle: 
* capture
* generation
* packaging
* dissemination
* transformation
* refining
* repackaging
* usage
* storage
* communication
* protection
* presentation in any possible manner.
— MaxEnt 01:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current lead, exploded view 

message: Article says that information science "is primarily concerned with analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval, movement, dissemination, and protection of information" and cites Stock and Stock's handbook for this definition. However, the book says, "Information Science studies the representation, storage and supply as well as the search for and retrieval of relevant (predominantly digital) documents and knowledge (including the environment of information)." (p. 3). Further, it says that sub-disciplines are 
"– Information Retrieval,
– Knowledge Representation,
– Knowledge Management and Information Literacy,
– Research into the Information Society and Information Markets,
– Informetrics, including Web Science." (p. 5)
I especially find the word "movement" of information in the definition given in this article problematic. Never heard of any information science definition including that.
:Probably author was trying to write in his own words. Personally, I don't see anything problematic about the use of "movement". Information is not always static, and can be said to have moved when it is communicated.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of information science 

message: I was going through the categories, and noted that within the category for   Infromation science by discipline, GIScience is listed. When I came to see how it was incorporated in the main page, I was a bit disappointed as a GIScientist to see it was missing. As it seemed to be an obvious addition, I figured I'd check the talk page to see if that omission was based on consensus. On another note, the GIScience article needs to be flushed out a bit as well. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  05:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including mention or subsection of geographic information science? 

message: Backup privacy video 196.129.171.126 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup privacy