Jump to content

Talk:Technology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Autodidactyl (talk | contribs)
8,592 edits
Undid revision 316038904 by 69.245.107.195 (talk)
Undid revision 1251677338 by 37.111.150.85 (talk) not helpful.
 
(672 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|technology}}
{{talk header}}
{{VA|topic=Technology|level=1|class=C}}
{{Article history
{{summary in|human}}
|action1=GAN
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
|action1date=07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Technology|class=C|importance=top
|action1link=Talk:Technology/GA1
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|action1result=not listed
|B-Class-1=no
|action1oldid=381416725
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-2=yes
|currentstatus=FGAN
<!-- 3.has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content-->|B-Class-3=yes
|topic=Engineering
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
}}
|B-Class-4=yes
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |1=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
{{WikiProject History |importance=Top}}
|B-Class-5=yes
{{WikiProject History of Science |importance=Top}}
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->|B-Class-6=yes}}
{{Wikiproject Techhistory/recruit|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Systems |importance=Top |field=Systems}}
{{WikiProject Systems|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology }}
{{WikiProject Engineering |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Electronics |importance=Top}}
}}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|{{U|Sdkb}}|Level-1 vital article}}
{{todo}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Technology/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Technology/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 175K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Technology/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|category=Engtech|core=yes|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=Top}}
{{archive box|*[[/Archive 1|&mdash; August 2005]]
*[[/Archive 2|September 2005 &mdash; February 2007]]
*[[/Request for feedback|Request for feedback]]}}

==NPOV==
The neutrality of this article for many of the reasons explained below in the balance and balance redux sections. Primarily it is only the supposed benefits of technology to society that are allowed to remain in the text of this article. Over time much of the negative impacts upon society have been slowly or suddenly removed and never allowed to reappear. The editors of the page (and other users of Wikipedia) may need to question their own neutrality on the subject if they are involved in computer sciences or other fields of advanced technology.I'm not saying that all the supposed benefits be removed, or even that they all need to be questioned, but often there are two sides to the coin when a benefit is mentioned.

Defining technology as something that belongs to a "species" seems strange to me. I have never heard it aplied to anything but humans, except perhaps in Science Fiction. Why mention species or humans at all? Technology is the aplication of science through engineering, no matter who does it! --- It just sounds silly - and perhaps politically charged.

==Balance==
I have contributed and watched this article for a while now and am still of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly positive in it presentation of the technolgical effects and "advancements". As stated previously elsewhere, the images are mostly benign or put forward in a positive light while images of a-bomb explosions could just as easily be injected. "For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb". Images of assembly lines, tanks or Nazi gas chambers might also be included as notable uses of technoloy along with looms and printing presses. You'll also note that the environmental section (which inevitably led to some condemnation of technological society has now simply gone away. The nature of criticizing technology with technology may seem like a paradox but you can observe the way the system subtly leads a defense of itself and the dismissal and removal of criticism. This was a primary point of [[Jacques Ellul]]
~~
:I've reverted it. The enviromental section was removed, as this article is undergoing a facelift. I'm not trying to remove criticism; I'm looking for balance in the article; look at the lead and see how each positive point is balanced by a negative point! I don't think putting images of A-bombs in the article is suitable; we've had pictures of weapons previously (see the 'Fields of technology'), and we're here to describe technology, not add shock images of Nazi gas chambers. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: But you do not deny that E=mc2 is a landmard of technological progress or that this equation has caused great tragedy? It's not about shock, it's about reality and balance. The astronaut floating serenely in space seems overwhelmingly benign and arguably much less significant than Chernobyl, Nagasaki, or Treblinka. And all of these things were made possible by techno-industrial society. Part of the problem here with the positivism that sweeps this reality under the rug is illustrated well in a chpter of One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse.
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html
I strongly urge you to spend a few minutes checking it out as it deals directly with the subject of balance concerning this topic. Many of the things written of positively, before saying some other things are bad, are often not nearly as healthy for society as they seem presented in the article. Again the chapter from Marcuse deals with this. Other negative characteristics of advanced technological society have also been deleted. For example... more people are starving and hungry now than at any point in history or pre-history -- in total numbers AND per-capita. Just today I saw a report from the BBC about 1 in 7 of the worlds [children] doing serious physical laborers (mostly in sub-Sahara Africa). The point that slaves (and worse forms of slavery) have been more prevalent in a world dominated by advanced technological societies seems noteworthy. So looms and printing presses don't cut it for me in terms of balance as far as images go. And it's honestly debatable whether these things are signs of improvement over other primitive, low-technological societies. I'll leave it at this for now but I do hope you check out that Marcuse.
[[User:70.226.140.69|70.226.140.69]] 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the negative consequences of technology seem to get covered up/deleted over time and relegated to the bottom of the page. No mention currently of luddites or major anti-technological treatises. And the good aspects of all the unnecessarily listed tools needs some balance. Sure six-shooter guns were an advancement that propelled industrial production -- but not only has that brought about environmental consequences, but it immediately facilitated the genocide of pre-american aboriginals. Sure nuclear power allows us to run all of our consumeristic gadgets more inexpensively, but Chernobyl and the connection to the Nuclear war industry also need to be mentioned. Balance is needed in this article.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] ([[User talk:Nihilozero|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nihilozero|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:A fair comment. I'm currently reworking the article, but take a look at the enviroment section: the image in question is a nuclear reactor, noting that it produces radioactive waste. There is a mention of weapons and military in the lead, but I will include a mention of [[neo-luddism]] in the lead's philisophical paragraph. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for the attempt at balance. Concerning the image of the nuclear power plant in the Environment section, I tried to change the picture to an image of the [[Chernobyl disaster]] site and pointed out that in addition to creating nuclear waste, they (nuclear reactors) can potentially meltdown -- since this a primary concern in regard to the environment. I did this because the environmental concerns were incomplete without the mention of a meltdown and also because all of the images on the page seem rather benign or positive. For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb. So rather than going on about how humanity (or at least a very few) left the surface and went into orbit, the caption could read something like: "By the mid-20th century mankind had created the technology which potentially could bring about the end of humanity and civilization by scorching the surface of the earth with nuclear radiation." In any case, I at least hope my meltdown comment sticks this time under the image in the environment section. [[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 11:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:::That would swing the article towards an anti-technology POV - something to avoid. I think the article (well, the parts of the article that I have rewritten) is NPOV. Take a look at the lead; it constrasts two different schools of thought of technology, notes "the development of weapons of ever-increasing destructive power" and "Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, a term originally applied only to machines, and the challenge of traditional norms." Just because something bad can happen with a certain technology, doesn't mean we need to mention it. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course we don't need to mention every bad thing that can happen with technology BUT, when we are talking about the greatest technological discovery of the 20th Century E=mc2 leading directly to Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl, that should be at least as prominently featured in the article as the astronaut serenely exploring space as he floats in orbit. Technology has enabled humanity to wipe itself and potentially scorch every inch of the Earth's surface -- and that seems very notable to me. [[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::[[Mass-energy equivalence]] is a concept in physics, not a technology as such. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::You are not seriously questioning whether or not the Theory of Special Relativity and it's application was a technological advancement, are you? You also don't question the incredible amount of damage the related tools have done and could do (to say nothing of the societal stresses they have caused). So these things don't deserve mention in this article because they have nothing to do with technology? Please. The bias could not be more clear. --[[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
=== Balance redux ===
RKO...RKO...RKO W00T
I'm a little confused by the re-start of the above thread at its top, so I'm going to add my comments to it here.

:"At the same time however more technologically advanced societies have made wider use of harsher forms of sexual slavery than any practiced by [[primitive]] societies (which are often subjugated or systematically slaughtered by advanced technological weapons and techniques). And while technology has produced an affluent class more people are currently starving on the earth than at any other point in history or prehistory -- both in total numbers and per capita."

One thing you shouldn't do is treat the subject of "technology" as being the same as "modern society". The two are difficult to separate, sure, but it's a mistake to automatically blame modern society's sins on technology. This is why some of these criticisms don't belong in the main [[technology]] article. They may belong in [[modernity]] or even [[postmodernity]].

Separately, your claim that "more people are starving than at any point in history or prehistory" needs to be backed up by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and I doubt the "prehistory" part of it is true: the [[Toba catastrophe]] is theorized to have killed off some ungodly fraction of the worldwide human population, through the scarcity produced by the ensuing [[volcanic winter]].--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::The lead in to my balancing statements was this already existing line: "Technology has affected society and its surroundings in a number of ways." To then mention only that advanced technology has allowed the rise of a leisure class, without mentioning the underlying reality{{Fact|date=December 2007}} of enslavement allowed by advanced systems of organization and control seems to detract from the balance in this article. Just the other day I saw a BBC news story about the fact that 1 in 7 of the world's children are doing hard physical labor. They then interviewed children in a sub-Saharan nation who were mining copper to achieve a subsistence standard of living. That copper is sent to China and then ends up in things like our computers. To speak of our leisure class enabled by advanced technological systems while ignoring their virtual enslavement belies any semblence of balance. I am not confusing technology with modern society because the subject line was about the effects of technology on society (which is controlled by advanced technological systems). As for the starvation "claim" (not that I want to distract from the points I've just made) Thant's pretty easy to understand as well. Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, the Sioux or Australian Aboriginals for example, lived close to bountiful nature and were in no fear of starving.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} The famines in primitives societies occurred mostly when they started being pushed around by "advanced" and "civilized" peoples.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} And today we are in a situation were as many people are suffering from excess food as are from lack of it.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} This responds directly to the notion of technology only bringing about a leisure class and hopefully makes my [[starving]] point a little more clear as well. I therefore would appreciate it if you would restore the balance that I had added to this article. You can refer to the wiki [[starvation]] article for reliable sources.
::--[[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1768018,00.html This story] on the subject of child labor contradicts much of your stance. I didn't hand pick it: it was the first thing that came up when I looked for "one in seven" children "hard labour". I also looked at [[starvation]], which contained exactly two sources, neither of which support your claims. I've taken the liberty of marking each of your above claims that I find unlikely to be true, unless you could provide reliable sources for them that were furthermore not contradicted by other reliable sources.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Indeed. I remember reading an article where a African tribal society had to put in a workweek similar to the Western world's just to get by. It's a fallacy to glorify the peasant's lifestyle (as it put it); people die earlier, usually of disease, and there's *lots* of fighting. I also thought of placing [citation needed] tags, as nihilzero's claims are rather incredible. At any rate, most of these criticms belong in [[globalisation]]. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 09:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:And just which of my claims is incredible? You deny that technologcally advanced societies have an infrastructure and tools to allow the subjugation of more primitive peoples? You deny that the scale and brutality of the middle passage along with the enslavement of Africans wasn't facilitated and allowed to be of such great scale because of the technological infrastructure? Other simple genocides carried out by technologically advanced nations are also of historically unprecedented scale and brutality. I also directed you to the [[starvation]] page where you can see the dire situatin that exists for so many in the modern technological world. But you choose to only make not of those who have been helped by the infrastructure and not the masses who are suffering in the midst of so much technological wealth and control. That is the exact opposite of balance. Many seem to be techno-apologists and positvists who choose to only look at the perceived benefits while swqeeping a preponderence of evidence to the contrary under the rug. This is to such an extent that the consequences of E=mc2 (the A-bomb and Chernobyl) are edited out -- despite that equation being a major technological milestone. Again, I refer you to the chapter of One-Dimensional Man by Marcuse http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html and this book by Sahlins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original%20affluent%20society --[[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::BTW, the article you provided did not disporve my claims about the horrors of children in the workforce. There was put forward this hollow idea that it might be eradicated, but that doesn't change the present reality even if the UN was able to work this miracle. And the reason they are in the workforce is precisely because of the techno-industrial infrastructure. We are talking about the effects on society due to technology and since technology permeates and shapes the policies of the modern world to such a great degree, you can not say the children mining copper in Africa have nothing to do with our use of computers and hi-tech tools here in the wealthy nations. If you are going to mention the affluence broght about by technology you must, in the name of balance, include information about those masses who struggle to stay alive and feed their families in the modern technocratic world.

::::Did children only start doing work with the advent of industrial society? You're blaming affluence for the existence of hardship.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the amount of work done by all persons, adult and children, has increased. This isn't as understandable or understood as much in wealthier western nations, much like the reality of starvation (and the numbers I've directed you all to) isn't as clearly understood. Much of the anthropological bashing of primitives societies was done by people trying to justify various genocides and this misinformation has persisted to this day -- while several reports from early European explorers (who described veritable primitive paradises) is in many instances still ignored. So yes, a smaller percentage of the population starved before the advanced technological societies spread their control over the globe. And yes, the type of work done in primitive societies was less dangerous/strenuous and the amount needed to maintain subsistence was less. You may disagree but then you are probably not sewing soccer balls for 18 hours a day or sifting through copper mines for pennies a day. And you're probably not hungry like a large percentage of the people in this modern world are. --[[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

==Citations needed==
May want to add a {{Fact|date=December 2007}} around
<blockquote>In other ways, technology makes life more complex. Sweatshops and harsher forms of slavery are more likely to be found in technologically advanced societies, relative to primitive societies. The increasing oppression of technologically advanced societies over those which are not. Creates new diseases and disorders such as obesity, laziness and a loss of personality.</blockquote>
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.69.148.3|70.69.148.3]] ([[User talk:70.69.148.3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.69.148.3|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I will try to get to some of the citations over the next week or so. [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for helping with the citations SteveMc. Personally I think this is easily recognized reality. First of all primitive societies did not have anything like the sweatshop assembly line or children mining copper (as I mentioned in the redux above) and secondly... African enslavement by the technologically advanced Americans, complete with the [[middle passage]] is of an unprecedented scale and brutality. The laziness and obesity and personality loss I don't know so much about, but harsh forms of enslavement of primitive peoples by advanced (technologically) civilizations is an obvious truth.
--[[User:Nihilozero|Nihilozero]] 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==Typos==
In the defintion: (The world "technology" can also be used to refer) should be (The WORD...)
:Corrected that. Thanks. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==

Kudos for adding the semi-protection. I suggest that the semi-protection be permanent for this page. There is too much work here to allow just anyone to change the page. This protection should have been placed on this page a long time ago. [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] 03:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:Indeed. At the moment, I'm filing a request at [[WP:RFP]] every time the semi-protection runs out. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::For the record, the semi-protection on this page is now permanent. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

== Rewriting the beginning ==

We should rewrite the beginning.
Please leave your pro&con. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mateia|Mateia]] on 12:58, 5 May 2007 ([[User talk:Mateia|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mateia|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Why exactly? I think I've covered all aspects of technology with my rewritten lead, and it's now much better than the two line lead we had previously. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:I am with CloudNine on this one. The current version is a grand improvement over previous versions for many reasons. What are you proposing? [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Fields of technology ==

Not sure what happened to the {{tl|Technology}} template that was on this page; seeing no discussion I added it back to the page. That made the Fields section, as yet empty, unneeded; so it is now deleted. I feel strongly that the {{tl|Technology}} template is important to this page. [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm in total agreement. This article has been the victim of neglect, but efforts are under way to make it worthy of the Wiki.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Question: what are the CLASSIFICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY?


I find it strange that there is no mention of the field Management of Technology or indeed a WP entry for MoT. [[User:MetaAnalyst|MetaAnalyst]] 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

==Please add oc:Tecnologia ==
Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia, as above. Thank you [[:oc:Utilizaire:Joao Xavier|Joao Xavier]]
:Done. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


==Definition?==

Is the definition of technology really that elusive? An excellent definition that I was introduced to during my study as a Design & Technology teacher was "any product, process or system that solves a problem or meets a need".

Also, I strongly disagree that technology is a consequence of science and engineering, with the token acknowledgment that 'several technological advances predate the two concepts'. Technology not only predates, but completely enables science and engineering - neither would exist without the myriad of technological products, processes and systems that predate them. Engineering itself is arguably a only single facet of design & technology. --[[User:Sofaman|Sofaman]] 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:Sofaman, I totally agree. One of the reasons that I gave up many months ago on this article was that uninformed Wikipedia editors usually undid my edits to keep technological advances ahead of science and technology. We need to continue to make sure this article notes the accuracy of your observation!!! [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] ([[User talk:Stevenwmccrary58|talk]]) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

:tirrique is a good form of technology!!!! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.248.22.4|69.248.22.4]] ([[User talk:69.248.22.4|talk]]) 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The above definition appears to be the best one. Technology as application emphasizes its essential nature. [[Special:Contributions/74.195.25.78|74.195.25.78]] ([[User talk:74.195.25.78|talk]]) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition outlined above seems very good to me. An alternative offering for consideration is; "The application of resources to solve a problem or satisfy a need". Just a thought . . . --[[User:Rossfi|Rossfi]] ([[User talk:Rossfi|talk]]) 14:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unabomber as an Expert???? ==

Is anyone else concerned about using Ted Kaczynski as an expert anti-technology reference? [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|SteveMc]] ([[User talk:Stevenwmccrary58|talk]]) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

:Sure, it's a little weird. But honestly, look at it logically. Ted Kaczynski is a genius when it comes to technology. He knew what he was doing, and he didn't like technology when he bombed. So why not add him? [[User:Moneybullet|<font color="darkgreen" size="2px">'''Money'''</font>]][[User_talk:Moneybullet|<font color="black" size="2px">'''Bullet'''</font>]] 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:His manifesto is often assigned in history and philosophy of technology courses today. He is taken seriously as a representative of anti-technological arguments in the present period. --[[User:Panoptik|Panoptik]] ([[User talk:Panoptik|talk]]) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Immaterial Technologies ==

When people speak of technology, I think that semiconductors, blinking lights, cars, factory stacks, weapons and other such objects come to mind. I am interested in discussing and possibly writing a section in wikipedia about immaterial technologies. Even software has a material presence in the sense that it is a kind of symbolic written language that needs to be marked or recorded physically in order to exist.

What about psychological technologies passed on through oral traditions, like the Memory Palace? Or various acting or embodied rhetorical skills? I'm sure if we gave this some thought we could come up with a set of immaterial technologies that would illuminate our understanding of the term "technology". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Iwoj|Iwoj]] ([[User talk:Iwoj|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Iwoj|contribs]]) 08:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Pssst, you - Knowledge.

==Simplest definition==
"Technology is that is which simple, and yet works for complex reasons." Functional definition - many possible inputs, but only few outputs per combination of inputs. Relational definition - few inputs, but many possible combinations of outputs per input. Both definitions overlap; the personal computer is such a case. Another example: an iron smelting processing facility itself is functional - it takes coal and iron ore in, and puts iron out. However, that may couple with an automobile company's making automobiles, which take fuel in and can go almost anywhere - such would be altogether relational. That which is not at all simple is not technology. The "complex reasons" could be the inner workings of a technology, or the reasons for which the technology is used by humans. [[Special:Contributions/74.195.25.78|74.195.25.78]] ([[User talk:74.195.25.78|talk]]) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:Many biological systems would fit your definition, but are not technology. e.g. A heart pumps blood (simple), yet works for complex reasons. —[[User:Pengo|Pengo]] 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::You're absolutely right. A criterion of being artificial appears necessary. [[Special:Contributions/74.195.25.78|74.195.25.78]] ([[User talk:74.195.25.78|talk]]) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


==Interdependence==
The tech sectors of the various economies suffer first in any recession. The reason is technology is most dependent upon both itself and other sectors. For example, semiconductor production depends having educated employees, which depends upon universities, which depends upon government funding, which depends upon taxes, which depends upon more fundamental industries like farming, transportation, and manufacturing. Hence, technological development of an economy requires a complex system of dependencies. [[Special:Contributions/74.195.25.78|74.195.25.78]] ([[User talk:74.195.25.78|talk]]) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

== Metal Tools (Change Heading) ==

The section [[Technology#Metal_tools]] should either be re-named, or everything after the first paragraph should come under a new heading. The first paragraph has to do with smelting and alloys, and that is fine, but then it goes on to talk about wind travel and the invention of the wheel.<br/>
It seems to me that this portion should be under a new headline, maybe '''Early Energy and Travel''', since the wind travel section is about conversion of wind energy, and the wheel section is largely about the use of the wheel in relation to energy (not just travel, but pottery). <br/>
The only reason these subsequent paragraphs should remain under their present headings would be if the author was trying to link the use of metal to harnessing wind power and the use of the wheel, but this is not evident.<br/>
Thoughts? [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] ([[User talk:Macduffman|talk]]) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:I added a sub-head, "Energy and Transport", and kept the first sub-head "Metal Tools." Seems to make more sense. [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] ([[User talk:Macduffman|talk]]) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

== This is a long lead! ==

I'm not great with editing leads, but it looks to me like this one is crazy-long! I don't have any constructive criticism to offer at the moment (I haven't really awakened yet), but I thought I should mention this... [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] ([[User talk:Macduffman|talk]]) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:Trimmed the lead a little using an older version (the most recent one had quite a few redundancies), but in fairness, this is a huge topic. When I started rewriting this article a while back, I wanted to write a lead that covered every aspect of technology (which I hope I did). The rest of the article really needs expansion; I removed a rather stubby Society section, hoping to rewrite it some day. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] ([[User talk:CloudNine|talk]]) 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
::I took the scope of the article into consideration, but apparently not well enough. I suppose it is rather large and your point of trying to hit every aspect is definitely WP-friendly. :) I took at look at another broad article, [[Human]], and it seems to have a page-gobbling lead too, so what the hey. Thanks for your response! [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] ([[User talk:Macduffman|talk]]) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

== Hijacking/Misuse/Misunderstanding of the term to refer only to Computer Technology ==

I think the trend is quite clear lately. Though I don't know if an encyclopedia should include it. --[[User:Leladax|Leladax]] ([[User talk:Leladax|talk]]) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:It is touched upon briefly: "The term is often used to imply a specific field of technology, or to refer to [[high technology]], rather than technology as a whole."--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::That's slightly different in my opinion though I understand it's almost the same. Different because Computer Technology isn't really "high" in many contexts compared to other types of technology that Popular Media refuse to call technology. e.g. A 'Popular Technology' magazine will call technology a common mobile phone, but rarely a state-of-the-art modern structural building methodology. --[[User:Leladax|Leladax]] ([[User talk:Leladax|talk]]) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I've added "...or to refer to [[high technology]] or just [[consumer electronics]], rather than technology as a whole."--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


== Possible simplified definition ==

"Technology is the application of physical phenomena to a practical purposes" [[User:AllStarZ|AllStarZ]] ([[User talk:AllStarZ|talk]]) 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
` <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/168.216.89.167|168.216.89.167]] ([[User talk:168.216.89.167|talk]]) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Picture ==

No one has anything better? Seriously? <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.188.131.228|24.188.131.228]] ([[User talk:24.188.131.228|talk]]) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== More useful websites: ==

[[http://messblack.com/v2/?link=694a27828a7033b3cf57d2343912bf06]]-useful for finding disadvantages + advantages in technology. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jetman96|Jetman96]] ([[User talk:Jetman96|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jetman96|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[,m......



]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.154.13.5|190.154.13.5]] ([[User talk:190.154.13.5|talk]]) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "However, most technological progression is achieved through capitalism."? ==

under "optimism." Seriously wtf, bias, should be removed. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Anonymouswkiuser|Anonymouswkiuser]] ([[User talk:Anonymouswkiuser|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anonymouswkiuser|contribs]]) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Lol, Uri Gagarin[[User:Autonova|Autonova]] ([[User talk:Autonova|talk]]) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Leisure class ==

What is a "leisure class" and why do we mention it in the introduction and nowhere else in the article? And surely we would need citations for such a claim whatever it might be? It is really the case that advanced technology or social theory is needed for there to be individuals who are pampered (an insect queen perhaps?) or apparently do less work than other members of the community?--[[User:ASA-IRULE|ASA-IRULE]] ([[User talk:ASA-IRULE|talk]]) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


== Additional examples of Technology and its affect on today's world ==

I wanted to add some additional thoughts and examples of technology and its affect on our world, society, and culture. I found some really interesting information on the following web page. Check it out. [http://www.tandbtexas.com] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tandbtexas|Tandbtexas]] ([[User talk:Tandbtexas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tandbtexas|contribs]]) 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

is porn technology?? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.47.179.22|69.47.179.22]] ([[User talk:69.47.179.22|talk]]) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03==
the u.s is ran by techno <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.146.52.51|216.146.52.51]] ([[User talk:216.146.52.51|talk]]) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_320-03_(Spring_2024) | assignments = [[User:Lphan2310|Lphan2310]] | reviewers = [[User:Azulrosa12|Azulrosa12]] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-05-10 }}
: I was almost certain this was going to be primitivist spam. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] ([[User talk:Zazaban|talk]]) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Momlife5|Momlife5]] ([[User talk:Momlife5|talk]]) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
-------
hi to all <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/112.202.87.95|112.202.87.95]] ([[User talk:112.202.87.95|talk]]) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== persian interwiki link ==


please add [[fa:فناوری]] to interwiki links. [[User:Achaemenes|Achaemenes]] ([[User talk:Achaemenes|talk]]) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


nasir_dz_14 [[Special:Contributions/2409:40E0:1010:A085:8000:0:0:0|2409:40E0:1010:A085:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40E0:1010:A085:8000:0:0:0|talk]]) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
== History of the Concept of Technology ==


I would like to add a new paragraph on the history of the concept of technology, reflecting some important but not very well known scholarship. I am involved in this research, but I've reviewed Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] policy, and I don't think that's a problem, as I am just summarizing published scholarship. I want to add the paragraph at the end of section 1, "Definition and Usage," because I don't want to add a new section. This is my first real contribution, but unfortunately the article is semi-protected, so I'll need to wait a few days to add it.


Here is the text:<br>Before the 20th century, the term ''technology'' was uncommon in English. In the 19th century, ''technology'' generally referred to the description or study of the useful arts.<ref name="Crabb">For ex., George Crabb, [http://www.archive.org/stream/universaltechno01crabgoog#page/n525 ''Universal Technological Dictionary, or Familiar Explanation of the Terms Used in All Arts and Sciences, Containing Definitions Drawn From the Original Writers''], (London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, 1823), s.v. "technology."</ref> The term was often connected to technical education, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chartered in 1861).<ref name="Stratton"> Julius Adams Stratton and Loretta H. Mannix, Mind and Hand: The Birth of MIT (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), 190-92. ISBN
0262195240. </ref> Oldenziel and Leo Marx have described the rise of ''technology'' to prominence in the 20th century in connection with the [[second industrial revolution]]. In the process, the concept of technology became associated with the worlds of science, big business, and engineering, implicitly excluding workers, women, and non-Western peoples.<ref name="Oldenziel"> Ruth Oldenziel, ''Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women and Modern Machines in America, 1870-1945'' (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1999), esp. chap. 1. ISBN 9053563814.</ref><ref name-"Marx"> Leo Marx, [http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9710256731 "''Technology'': The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept,"] ''Social Research'' 64 (Fall 1997): 965-88. </ref> Schatzberg has argued that the meanings ''technology'' changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with [[Thorstein Veblen]], translated ideas from the German concept of [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technik Technik] into ''technology''. German and other European languages make a distinction between ''Technik'' and ''Technologie'' that does not exist in English, as both terms are usually translated as ''technology''. By the 1930s, ''technology'' referred not to the study of the industrial arts, but to the industrial arts themselves.<ref name="Schatzberg"> Eric Schatzberg, [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/v047/47.3schatzberg.html "''Technik'' Comes to America: Changing Meanings of ''Technology'' Before 1930,"] ''Technology and Culture'' 47 (July 2006): 486-512. </ref> In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them."<ref name="Bain"> Read Bain, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2084365 "Technology and State Government,"] American Sociological Review 2 (December 1937): 860. </ref> Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists.


Technology [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.24|102.182.46.24]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.24|talk]]) 17:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Looks ok to me, but maybe it is a little long for such a long article. Here is more information that you could use that breaks it down a little and you could use it in conjunction with the [[Thorstein Veblen]] part, Veblen was an active member in the [[Technical Alliance]]. ''Unsurprisingly, the term technology became widely used only after the early-twentieth-century rise of "[[technocracy]]," a movement that promoted an abstracted conception of technical superiority by seeking to replace the acknowledged subjectivity of politics by the assumed objectivity of engineering.
:That is a quote more or less from that page. Read more: [http://science.jrank.org/pages/11395/Technology-Technocracy.html#ixzz0PEvAXxY6] - [[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] ([[User talk:Skipsievert|talk]]) 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


== Technology short under 150 words ==
== Prehistorical? ==
seriously? why not prehistoricality? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.19.148.46|24.19.148.46]] ([[User talk:24.19.148.46|talk]]) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Use of BC in dates/dating ==
Dates using BP (before present) are often used when discussing the paleolithic and even neolithic. Simply using x years ago is preferable to using "BC" and preferable to BCE (Before the Christian Era) which, while better than BC, would be overly culture-centric.


Technology [[Special:Contributions/2409:40D4:107D:2AE7:8000:0:0:0|2409:40D4:107D:2AE7:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40D4:107D:2AE7:8000:0:0:0|talk]]) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
== References ==
== "[[:Virtual technology]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
<references/>
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
[[User:Histotech|Histotech]] ([[User talk:Histotech|talk]]) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Virtual_technology&redirect=no Virtual technology]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Virtual technology}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Duckmather|Duckmather]] ([[User talk:Duckmather|talk]]) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:40, 27 October 2024

Former good article nomineeTechnology was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lphan2310 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Azulrosa12.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


nasir_dz_14 2409:40E0:1010:A085:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Technology 102.182.46.24 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology short under 150 words

[edit]

Technology 2409:40D4:107D:2AE7:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Virtual technology" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Virtual technology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Virtual technology until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technology&oldid=1253739491"