Talk:List of emerging technologies

Splitting up the article

I have noticed that the number of new technologies being suggested for this article has gone drastically down since the beginning. This could be due to the need to discuss changes before making them, but I also believe that a significant factor is that the article as become too long. I, therefore, suggest splitting the article so that the new articles will be named List of emerging energy technologies, List of emerging information technologies, etc.--hulagutten (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. By adding correct categories to each list, it would attract experts within the fields.~~

Nay. Too long for what? That the number of suggestions has gone down is natural, sooner or later an article transitions from construction to maintenance. Adding categories is always good. I checked a handful of random entries, and found that none of them is in category:Emerging technology, directly or indirectly. That would provide much more impact than advertising a bunch of lists. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the IT section

In a template, I have suggested that the section List of emerging technologies#Information technology should be given its own article. The idea is to hopefully attract more experts in the field by making it more specialized. A suggested name is List of emerging information technologies, or just Emerging information technologies if we want to include some analysis besides the list.

A problem of this page is that none of the technologies are supported by any references. And that no criteria is formulated regarding a technology can be including in the list, and when it should be removed. I would prefer a page about current trends in research and development, ongoing research, planned standards and products, etc.

Related pages and categories are:

• Moore's law (Includes trend analysis and predictions)
• Timeline of the future in forecasts#Computing
• Timeline of the future in forecasts#Artificial intelligence and robotics
• Timeline of the future in forecasts#Communications
• Category:Upcoming software
• Category:Upcoming chips
• Category:Future products
• Category:Future problems (for example the year 2,038 problem)
• Category:2010s in science (Mostly astronomical events)
• Current research in evolutionary biology (Is it a good idea to create a similar page on IT research trends?)
• Unsolved problems in computer science
• Unsolved problems in artificial intelligence (Redirected to AI-complete)

Mange01 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe List of emerging information technologies is the best title as I believe that the discussions should be on the pages that the list page links to. The reason for this is that I believe it would fill too much to have all the for and against a technology on the same page that maybe 50 technologies are listed.

It is a great idea to have a page "about current trends in research and development, ongoing research, planned standards and products, etc." These could all be subcategories of the list of emerging information technologies page. This would be a good filter as technologies like teleportation or other star trek technologies would not fit in any of the categories.--hulagutten (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• There appears to be a valid argument for developing this list further and for the need at some point to create sub-lists from this parent. However, at the moment the article/list is in need of appropriate referencing and reviewing the way it is structured, and how articles appear on the list. The tables include columns on "Status", "Potentially marginalized technologies and/or industries", etc. The data in these columns should be sourced otherwise it appears to be the opinion of whichever editor contributes that day. It would be inappropriate at this stage to create a new article which is entirely unsourced and which appears to contain original research. Also, the section is not yet long enough to justify splitting out per WP:Summary style. Develop and source the article, and the splitting out will occur when the section is appropriately developed. Split tag removed and sourcing tags replaced. The sourcing is the priority. SilkTork *^YES! 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unreferenced sections"

I've removed the templates that instruct editors that references are needed. This is a list, not an article; as such, the references are needed in the articles listed, not in this article (list).

If something is contentious (for example, the status of a technology), then it's fine to footnote that, so that other editors are less likely to change the status by mistake. But let's save the footnotes for the articles themselves, not for this list, otherwise. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reason the tags were present is concern that, without reference, determining the membership of a list like this could be considered WP:OR. --Kvng (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia can be a wp:CHRYSTAL ball, but then we need authoritative sources for what validates as emerging technologies. Any suggestions? Can we restore the templates? Mange01 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This list article contains unsourced opinion. I have placed appropriate tags on the article. The sourcing needs to be dealt with. The sourcing issue was raised during the AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New entries

There have been two new additions, neither of which have linked WP articles, and I would be grateful for others' thoughts as to the merits of their inclusion as I am personally doubtful. The additions in question are:

1. Computational knowledge - this appears to be a marketing term used to describe the Wolfram Alpha search engine, but not otherwise to be in common useage, and certainly not to refer to an emerging technology per se: [1]

2. Algorithm discovery - It appears that this phrase is used in a number of different contexts, but I have been unable to identify a currently emerging technology by this name. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

3. I don't want to screw up the formatting by trying to enter it myself, but under Agriculture, development of drought, heat, and saline resistant crops, whether by genetic engineering or conventional breeding, should be included. It it not just "a nice thing", but will be mandatory, in the face of progressive global warming. Hsfrey (talk)

4. Ditto for Architecture designed for areas newly affected by heat waves, floods, and high energy hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Hsfrey (talk) Why ground effect train is included but Ground effect vehicle not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.66.167 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is OR

Unless a tech has a reference within the last 12 months that calls it an "Emerging technology" then it must be removed. Mtking (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

At the AfD over 2 years ago the vast majority of paticipents recomended a better definition of emerging technologies and refrances this has not happened and needs to. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A 12 month period is completely arbitrary and I strongly oppose it. A technology can sometimes take not just years but in some cases decades to emerge. Requirement for the specific use of the words "emerging technology" is also wholly arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok so what is your proposal then to both make sure that this list is not WP:OR and that as tech moves into the main stream it is removed from here. - cos there is no way you can say that SSD's are emerging technology. Remember that the steam engine was at one point an "emerging technology" but know one would say that it should be on this list. Mtking (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As with WP articles in general, once an editor believes that a technology has emerged then they are free to remove it from the list. If other editors disagree then they can revert the change and a discussion on this page can establish a consensus. The standard WP editing procedures should be more than adequate. Of course no WP article is perfect and all rely on engaged editors to maintain quality. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is the small matter of WP:Verifiability, which states :

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

so consensus does not matter; (it goes on to say) as :

all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

So without a recent ref to support the claim of something being an emerging technology then it should not be on the page. Also have a read of the AfD on this from 2 years ago the point of needing ref's was made repeatedly. Mtking (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate point and I fully agree that entries in the list must be cited in some way, and have myself added citations to a large number of the entries. I don't agree that the words "emerging technology" must be used in the sources however. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well unless a source calls it one, then it is the editors view and not in keeping with WP:Verifiability. That still does not address the issue of removing out of date entries. Mtking (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No verifiability is not the same as a requirement that a precise and arbitrary wording has to be used in a source to establish a particular point. I have addressed the issue of removing out of date entries above. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if know one else is calling something "emerging technology" then how do we stick to WP:Verifiability ? I don't think you have addressed the issue of removing old tech, there needs to be a clear guideline be it 12 months or 24 months . Mtking (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

addition

can we add in a reference to reversible computing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.55.44 (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems one needs to know quite a lot about computing to be able to answer this question. I would therefore recommend to ask it at Talk:Reversible computing. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Status of Quantum Computing

The commerzialization of quantum computing is highly controversial since there is only one start-up (D-Wave Systems) that claims to have built a working quantum computer but up to now did not provide any credible experimental evidence for this claim. In my opinion the status should therefore be "Theory, Research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japh44 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

True. And see the book by N. David Mermin for a commentary on overblown claims. Practical quantum computing is a long way off, but partial successes for particular calculations (i.e. much restricted applications) involving one or two Q-Bits are just about possible. Every slight advance is puffed up as a major success.88.110.123.140 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing 4G cellular communication

It's just another infrastructure upgrade. It's emerging like the next processor. It's going to be faster and more efficient. The basic problem is that 4G celluar communicaton too focused. The correct category would be just "celluar communication", which is too old for this list. "4G" is mostly a marketing construct anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.6.6 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Head transplant

The head transplant is bogus. The blood supply to a monkey's head was furnished by another monkey's body. The nerves were not connected up and this will remain impossible for at least decades, if not centuries to come.

The guy who did it is a lunatic.

The references are to two tabloids and the BBC, who after a couple of paragraphs of their usual scare mongering allow an actual expert to get a few words in.

Please remove, if you guys really want thus to be an encyclopaedia.88.110.123.140 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Building / Permaculture / Agriculture

This list definitely needs a building technologies section. There are a lot of well documenting emerging technologies in building. Inhabitat [2], Worldchanging [3] and hundreds of other sources you can find searching "architecture", "permaculture", "landscape".

Many of the technologies exist to radically reduce energy or enable growing, tighten ecological feedback loops so that wastes are used immediately, make use of waste materials, cut water use, and so on. This is at least one of the most aggressive areas of innovation there is, and obviously very important socially and ecologically, so it needs due attention.