Talk:Information technology

Computer security

Should we show Computer security under Information security?

Degree programs

ABET and ACM have collaborated in recent years to form accredition and Curriculum standards for degrees in Information Technology as a distinct field of study separate from both Computer Science and Information Systems. SIGITE is the ACM working group for defining these standards. The current criteria are included in the documents here. Accredited Programs currently exist at the US Naval Academy, Rochester Insitute of Technology, Purdue, and BYU among others. This information should probably be included somehow, I'm popping this info in the article, but feel free to modify it or move it if there is a more appropriate place.

Deleted sentence in "Academic perspective" section

The following sentence was removed with a query on what "contrast" meant here: " this is in contrast to CS, SE, CE and IS undergraduate degree programs. " The aim here was to be explicit and list the other undergraduate degree programs that are distinguished from IT courses in most universities (as discussed in the citation given)- I think that it is useful to clarify this as it may not be obvious to a reader from a different discipline. "contrast to" could be replaced by "distinguished from".

74.73.169.211 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we're writing on career guidance I don't see the relevance of this. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Synergee (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak Definition and Sources for Definition of Information Technology

Hi,

I've been following this WP article and it's very weak. I'd like to help improve it but believe we have to start at the definition, which is incomplete and which has very weak references (by weak, I mean that the references cited are not known or used by most IT professionals, teachers, or even students.

i'd like to propose that, both, the definition of IT and the sources cited to support it be changed as a start for improvement.

The definition, itself, is highly incomplete because IT has at least three (3) definitions. In short, these are 1) the technology; 2) the industry; and 3) an Organization that provides technology solutions, within a broader enterprise.

Currently, there are four (4) sources cited for the definition...

1. A Dictionary of Physics (6th Ed) : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
2. Free Online Dictionary of Computing (copyrighted by a random person named Denis Howe) : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
3. A dictionary of Media and Communications : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT
4. Encyclopedia of Computer Science : Not considered, at all, to be a solid IT industry reference by IT professionals and doesn't cover the full definition of IT

I checked Google Scholar and not a single one of the above shows up as being cited in any scholarly papers. Also, the IT industry looks to far more established and broader sources for its definition so I think the article should, as well.

Better industry de facto sources would be:

1. The Office of Government Commerce (Britain) ITIL Framework : Used throughout the IT industry and academic/research.
2. The International Foundation for Information Technology : Used throughout the IT industry and academic/research. Also, is the only source recognized to provide a complete definition of IT.

Unlike in the cases of the first four references, the last two come up in Google Scholar and are well known throughout the industry.

May I have the group's permission to start by improving the definition? If not, does anyone have better proposals?

-- My Best,

--FGuerino (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition is by no means incomplete, and is supported by many who know what they're talking about, including for instance Irv Englander in his The Architecture of Computer Hardware and Systems, in which he defines a computer-based information system as being composed of four elements: data, hardware, software, and communication. Those four elements are the necessary backbone to structure this article around. ITIL. for instance, is simply a money-making fad hardly used outside of government, and the ineviable danger with not being strict with a definition supported by multiple auhors is that this article will descend back into the usual Wikipedia gooey porridge. Eric Corbett 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps interesting to note that Britannica doesn't have an article on IT, only a subsection within the information systems article. One of the unaddressed problems is that we have several overlapping articles based on the latest fads and fashions (IT, IS and ICT). It's also perhaps interesting to note that Britannica features Englander's book quite prominently in its additional reading section. Eric Corbett 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric,

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoroughly and quickly. I appreciate your doing so.

You stated that "the definition is by no means incomplete". Kindly note that your statement is inaccurate because the definition, as is currently documented, only covers the Technology aspect of Information Technology and does not cover the Industry aspect or the Organizational aspect. In other words, it only covers one (1) of three commonly known and broadly accepted branches of the definition. Therefore, the WP definition is factually incomplete because it misses two out of three branches of a broadly accepted definition.

You also stated: "ITIL. for instance, is simply a money-making fad hardly used outside of government, and the ineviable danger with not being strict with a definition supported by multiple auhors is that this article will descend back into the usual Wikipedia gooey porridge." First, please let me respectfully point out your facts are, again, incorrect. ITIL has been around for well over a decade, is regularly cited in academia and industry, and is at very least acknowledged as a force by almost every major enterprise in the world (whether they or you like ITIL or not, and which is a whole different conversation). Also, ITIL is published by the British Office of Government Commerce (OGC), which is a not for profit government agency. IF4IT puts all profits back into its open content and uses donations as a primary driver to fund it. All four of the very weak sources that are currently cited in the WP article to support the definition (and which you seem to be protecting) are, in fact, openly "for profit" sources. They all exist to make money. And so, your description that ITIL exists to make money while implying that the others do not is, at a minimum, misleading to anyone who reads your statement. Both, ITIL and IF4IT are much more broadly accepted and stronger sources for Information Technology Information (although, they are only two examples and are not the only ones that can be used to improve the article).

You stated that Britannica cites Englander's book. However, "it does not do so in the context of Information Technology", as by your own admission it does not have an entry for Information Technology. Also, I would argue that Englander's book is not considered to be a broadly accepted industry reference.

Please note that my point is that the sources currently cited are very weak (because they're not used broadly) and incomplete (because they do not cover all three (3) branches of the more complete definition. Therefore, my submission to this conversation is that there are better sources to use, which can help improve the general content of the article. (I'll add that I believe FOLDOC is just a very bad source and shouldn't be used at all, as it appears no one in academia or industry knows about it or cites it in formal use, and it appears to violate WP policy on notability of references.)

The simple fact is that anyone who does know anything about Information Technology, and who reads this article, realizes that it is a very poor representation of what Information Technology really is. And, given it's poor representation, I would argue that it is currently much worse than the "gooey porridge" that you wish to protect the article from becoming. So, I'd like to start by improving the definition and tying it to more complete and broadly accepted sources.

BTW, you seem to keep going back to Britannica to see how they do things. While there is some value in that, I would not recommend that we build WP (an Encyclopedia) from Britannica (another Encycloped), as other Encyclopedias have their own issues and the goal is not to mirror them and their issues.

Again, thanks very much for your response and I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have only one brief comment for now, which I'll expand on later if you still don't agree, but I consider your statement that "the definition, as is currently documented, only covers the Technology aspect of Information Technology" to be rather revealing given the title of the article. I might have a little more sympathy for your position – not a lot, but some – if you'd said that the article only covers the technology aspect of IT, not the information aspect. Eric Corbett 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, please don't assume that I'm one of those who knows nothing about IT. It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do. Eric Corbett 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

An article is about one topic, and I think the topic here is "Information Technology" not "Information Industry" or "Information Organisation". Even if I.T. has different definitions, an article topic only has to be about one definition. If anything I think the lead rambles on too much with definitions already and should be condensed down. Bhny (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. Eric Corbett 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bhny

Hi Bhny,

I believe I try to this address this in the following response to Eric (specifically in Question #3), which points out that WP handles this situation by creating pages that act as broader topic wrappers or lead-in topics to other pages. There are countless pages on WP that do this. So, in this case, the "Information Technology" page can simply be a broader topic wrapper that discusses the three components of the definition, and then each component can lead to a more detailed sub-section, and each sub-section (if necessary) can lead to another page.

I hope this clarifies. Your thoughts?

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is IT, if you want to start a new article "IT Industry" then go ahead. (This article still only needs one definition no matter what) Bhny (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric,

You wrote: "please don't assume that I'm one of those who knows nothing about IT." I don't think I've implied that you do or don't know things about IT so please don't think that I want to judge, as I don't. I can only go by what you've written and, unless I'm wrong, I can only assume that your goal in being here is that you want to see the article improved. Correct?

So, starting with the fact that we agree the three branches of the complete definition for "Information Technology" are:

1. IT, as in Technology (which is covered)
2. IT, as in the Industry (which is not covered)
3. IT, as in the organizations that provide the technologies and make up the industry (which is not covered)

Question #1 becomes: How do we improve the definition so that it is complete and covers all three branches? My suggestion would be to rewrite the definition in a manner that breaks it into three very clear components (matching the above) so as not to confuse readers. This would also allow the article to also be broken into three matching sections and potentially tie each section to other, more appropriate WP pages, should there be desire to do so.

Question #2 becomes: How do we improve the quality of the sources? The four that are currently being used are very week and I believe that FOLDOC is the weakest of the four because it does not seem live up to WP policy for a citable source, as it does not appear to be referenced by research or industry as a solid source.

Question #3 becomes: Like countless other WP pages, why can't this page simply be a broader lead-in page into 3 separate and more specific pages (one for Technology, one for the Industry, and one for the Organizations), if necessary? Again, this is how countless other pages on WP handle a topic that bifurcates so I would imagine we could apply the same mechanism here. The page could, very simply, be a lead-in into 3 other pages (if it makes sense to do so because the content warrants such bifurcation).

Your thoughts on the above?

My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me be frank. I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Hi Eric, You seem to be more interested in attacking me than in offering options to try and improve the article. I'm certainly open to any ideas you might have on the subject. Do you have any? My Best --FGuerino (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one, which is that you ought not to dabble in things you have no understanding of. Eric Corbett 14:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett

Now I'm intrigued. Are you referring to the topic of Information Technology or working with the Wikipedia community? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of the Definition of Information Technology

Given that the old definition only focuses on the Technology aspect of IT (and leaves out the Organizational aspect and the Industry aspect), I took some time to start a draft of a more complete definition that attempts to go after all three branches of the definition. This is only a draft and intended to be an idea starter for anyone interested in contributing to the the improvement of the definition. Note: Neither uses citable sources, yet, as I think improving and stabilizing the content is more important...

The Old Definition:

Information technology (IT) is the application of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data, often in the context of a business or other enterprise. The term is commonly used as a synonym for computers and computer networks, but it also encompasses other information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. Several industries are associated with information technology, such as computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, e-commerce and computer services.

The Prosed Draft for a New Definition:

Information technology (IT) is a phrase that is commonly used to describe any one of three different and very broad contexts that include Technology, Organizations, and Industry.

In the context of Technology, as in "we use Information Technology to solve our problems," Information technology represents the application of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data, often in the context of a business or other enterprise. The term is commonly used as a synonym for computers and computer networks, but it also encompasses other information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. Several industries are associated with information technology, such as computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, e-commerce and computer services.

In the context of Organizations, as in "we have an Information Technology organization that helps solve our technology problems," Information technology represents the many groups of people (i.e. organizations or communities), that are often part of broader enterprises or exist as standalone companies, and that provide technical or technology related solutions (i.e. products and services) to or for others. These organizations are often comprised of many people, each with varying skills, who deal with the many different areas and issues associated with the application and support of computers and telecommunications equipment.

In the context of Industry, Information technology represents the global superset of all people, organizations, and technologies that comprise one of the largest industries in the world. This includes all professionals, educators, students, companies, organizations, tools, and technologies that make up the entire industry.

My belief is that this now allows the entire article to be broken into three far more detailed sections that address each of the three contexts. Any one of the above three definitions or their dedicated subsections can also act as lead-ins to other more detailed pages. For example: the Technology portion of the definition can lead into a more detailed page about ICT and the industry portion can lead into a more detailed page on the IT Industry (such lead-ins would only be used if deemed to be necessary).

Your thoughts and suggestions for improvement?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's flabby, rambling, and doesn't reflect any mainstream idea of what IT is about. Eric Corbett 17:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is terrible. As I said above, if you want to write an article "Information Technology organization" go for it. Don't try and make this article about three things. Bhny (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric Corbett & Bhny

Hi Eric & Bhny

So, while I appreciate that you may not like it, and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, your opinions are pretty useless (and some may argue meaningless) without honest attempts to improve things. It's very easy to bash thing. Let's remember that the article pretty much rates as being no better than "useless" as it stands, today.

Also, please give me some indication as to your knowledge and understanding of IT, because based on your feedback, it sounds like you have very little.

(Maybe the right thing to do is modify the article directly, have you revert it, and we start the process for a broader peer review?)

PS: Eric, I took some time to read your profile and also read some articles published about you. While I understand and can appreciate your personal issues with WP, why take them out on me?

--My Best --FGuerino (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have spent more than 30 years working in IT, so I think I know what I'm talking about. If you want to write an essay on what you think IT is then I suggest you take Bhny's advice. Eric Corbett 19:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric

Great, so between the two of us we have over 60 years of IT experience. I would imagine we can put our heads together and find ways to improve this article. Or, is your goal to block any improvements, at all?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My goal is to keep the article focused on information technology. I have absolutely no idea what yours is. Eric Corbett 20:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric

Hi Eric, just sticking to the Industry context, as opposed to just the Technology context... Gartner views IT as an Industry (and far more than just Technology), as you can see from this podcast, where they estimate spend to be about 3.7 Trillion (Refer to Gartner PodCast). And, while the spend estimates are different, Forrester Research also gives an estimate for Information Technology (where IT is more than just Technology) (Refer to Forrester Estimated IT Spend).

IT, as Gartner, Forrester, and all who follow them see it, is "an Industry" and far more than just Technology. It's Technologies + People + Organizations + Products + Services, etc. And, their spend "Information Technology" spend estimates include the spend for all of those individual components, and not just Technology. Now, I used the word "mainstream" intentionally because you specifically made a statement that what I wrote does not represent any mainstream idea of what IT is about. My definition was based on Gartner and Forrester and, since billions of people follow their research and see IT as an Industry, I'd consider that pretty mainstream.

Do you agree with Gartner's and Forresters defintion of IT being an Industry as well as just Technology, or not? If so, do you agree we can enhance the article to cover this? If not, do you believe that the topic of Information Technology Industry should be a completely different article?

--My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of the Bibliography to the Article Content?

Hi All,

Is the Bibliography relevant to this article? Upon reading (and rereading) through both the article content and the bibliography, it appears that it has absolutely no relevance other than to link in random content that has no clear alignment with anything in the content. As result, I'd like to delete it and work with the group to improve the article other ways.

Your thoughts?

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy. Either way, don't touch the bibliography, you've been sufficiently disruptive already. Eric Corbett 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

I usually find that people who handle things by showing public displays of abusive bullying, like you do, often do so because they feel threatened, most often because they have very little of real value to offer. I certainly hope this isn't the case with you but your long and documented history of attacks and abusiveness seem to be proving me wrong. please know that as soon as I have enough information I will be modifying the document with material that will conform with WP policies, to the best of my ability. If you role the work back, then so be it. We'll deal with everything publicly and according to process. So, my question to you is very specific... Do you have anything to offer that will help improve the content of the article or should I just ignore you as being a barrier to any form of real progress?

As for anyone else that reads this, I'd appreciate an intelligent conversation with someone who really does care and who wants to work constructively to improve the article.

My best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any example of abusive bullying only an editor who can't take good advice. Giving your best wishes to someone you have accused of abusive bullying doesn't excuse your behavior and is guaranteed to irritate. PS "Upon reading" is wrong, it should be "On reading". J3Mrs (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello J3Mrs, thanks for correcting my English. My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know who the Hell you think you are FGuerino, or what your game is, but you clearly know nothing about IT, the IT industry, how to write, or how to construct an encyclopedia article. If you consider those observations to be "abusive bullying" then you're also an ignorant and dishonest troll. Eric Corbett 18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, are there any people who want to talk about improving the article instead of each other? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

changes to the article need to be achieved by consensus. There are editors here who clearly wish to continue improving the article but they disagree with your intended edits. My suggestion is that you assume good faith and listen to what others are saying to you. I am not an expert in IT but I do know enough to suggest that limiting the article to 3 key areas is unlikely to gain consensus, and that edits to the bibliography need support from other editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to point out that you can't just delete the bibliography, as it's referred to by the citations? This is just basic stuff. Eric Corbett 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is necessary to point that out, since most articles don't do references that way, and it is now obvious why the bibliography can't be deleted. Bhny (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't that obvious right from the start? Eric Corbett 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually Eric, as Bhny kindly points out, no it's not obvious to all of us as some of us are new to WP and trying to learn. You could've simply pointed it out and ended it there instead of going down a path like "My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy." Questions for anyone who has a constructive answer: Why aren't Bibliographies used more often on WP articles?" Is there a time when they're more appropriate than others? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually the books are listed in the ref tags and appear in the reflist, so there's no need for a separate bibliography. A problem is that someone could delete books and orphan the refs. (like you wanted to do). But anyway different articles handle refs differently so it is best to go with the style that is there. Bhny (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bhny, that's exactly why I asked, first, and didn't go and delete it. Thanks for the info. I still don't see anything on WP about when to use or not use Bibliographies. If you come across anything, I'd certainly be interested. My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is called a "short citation". You can read all about citations here- WP:REF. A "full citation" is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles. Bhny (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They're particularly useful when you're citing different pages in the same book, as you don't then have to keep repeating the book details. "Full citations" may be the most common in the run of the mill WP articles, but the citation method used here is very common among WP's best articles. Eric Corbett 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Okay, I have semiprotected this article for three months - the vandalism reverts are only once every second day, but it is a large article and highly visible one. Let's see if this makes life easier. NB: Any admin is welcome to revert this if an IP requests an edit. I feel this is more useful than Pending Changes as what usually happens is someone makes an edit and is then unavailable to discuss afterwards, leaving a reviewer scratching their heads..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, I have some ideas for edits I'd like to make to this page. What's the correct process for working on the page while it is in a state of semiprotection? My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you ought to do is to learn something about IT. But sadly semiprotection doesn't prevent you from continuing your vandalism of this article. Eric Corbett 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, as always, thanks for your valuable opinions. However, I think I'll wait for Cas Liber to explain things. My Best --FGuerino (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric is right, semiprotection does not stop you editing it. However, if you suspect anyone may disagree with the edits then I strongly recommend discussing them here on the talk page and getting consensus first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: Why not start one new section with an outline of your plan? Is there something wrong with the article? Briefly, what? Is there something missing? Briefly, what? Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I noticed that the article is graded as a "Start Class", which strengthens the position that there's a great deal that can be improved. My opinion is that there are a number of things about the article that can be improved. For example...

• The section on storage spends no time talking about Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. Instead, it jumps into history of early storage and then makes makes the incorrect statement that most storage is on magnetic and optical devices (the reference is 15-ish years outdated) when, in fact, it's on magnetic and solid state devices.
• The article talks about Transmission but doesn't talk about Reception.
• The section on Transmission dives into XML. XML is a formatting and metatagging language that has nothing to do with transmission or reception, other than to format requests, responses, and message envelopes. (Most applications don't even use XML and even less use SOAP.)
• The section on Transmission doesn't talk about any other means of transmission, such as in the case of wireless signal transmission.
• The Commercial perspective section only talks about impact on business and not on individual consumers.
• The Data manipulation section should most likely speak of Data processing, in order to use terms that are more common with industry professionals.
• In Academic perspectives section, the topic leaves ICT and moves to education programs, which is not about the topic of ICT.
• The same for the section on Ethics has nothing to do with IT as a technology (i.e. a thing) and really has to do with IT as a professional discipline (which is not the topic of the article because the topic is IT as a technology or thing).
• The history section is very incomplete and can use a great deal to help the reader.
• The section on Retrieval doesn't actually talk about retrieval (i.e. proactive Request and Response). Instead it goes into random topics that have nothing to do with Retrieval.
• There is a factually incorrect statement in the Database section, such as "All database management systems consist of a number of components that...". The word "All" being incorrect. Also, this section starts to go into XML, again. It also talks about relational databases but no other forms (there are many others, so why not just talk about DBs at a high level and then point the user to the WP DB topic?)
• There is no section on Software, such as in the case of languages or executables, which is a huge form and portion of IT.
• The Bibliography section just serves to bulk up the article and makes it difficult to edit the main article without breaking the Bibliography. It's also not the norm for most articles on WP. Also, most of the books in the Bibliography are so outdated that very few people trying to learn IT would really spend any time reading them or getting any value from them, as they do not apply to much of IT, today.

The above is just based on a quick glance and I'm sure there's much more if we take the time to actually dissect the article. I'd like to work with the community to identify ways of improving the article and to start making some changes along those lines. I'm also more than willing to discuss changes, openly, with people who care about the article, before implementing them (as I tried to before).

However, before doing any of this, wanted to understand what the correct means of modifying the article is, when an article is under semi-protection, as this is the first time I've encountered it. I clicked on the "Lock Symbol" on the article and read up on article protections, last night, so I think semiprotection just means that modifiers of the article must be logged in under their account id. Is this correct?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need to be logged in to edit a semiprotected page. As far as something being Start class on the talk page, some times they are outdated or incorrect, so base observations on the article itself. Start with the above one at a time. They appear to be succinct and actionable suggestions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify. I appreciate your doing so. I'll start looking for time to help develop the article and then will go after each item above, one at a time and as you suggested, and hopefully with the help of others who want to see the article improved. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of absorbing what you're being told repeatedly, as your ridiculous comment above about the Bibliography section so amply demonstrates. @Casliber: have you actually looked at any of FGuerino's suggestions in any detail? According to him, the history of IT begins with the discovery of electricity. Eric Corbett 15:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I concede this is definitely not a topic I am familiar about - I don't recall using a Bibiliography section in any article I've buffed for FAC, but the topic matter is much more specialised and this is much wider in scope. At least some of the above suggestions are specific and can hence be discussed. I need to read more on the topic myself to determine any arguments. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've used a Bibliography section in every article I've buffed for FAC, and I'm by no means the only one. But surely you don't need to be an expert to recognise that identifying the discovery of electricity as a defining moment in the history of IT is bloody ridiculous. Eric Corbett 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cas Liber: For the record, I'm personally not for or against the use of a bibliography. I just vote that if one exists (in any article), it should

1. only be populated with high value content and
2. it should not inhibit easy improvement or maintenance of the article.

A bibliography is nothing more than a formatting construct that could easily be mirrored by nothing more than a very simple "Further Reading" section.

My opinion on the article's bibliography (and others may disagree) is that it contains low value information (violating #1) and we've been led to believe (by Eric) that if we make simple edits to the article we can break the bibliography because it's been integrated in such a way that deletion of unneeded references will orphan sections of it (violating #2).

I can see adding a bibliography, later, when the article is improved and sits somewhere in an A Class level. However, why would we need a bibliography, now, for a low content Start Class article, especially when there are other simple ways of doing the same types of things and most other articles don't use such a format? It just makes things complicated and adds no real value. Again, these are my opinions and other people's opinions may vary.

Also, I presented 12 other ideas for improvement that have to do with specific ways to improve content and would hopefully raise the value of the article. I respectfully present the question: Why is a formatting issue so important, here, when there is so much that can be done to improve the article?

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A sure sign of a pointless discussion is when it features sweeping statements that flit from topic to topic, with no focus on getting the first thing done. Any further questions about protection should be at WP:HELPDESK, but there is nothing to learn—just edit as normal. Please pick one item from your list and add a new section to this talk with a brief outline of the plan for that one item. Avoid mentioning anything other than the one item. Some proposed text would be good, or just edit the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, thanks for the reference to the helpdesk. That's something new I've learned today that will come in very handy. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be very slow of understanding FGuerino if you believe the Bibliography section to be further reading. Eric Corbett 00:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(big breath) Right then, starting at the top - I have no idea about Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. Can anyone else offer an opinion on whether this need be included? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way. How much of the world's data is stored in volatile devices? The answer is of course none. And to address the second part of that first point, "makes the incorrect statement that most storage is on magnetic and optical devices ... it's on magnetic and solid state devices" the most recent research (2007) shows that claim to be untrue. And here we arrive at the nub of the problem; FGuerino wants to write an essay on his limited understanding of IT, whereas I want to write a properly cited encyclopedia article. Eric Corbett 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, as a start, I believe we can break this down into three pieces, all under a section called "Data Storage"...

Computer data storage is broken into physical categories that include volatile and non-volatile storage, and virtual, such as software databases that leverage any combination of volatile or non-volatile storage.

1. Volatile storage (WP page is weak and could use some more good content) is temporary or non-persistent storage and is implemented through the use of Random Access Memory (RAM). It's used by systems as temporary memory for things like cache memory, often very much like a scratch-pad. In applications Volatile storage, which leverages RAM is further broken down into Heap Space, for storage of pointer driven instantiation of objects that constantly change in size, and Stack Space, for highly structured and fixed size address driven storage, such a where constants and variables are stored. Given that most applications/systems use Volatile storage, at any given moment, a huge percentage of the world's storage is temporarily in Volatile storage and is dynamically changing, as we speak. And, your mobile device and/or computer have a great deal in temporary storage as you read this.
2. Non-volatile storage represents long term or persistent storage and is implemented through many different solutions, such as but not limited to Read Only Memory (ROM), Solid State Storage Devices (simplest example are USB drives), Magnetic Disks, Optical Storage Devices, etc. Some Non-Volatile storage are in the form of dedicated semiconductors, such as ROM and solid state devices, other are systems such as magnetic disks, and others can even be things like plastic (CDs/DVDs), vinyl (records), Phonograph cylinders etc. Not all can be erased, such as ROM or a Phonograph cylinder. Not all storage is digital, as is the case with vinyl records. Not all storage is writable, as is the case with ROM and vinyl records.
3. Databases are nothing more than examples of software that has been designed for and dedicated to leverage and optimize the use of any combination of Volatile and Non-Volatile storage. For example, we can have a non-persistent, temporary database that does not use persistent storage and that only lives only for the span of an application or session instance. NOTE: There are many types of databases that include but are not limited to: Relational, Object-Oriented, Fact-Table-Oriented, Non-Persistent, NoSQL, FileDBs, etc. The list is actually very long (as can be seen from the WP Database article which does a good job of covering many but still is far from complete.

I'd like to add that Eric pointed to a reference from 2007 to support his statement of storage use. That reference is outdated by 7 years. If we are going to use a reference, here, I recommend we use something far more up to date. Sources like Forrester and/or Gartner references can be as recent as 2013 and they're probably the two most widely known, notable, and accepted sources for industry research and assessment; although there are others, too.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The point you have yet to grasp is that this isn't an essay. If you have a more up to date source then please provide it. Eric Corbett 03:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber

I added some internal WP links to the different storage types to help in the explanation of the above. If it isn't clear, I don't expect that the verbiage used above would be the exact verbiage in the actual article, as I'm sure it could be improved for the article.

Also, after thinking about it, I would not recommend putting storage related statistics in the IT article as it's not the purpose of this article to delve into the details of storage and because such statistics change rapidly, from year to year. I would recommend moving any comments about storage statistics into their appropriate WP page, where such data would most likely be maintained more often and more accurately by experts on such topics.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(a) ummm...so not on this page then? (b) I made a mistake above. I very often have a bibliography section but almost never a further reading section...I wrote the above before my prerequisite morning coffee....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another stupid suggestion from FGuerino, who really needs to study WP:Summary style before posting again. Eric Corbett 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cas,

Regarding a) I guess I don't understand what you mean by "so not on this page, then?" The only thing I suggested moving off this page was any mention related to statistics or metrics for storage, not the broader text about storage. Could you please clarify?

As for b) again, I'm neither for nor against but simply believe it adds no value to this article, given its low state of quality. You'll notice that the majority of all low grade articles don't use one, either. However, if the consensus is to use one, here, I'm ok with that, as it's just a formatting construct.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)