Jump to content

Talk:Radio-frequency identification: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,260 edits
m Signing comment by 178.233.225.27 - "→Regulation and standardization: new section"
Line 98: Line 98:
== Regulation and standardization ==
== Regulation and standardization ==


In this section, it is stated that the NFC payments use the ISO/IEC15693 standard, though the corresponding page only lists "public library" and "sky pass" tags, whereas the NFC contactless payments are listed on the ISO/IEC 14443 page. Thus, this should be corrected.
In this section, it is stated that the NFC payments use the ISO/IEC15693 standard, though the corresponding page only lists "public library" and "sky pass" tags, whereas the NFC contactless payments are listed on the ISO/IEC 14443 page. Thus, this should be corrected. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.233.225.27|178.233.225.27]] ([[User talk:178.233.225.27#top|talk]]) 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 20:37, 18 May 2020

Credibility

Under 'Frequencies->Band 120-150kHz->Range' author claims 10 cm. This is TOTALLY wrong!

  • I personally reached 25 cm with an ID-2 from Innovations and a 16 cm square antenna.
  • The 'Electrodragon' module achieves 40 cm. Many (amateur) people achieve similar ranges.
  • Masstect claims 90 cm.
  • UHPPOTE Middle Reading Distance Range: Common Card up to 30-40cm (11.8"-15.7") Long range proximity card up to 80-100cm .

And I didn't even check professional products.
There is a reason why Wikipedia has no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Mark of the beast

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/21/schoolgirl_expelled_rfid_chip/

Is a single lawsuit notable enough? Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lawsuit by itself is not WP:notable. A lawsuit is a primary source, and WP needs a secondary source to tell us it is notable. That said, notability is a requirement for a separate article; it is not a requirement for inclusion in an existing article.
The story you cite is not the lawsuit but rather an article about the controversy. If The Register is a reliable source, then it can be used to add information to an article. A google search turns up other sources for the story.
The question becomes does the story merit inclusion. I'm on the fence. The story has human interest and is growing, but WP is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The story is more about privacy in general than RFID. There are additional privacy issues: the badge barcode is apparently her Social Security Number. On the flip side, the WP article has a lot about RFID privacy issues: Radio-frequency identification#Privacy. Maybe that section will spin off.
I would be shocked if the number of the card is her SSN. Schools are really not that lax with sensitive information. Read the article again... they say "correspond" to her SSN. There is a database, somewhere, that matches her RFID number to her SSN. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, I'd say be bold and put something about the story in the article -- but keep a neutral tone.
Glrx (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that most of the headlines you'll find are incorrect. The student was disenrolled only after refusing an ID card without an RFID chip. Almost all articles claim, usually in the headline, that it was because she refused one with a chip. Very sensationalist, sells papers, but one would hope we at Wikipedia care about facts. See the copy of the letter from the district referenced in some of the articles for a direct reference to the disenrollment. It does no good to merely regurgitate bad journalism. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mark of the Beast" references Revelation 13. The passage is not very specific as to what it is, and that therefore we cannot be very specific as to what it is not. However, human identification is involved in this chapter, especially for economic ends, and, more broadly, for purposes of control. The Book of Revelation is held authoritative, as it is in the canon, of all major divisions of the Christian Faith. (John G. Lewis (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Who's human identify? MystinaRose (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link "What is RFID? - Animated Explanation" seems to be broken. I was able to identify this URL: http://www.explania.com/en/channels/technology/detail/rfid-explained but it says "Sorry Because of its privacy settings, this video cannot be played here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarcelo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The link What is RFID? Educational video by The RFID Network also appears to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarcelo (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That site (explania) is not a reliable source: 1) hosted by a marketing company 2) with no clear author information, let alone information about the authors' expertise and credentials, and 3) allows "company sponsoring" and other PR activities influencing their content. GermanJoe (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Radio-frequency identification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antique orthography

Moving Radio-frequency identification to Radiofrequency identification ought to be noncontroversial given that it is not 1942 anymore. Hyphenating "radio-frequency" is antique orthography, which WP does not use for current technology topics. I moved it per WP:BOLD, and it was reverted. Please explain below any valid objections to removing it (besides "I personally like to write with unusual or outdated punctuation", which is not a valid reason for the Wikipedia article on RFIDs). Thanks. — ¾-10 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some simple searches returns "Radio-frequency" (hyphenated) or "Radio frequency" (two words). IEEE uses two words, which I would not oppose as a move target should a request for move be made in that direction.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I must retire my objection. I am so used to seeing "radiofrequency ablation", which usually does not take the hyphen in modern U.S. publications. But I see that Google results for "radio-frequency identification (RFID)" in quotes outnumber results for "radiofrequency identification (RFID)" (although there are many of the latter, in contrast to the assertion that there were none), and now I see that several dictionaries have an open or hyphenated compound, such as AHD at RFID. Oh well. I still would like to see it moved to the more modern styling. But I can live with it if not. — ¾-10 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Radio frequency" is commonly two words; both Oxford and Merriam-Webster spell it that way. Under the strict hyphen rules, "radio" goes with "frequency" rather than identification, so the phrase should be "radio-frequency identification". Arguably, it could be "radio frequency identification" because most people would understand that "radio" modifies frequency. It may be that "radio frequency" will follow the same path as "screen play" to "screenplay", but that is not typical yet. RFID Journal's website description[1] uses "RFID (radio frequency identification)". Glrx (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge October 2017

Bulk reading contains only a little content which would be a paragraph or two in this article and make it more comprehensive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Glrx (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation and standardization

In this section, it is stated that the NFC payments use the ISO/IEC15693 standard, though the corresponding page only lists "public library" and "sky pass" tags, whereas the NFC contactless payments are listed on the ISO/IEC 14443 page. Thus, this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.225.27 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radio-frequency_identification&oldid=957432131"