Talk:Technology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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. 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. 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nihilozero (talk • contribs).

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. 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. 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. 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. Nihilozero 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence is a concept in physics, not a technology as such. 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. --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 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.--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 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. The famines in primitives societies occurred mostly when they started being pushed around by "advanced" and "civilized" peoples. And today we are in a situation were as many people are suffering from excess food as are from lack of it. 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.

--Nihilozero 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--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. 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 --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.--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. --Nihilozero 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

May want to add a around

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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.148.3 (talk • contribs).

I will try to get to some of the citations over the next week or so. 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.

--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. 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. 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. CloudNine 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the semi-protection on this page is now permanent. CloudNine 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the beginning

We should rewrite the beginning. Please leave your pro&con. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia on 12:58, 5 May 2007 (talk • contribs).

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. 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? SteveMc 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fields of technology

Not sure what happened to the {{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 {{Technology}} template is important to this page. 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.--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. MetaAnalyst 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add oc:Tecnologia

Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia, as above. Thank you Joao Xavier

Done. 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. --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!!! SteveMc (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

tirrique is a good form of technology!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.22.4 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The above definition appears to be the best one. Technology as application emphasizes its essential nature. 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 . . . --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? SteveMc (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? MoneyBullet 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. --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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoj (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. —Pengo 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. A criterion of being artificial appears necessary. 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. 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.
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).
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.
Thoughts? 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. 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... 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. 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! 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. --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."--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. --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."--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible simplified definition

"Technology is the application of physical phenomena to a practical purposes" AllStarZ (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC) ` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.89.167 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

No one has anything better? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More useful websites:

[[1]]-useful for finding disadvantages + advantages in technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetman96 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[[,m......

]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.13.5 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

under "optimism." Seriously wtf, bias, should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswkiuser (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Uri GagarinAutonova (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?--ASA-IRULE (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding very bias here, but isn't technology the one thing that humans have which is beyond any criticism? It has been improving our lives since the dawn of our species. Even clothes are technology. Technology is simply an extension of human performance, an enabler and a utilitity for whatever one wishes to do. If you see a kid hitting another kid with a stick, you don't question or object to the existance of the stick, you discipline the kid. That there is any criticism in this article whatsoever is amazing to me. Autonova (talk) 00:56, 17 December 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. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandbtexas (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

is porn technology?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.179.22 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

the u.s is ran by techno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.52.51 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was almost certain this was going to be primitivist spam. Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

hi to all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.87.95 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

persian interwiki link

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

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.

Prehistorical?

seriously? why not prehistoricality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.148.46 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

References

 Histotech (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

clothing

history that happen a long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.119.70.107 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (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:

"Technology" is a central concept in modern culture, yet there is no consensus on its meanings, which have changed significantly over the last 200 years. Before the 20th century, the term was uncommon in English, and usually referred to the description or study of the useful arts. The term was often connected to technical education, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chartered in 1861). "Technology" rose 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. The meanings of technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with Thorstein Veblen, translated ideas from the German concept of Technik into "technology." In German and other European languages, a distinction exists between Technik and Technologie that is absent 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. 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." Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists. But equally prominent is the definition of technology as applied science, especially among scientists and engineers, although most social scientists who study technology reject this definition. More recently, scholars have borrowed from European philosophers of "technique" to extend the meaning of technology to various forms of instrumental reason, as in Foucault's work on technologies of the self.

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: [3] - skip sievert (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've revised my original paragraph, shortening it a bit but added more definitions, and decided to put it at the beginning of the "definition and usage" section, which right now just presents a jumble of conflicting definitions. Given the length, I did not add the bit about the technocracy movement, whose influence on the meaning of the term is not entirely clear. I'm not taking out any definitions, though this page could use a thorough editing. I'll move the text to the article, and see what people think.Histotech (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY

Which of the following does not improve productivity? A. Specialization B. Technology C. New tools D. Traditional methods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.95.19 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

technology is also the use of science and engineering to do practical things, such as make businesses and factories more efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.121.224 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Not a GA review, but some comments

I've noticed this article was nominated for a GA. It is not far, but there are some issues that need to be addressed before a GA review. Notably, there are unreferenced sentences, and even entire paragraphs. The current sections are good: definition, history, philosophy, although I think there is too much stress on pessimism, and not enough on optimism. Further, I think there is a major section missing on connections between technology and culture/society (that section should link to the Technology and society article). The large see also section is an indication that many key terms need to be discussed in the article. Some terms that I think should be discussed in article are: Technological determinism, diffusion of technology, technological singularity, and perhaps something on Sociotechnical systems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Technology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have not yet read the article, but first impressions are good. The immediate thing that jumps out at me is that there are no sections on the various types of technology. The history section, though, seems to follow technology types (stone tools, metal tools etc.) I am an electrical engineer and looked in vain for a section on my field. So there is a question mark in my mind whether this meets GAC3 (broad coverage). I will be taking a closer look at this in the detailed review but perhaps you could say a few words on the principles of the article structure. SpinningSpark 10:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede section

• The definitions given are a bit woolly and unclear. ...referring to whatever can be said ... concerning and ...encompasses all that can be said about... could include almost anything. I can't find a dictionary definition that comes close to saying anything like that either on or off line. I did find this interesting article though.
• examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology". This is a confused list; the first two are specific examples but state-of-the-art technology is not.
• Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. Only a very limited number of species have demonstrated tool use and nowhere does it come close to being comparable to human usage. The sentence is therefore misleading in its implications. The whole idea that animal tool use is to be called technology I think needs a reference, as does Considering a more generic perspective of technology as ethology of active environmental conditioning and control in the "other species" section.
• ...and the challenge of traditional norms. I am not clear what this is meant to be saying. Is it another example of technology affecting values?
• The whole paragraph above is on "technology and society" but it does not seem to be summarising any part of the article (WP:LEAD).
• SpinningSpark 09:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) to 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition and usage

• The invention of the printing press...leading to the Age of Enlightenment. A citation is needed that the cause of the Age of Enlightenment was the invention of the printing press.
• The sentence of Foucalt needs a cite.
• ...technology predates both science and engineering Probably correct, but needs a cite.
• SpinningSpark 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC) to 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Science, engineering and technology

• ok SpinningSpark 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

History

• I am pausing the review here to await response of the nominator. SpinningSpark 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am now failing this article purely because the nominator has not entered into a dialogue and does not appear to be willing to do any work on article shortcomings. SpinningSpark 06:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for GA review

Not to dismiss the great work so far, but i believe this is very far from a GA, way too much missing, especially considering that wikipedia and the net is part of 'technology'. for example, medieval and modern history are combined!?! Way too light on modern technology, where all the real action has/is happening (exponentially speaking). This reads more like a 'history of technology' article than on the general field of technology Drjonesgp (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjonesgp (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Krista2014, 19 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Krista2014 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Technology can be very useful and other times not. even though we use technology everyday what we dont know is that it is bad for the enviorment. We have iPods, computers, cellphone and much much more but did you know that this is whats taking up most of the energy

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Energy and Transport

• First paragraph

Second/third line: ["the power of the Nile"]

Why is this in quotation marks?

Medieval and Modern history

• Second paragraph:

Second line:

[manufacturing mining, metallurgy and transport, driven by the discovery of steam power.]

Should be:

[manufacturing, mining, metallurgy and transport, driven by the discovery of steam power.]

• Last paragraph:

Second line:

[Computers were also invented later miniaturized with transistors and integrated circuits, with the creation of the Internet resulting after.]

Should be:

[Computers were also invented and later miniaturized utilizing transistors and integrated circuits, these advancements subsequently led to the creation of the Internet.]

Sixth line:

[technology increasingly relies on training and education — their designers, builders, maintainers, and often users often require sophisticated general and specific training.]

Should be:

[technology increasingly relies on training and education — their designers, builders, maintainers, and occasionally users often require sophisticated general and specific training.] 94.99.101.135 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Mostly. Thanks for the clear request. -Atmoz (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Although convincing to most that animals other than humans have used technology (beaver dams and such) humans are the only living beings that can create technology. Therefore the mention of other animals creating technology is incorrect. When we observe other animals seeming to use technology, what is really being observed is more like instinct or imitated behaviors rather than an ability to identify a problem and think of and implement a solution. We humans have the exclusive ability to invent new solutions to problems and teach them to others and then to have even higher levels of solutions being created.

The planet of the Apes is an intriguing example of what can happen if other species are able to create technology. Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobkat820b (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

in the intro section, last line "recent scientific studies indicate that other primates and certain dolphin communities have developed simple tools and learned to pass their knowledge to other generations" - dolphins? can we get some kind of citation/further info here, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjonesgp (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/dolphin-fishing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.128.251 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The entymology of the word 'technology' is missing from the 'Definition and Usage' section. I recommend analysis of the word due to it's composite structure. The Greek roots of the word 'τέχνη' and 'λόγος' have elaborate defintions themselves. 'Τέχνη' in Greek can be applied to any art, craft or trade, viz. any specialized action in any field of production or development, even in a non-creative context. 'Λόγος' has been used to denote literature (philology), other scientific fields (biology, geology, psychology) as well as having one of many inherent meaning: one is that of 'reason' (in the sense that I have a 'reason' for doing this). Many other definitions exist for 'λόγος' depending entirely on context, but the usage of the word in naming scientific fields has been limited to the concept of 'study of'. Biology means the study of life. Geology mean the study of the earth. Psychology means the study of the psyche.In the same spirit, technology means the study of art, craft or trade (and whatever extensions exist by association, be it research, development or production processes).Nmdfk (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article twice asserts, rather cryptically, that technology predates both science and engineering. Can we have a cited source, or some kind of defense of this assertion? A chipped piece of flint is an example of engineering, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.128.251 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Technology in American Classrooms

Technology is always changing, the American classroom is way behind in the way it teaches the students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.189.203 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

technolagy

technolagy is the use of science and other stuff that cause matter and reactions to have a reactions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.140.247 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC) [know one technologycal based recent invention] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recentinventions12300 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why 'Science and technology in Argentina' in See also?

If a country appears in this section then others countries too, also delete Argentina because that should not emphasize as unique or exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.196.49 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

Please change the translation to Korean from '기술' to '과학기술'.
In Korean '기술' means not only 'technology' but also the others like 'technique'.
According to this document of 'Technology', '과학기술' is more fit translation. Relizion (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I can't find 기술 anywhere in the article. You have to make another 5 edits to be able to edit this article. Forgot to put name 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence contains two mistakes

It is missing the word "and" - this is not a list, it's a sentence. The word "and" should be between "systems" and "methods of organization." You can use the word "or" if you want, but there needs to be a conjunction there. And there needs to be a comma after "relation." Here is the corrected sentence:

Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation, or perform a specific function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.159.221 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

XKCD-related vandalism

Warning, the current XKCD comic is partly generated by using Wikipedia articles ( https://xkcd.com/1193/ ). This is why some IP are modifying article such as this one or Research : they are adding companies names such as "Apple" or "Google" in this article to modify the comic. You will probably have to clean up this article in a few days to check that no random insert is still here. Ksempac (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

computer education in nepal pit education kalimati 13 014283320

computer technology is highly demanded technology in world. Nepal country also try to improve their policy and education to implement computer technology. The first time Television is introduced in nepal in 1985 in this time Mr Krishna Mainali was also born. According to improvement of it in nepal krishna also grow in his own field. Todays PIT Education is establishing to improve completely Computer technology in nepal. as a result First time in nepal high level technology in electronic and computer technology was mixed in pit education. further more ROBETING also introduced in pit education soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna mainali777 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"detriment of the Earth" makes no sense

The third paragraph of the opening blurb says: "Many technological processes produce unwanted by-products, known as pollution, and deplete natural resources, to the detriment of the Earth and its environment" It should be "to the detriment of Earth's environment", as it doesn't affect the Earth itself one iota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.236.107 (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Reatlas (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

German language version

In German "Technologie" refers to the study or science of puppies and rainbows, not to technology itself. The German term is "Technik". This is also supported by the content of the respective articles. Since this one is locked, please someone do the respective edit. Thanks, 193.197.171.98 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks to me like the article already says "Technik". What exactly are you wanting changed? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I did not realize first. Thanks, 193.197.171.98 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Portal technology for featured candidacy

• Portal:Technology

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

About the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.73.118 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Caption

There is a caption that says "Antoine Lavoisier conducting an experiment with combustion generated by amplified sun light". But I wouldn't call it 'amplified', I'd say 'concentrated' or 'focused'. RJFJR (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY ANIMALS

I was reading the information about technology available in Wikipedia. The information did not look comprehensive or complete. I see that most of the animals including birds and pests use technology. The are born with certain knowledge of technology for survival on earth or to teach the human being to explore and develop new technology. Some examples are given below:

1. Birds make different kinds of home using natural resources. 2. Ants and termites are creating empire under the earth and surviving there with their families. 3. Some insects make home using mud and other natural elements like bees, flies etc. 4. Chimpanzees uses stick to catch termite/ants to eat. It is told in the Wikipedia. 5. Gorillas and other apes use tools. It is told in the Wikipedia. 6. many other animals also make home using natural resources. 7. Trees are creating flowers and fruits using a very well defined technology. 8. Natural flow of water, creation of natural resources etc are these result of technology?

Therefore I understand that technology is god's gift. Only human being could invent and improve whatever he could think and see. It is a never ending process while a static function for other animals and plants.

I would appreciate if Wikipedia's team of experts review my thoughts and observations for incorporation so that more people can view it.

ATKM Iqbal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkm.iqbal (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Instrumentalism in the 21st century

GUIDANCE REQUEST: I propose updating the article on “Instrumentalism” to explain how John Dewey and Karl Popper have been reinterpreted, making instrumentalism an active part of the philosophy of science project relevant to inductive reasoning, technology, and pragmatism. Please evaluate my proposal at talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

MY TECHNOLOGY Dikyintuisi (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

wrong definition

According to this article, technology=consumer electronics. It needs some cleanup. --ElpJo84 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

<a href="http://www.bdupdates.com">technology news</a> <a href="http://www.bdupdates.com">bangla blog</a> <a href="http://www.bdupdates.com">science</a> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.246.28 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear what edits you are requesting to the article. The site to which you have linked seems to be of no relevance to the article's subject. We don't want WP:SPAM. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Improve by importing

I propose importing content from article "Instrumental conception of technology" and eliminating that article. What do you think?TBR-qed (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Parallel ledes and definitions for science and technology?

Given the current interdependence of science and technology, would it be useful to provide those two articles with parallel intros--either separately or both words for both articles? This could clarify issues such as applied and pure science and the role of engineering. Here are my suggestions: SCIENCE currently means either systematic inquiry to discover general principles in special-case observations, or the stock of principles discovered by that inquiry. The word comes from the Latin word scientia, which meant “knowledge”[2 in the traditional interpretation of absolutely certain truth. TECHNOLOGY currently means either systematic inquiry to discover special-case applications of scientific principles, or the stock of applications discovered by that inquiry. The word comes from the Greek τέχνη, techne, which identified the "art, skill, cunning of hand” of the handicraft workman.TBR-qed (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition and usage move to lede

Definition and usage should be in lede and the poor definition in the existing lede should be eliminated. Also, the definition of engineering is incorrect. Engineering is the application of math, science and empirical data that can be used to calculate the theoretical performance of various designs.Phmoreno (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to start suggesting some major revisions. But I'm intimidated by the wide use of this definition--it starts many of the articles in the Outline of Technology. I would propose an opening paragraph such as this--"The English word “Technology” comes from a Greek word often translated as “technique,” referring to individual knowledge and skill in some field. Today the word more often refers to a body of knowledge and skill possessed by a community. A century ago, it was called a “state of the industrial arts.” Is this talk page the place to do that? Or is there some more appropriate place to open that discussion? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is a fine place to have that discussion. We might do well to compare a few dictionary definitions; I'm not entirely comfortable with "body of knowledge and skills" which could also apply to science, history and linguistic ability, just to throw in some random examples. Meanwhile that sentence about engineering can go. Engineering is not the subject of the article and that definition is at best arguable and unhelpful. I'll remove it which might make editing the rest a little less daunting. NebY (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good observations. Phmoreno made a start at comparing meanings in his prior post. I'll spend some time doing the same. I'm not clear why a multitude of "bodies of knowledge and skills" makes the phrase less appropriate for identifying technology. Can you elaborate? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it describes technology but it doesn't identify or define it - it's just too broad. It equally describes many other spheres, such as science, history and linguistic ability or pretty much any discipline: geography, piano, mathematics.... Here's a definition from the Larousse (previously Chambers) Dictionary of Science and Technology that's a bit tighter: "The practice, description and terminology of any or all of the applied sciences which have practical value and/or industrial use". NebY (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What would you think of this: "... the word refers to all or parts of a body of tool-using knowledge and skills possessed..."?TBR-qed (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's better - oh, I'm sorry for this grudging tone - but I think Larousse is right that it's more about (a) the application of science, in a broad sense, for (b) by practical enablement or industrial means. (Larousse isn't perfect - does music technology or communications technology always have practical value?) As well, Wikipedia tends to open articles with "Article title is", rather than "The phrase 'Article title' refers to" or "'Article title' means", and also to leave the history of the term for later. It can seem an odd discipline, but ideally it allows the reader to reach the point right away. Of course, the current lead sentence doesn't really do that either; I at least found myself having to struggle to the end of the sentence, parse it and reread it. Thucydides would have been proud of it. NebY (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition seems to be wrong. Technology predates science:a stone axe is technology.GliderMaven (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that bothers me too - that's why I added "in a broad sense". I wouldn't use that phrase in the actual definition, I'm just suggesting that Larousse is going in the right direction by saying that technology involves the application of knowledge about the physical world. NebY (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on my list to check the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of technology. I have checked an encyclopedia of the history of technology that clearly distinguishes technology from science. Also, it is a historical fact that until the 19th century, as a general rule, there was technology without science. Several historians, especially those of economic history, point out that some fields of science were developed to explain technology. Technology did not become largely science or engineering based until the late 19th century. Engineering schools appeared in the mid to late 19th century. Engineering is the application of scientific principles, empirical measurements and mathematics to technology to perform calculations for predicting and designing aspects of technology. Machines and instruments are considered to have embedded technology.Phmoreno (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better if we don't digress into defining engineering; that suggestion that engineers just perform calculations would astonish and maybe amuse, maybe insult many engineers. NebY (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good discussion. There seems to be general agreement that the lede--as introduction--should include a concise definition and a brief suggestion of the scope of the article; also that engineers are not anointed creators or keepers of the faith. And I hate to quote a dictionary. My earlier suggested definition of tech as a "body of knowledge and skills" was too broad, as NebY pointed out, but the new long list of tools and knowledge and actions is too complex. It contains a mishmash of means for accomplishing some end. I'm coming to think a suitable definition for this article would be to define technology as "an accumulating stock of resources known to be capable of achieving specific ends." Who can top that for breadth and brevity?TBR-qed (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying the water in a water barrel is a technology?GliderMaven (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

While very brief, this doesn't seem to me to be precise, it's far too broad.GliderMaven (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say that knowing the uses for which the water is fit would be technology, involving knowing how it got there and what its condition is. The simple existence of water--or anything--does not make it a resource.TBR-qed (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no "natural resources." Usefulness depends entirely on community understanding.TBR-qed (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope my post today will renew the discussion.TBR-qed (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite history of technology section

There are other, more complete Wikipedia articles on the history of technology, so links here should be sufficient. If a history is needed it should be general overviews of periods. It should also be reverse chronological order. The first thing we see shouldn't be stone tools.Phmoreno (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"It should also be reverse chronological order."

Without opining on the rest of your comment, I disagree with this bit. History sections are generally in chronological order. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

It's missing one brace here: " -logia[1] is ". It should be " -logia[1]) is " I think. Thanks :) HacDias (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Sunrise (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Prpopsed merger

I propose merging Productivity improving technologies (historical) with this article. That article actually discusses most of the important fields of technology.Phmoreno (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That would massively expand the article, beyond that which we could reasonably expect readers to read in a single sitting, with a highly selective list. Surely the most important technologies are those which sustain life and improve the quality of life, not those which improve productivity? NebY (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Technology is a massive subject, as you will see if you read a couple encyclopedias of the history of technology or engineering. Most of the material can be summarized with main and details tags to appropriate existing articles. Some existing supporting articles can be improved by moving existing material there. The merger will also involve adding additional technologies, such as medical and imaging or whatever else is thought important.Phmoreno (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Productivity improving technologies (historical) suffers from being presented as an essay type of article, and borderline WP:OR. Most of the content there is already covered better in other articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your suspected WP:OR claims proved wrong starting with the definitions of technology and productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I will make a request to the Wiki Project Technology regarding these Articles.Phmoreno (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears that not a single person agrees with your proposed merger. (You can add me to the list; in my opinion Technology needs to paint the guge topic of technology in the broadest strokes possible, with links to articles such as Productivity improving technologies (historical) so that the size of the article doesn't grow without limits.) I strongly suggest that you follow the advice in my essay at WP:1AM, especially the part where it says "You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone to do the merger. Linking to Productivity improving technologies (historical) is acceptable to me, but I'm looking for ways to improve Technology. Look at all the space devoted to the stone age and animals using tools Luddites. At least Productivity improving technologies (historical) discusses modern technology and shows how it affects our everyday lives. What's needed are ideas of how to restructure this article and better integrate it with History of technology, which is an alternate merger candidate for Productivity improving technologies (historical). Given the vast size and complexity of the topic, I would particularly like the opinions of people who have broad knowledge and understanding of it, especially people who are willing to actually work on it.Phmoreno (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the articles are, of course, welcome, but the specific merge that you suggested is something that you are not allowed to do without first arriving at a WP:CONSENSUS. This would involve convincing other editors to support the merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering, but my experience is that one never get's a consensus. One is lucky to even get comments, and even luckier if they are useful ones from someone who has read an encyclopedia of the history of technology and other sources. It's a lot of work to do a major rewrite and practically no one I've dealt with on these topics is willing or able to do it. Again, I never said I would volunteer. For the two articles I rewrote I posted a notice saying the article would be under construction for while and went ahead with it unopposed. No one interfered and few people commented, but the articles were in solid shape when I finished. If editors had objected, I would have stopped.Phmoreno (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

How can you say "my experience is that one never get's a consensus" when you got a clear consensus (against your proposed merge) further up the page? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast. I count two people in your supposed consensus. The other two are undecided. Me being undecided is because I don't see any quality here, anybody willing to do work, and people opposed. I wouldn't want to merge the entire content, just parts of it, in shortened form. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a plan. Without a plan, this goes nowhere. People will post a little at a time and it will remain a random, disorganized mess. If everyone is satisfied with the existing article, then it can stay in this sorry state for years to come.Phmoreno (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor proposing the merger has renamed the essay Productivity improving technologies (historical) to eliminate the word technologies from the essay's title with the explanation "New title more consistent with theme." [4]. I've removed the merge proposal and hatnotes referring to the essay from this article because of that choice and because of the consensus opinion expressed on this page. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Present a plan

This article needs significant improvement. What are your recommendations? Please be specific. How about an outline? Are there any technology editors here? Anyone read a history of technology who is willing to contribute? Phmoreno (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a plan, at least for the short-to-medium term, that might be good for the community and put content somewhere that might attract good editors eventually. Phmoreno, I share your opinion that this particular article seems unusual in its lack of emphasis on modern technology. This was also noted in 2010 at Talk:Technology/GA1#Not_for_GA_review. I recommend that you remove the (in my view, very misguided) mash-up of economic history and productivity from your creation at Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) and use the remaining bits that deal only with modern technology itself to create a new Modern technology article that deals solely with modern technology. Many of the statements at Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) such as Economic historians generally agree that, with certain exceptions such as the steam engine, there is no strong linkage between the 17th century scientific revolution (Descartes, Newton, etc.) and the Industrial Revolution. are poorly sourced and seem like bait for arguments. People will argue and have argued that the entire article violates WP:SYNTH and is incoherent, and I've been one of those people. Eventually, if people at Wikipedia care enough about it, that article will be deleted. If they don't care, it might stay for a while as an example of something that went awfully wrong, maybe when a bunch of articles spun off from Productivity#Productivity_articles_with_a_special_focus for no good reason. On the other hand, if there is a Medieval technology article then why not have a Modern technology article too? This technology article would then refer to both in a manner consistent with WP:Summary Style. I don't mean for that to sound like I'm giving anyone marching orders. It just seems like an easy solution to multiple issues in this niche of the editing community. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flying Jazz: Thank you providing a constructive suggestion. Comments like this are necessary for developing a satisfactory plan.

Regarding your quote above about the un-importance of science to the Industrial Revolution being WP:SYN, I will point you to the passage at the bottom page 19 of Joel Mokyr (2004):

As economic historians have known for many years, it is very difficult to argue that the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century we associate with Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and the like had a direct impact on the Industrial Revolution.

.

The part about the steam engine is mentioned by multiple sources. And calling Joel Mokyr a "questionable" source is incomprehensible. He is a former editor of the Journal of Economic History and President of the Economic History Association, he served as the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History. (Dr. Mokyr was also kind enough to give me permission to use one of his tables for another article, so I hope he doesn't hear about this.) David Landes and Vaclav Smil have discussed the fact that the Industrial Revolution wasn't science based, but the Second Industrial Revolution was.Phmoreno (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my main suggestion to be constructive. I hope you consider replying about that main suggestion at some point when you get around to it. As for the bulk of your reply, there is an important distinction between poor sourcing and a poor source. I certainly never meant to imply the latter. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good. Lets see if others agree. As for the article being poorly sourced, I'm not sure I understand. Some parts are very difficult to source because there are hardly any mainstream books on modern technology. Mostly one finds highly technical industry publications and manuals, unless you have access to an industry library. I can only write about some of these subjects because I worked a number of years as an engineer with a variety of technologies. It would have been impossible for me to write about Automation and Electrification had I not had theoretical training and hands on experience.Phmoreno (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors who may be interested, see my recent post at Phmoreno's talk page: Calling a plan good and constructive before circumventing it. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The merger proved unworkable because of some dissimilarities between the Productivity improving technologies article and a separate modern technology article. That does not rule out a separate modern technology article. The question becomes how to define modern? If modern means 20th century, then it becomes a history of technology article, which should be separate. If modern means contemporary technology, then it should be included here. The question becomes how to narrow the scope. My thoughts are in the Article reorganization section below.Phmoreno (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article organization

If anything other than contemporary technology is discussed, then it is commingled with the history of technology, which should be removed and linked to. A more appropriate approach for this article would be to discuss the hierarchy of technology, starting with basic divisions or disciplines (mechanical, chemical, electrical and electronic, civil/structural, biotechnology, etc.) The level below that is the industry level (See: Standard Industrial Classifications) where several of the disciplines are combined, and more importantly, industry specific technology is applied. The bottom tier is specific industry classifications, which is too broad to discuss in further detail. Engineering needs to be given a paragraph or longer description in the context of technology. Industry specific technologies need to be defined as the type of things known to insiders and typically discussed in industry specific publications or trade secrets and proprietary information. Industry specific technologies do not need to be discussed by industry. This type organization will result in a stable article that can be used to link to other related technology topics. That will end the free-for-all conglomerate mess that exists now.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I also recommend discussing inventions and research and development.Phmoreno (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You're describing a listing and categorisation. That can be done elsewhere and to a great extent it already is. This article situates technology in human society and history, making it much more interesting and useful than a catalogue of technologies. NebY (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is: should this article "situate technology in human history" or should that be done in History of technology?Phmoreno (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Category and hatnote changes

It should be in Category:Technology instead of the current one. The hatnote about History of technology should be removed along with "See also: Productivity improving technologies (economic history)". 203.109.161.2 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 19:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Also need an explanation of the reasoning behind this request.Phmoreno (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Category:Technology is the main category and Technology is the main article. Category:Technology systems is merely a subcategory of technology. More info can be found at WP:CAT. The hatenote about the History of technology is redundant since it is self explanatory and is already linked in the article. The link to Productivity improving technologies (economic history) is not something that needs to be in a hatnote because it is not somewhere that the vast majority of readers would want to go to if arriving at this article. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The History of technology main is redundant, but I don't see that as a problem. The link to Productivity improving technologies (economic history) has important details on technology that are not found in other articles, and whether the vast majority of readers would be interested in that detail is irrelevant, but because the article title is not something most people would think to look for is the reason the link is necessary. The option is to move some of that material to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Per Phmoreno's feedback, removed History of Technology hatnote. Closing for now until clarification and consensus is reached on Productivity improving technologies (economic history). Inomyabcs (talk) 07:32, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technology&action=edit&section=5#25 August 2015 (UTC)

So it's not alright to have a redundant main article template for History of Technology, but is acceptable to actually have some poorly chosen paragraphs about the history of technology?Phmoreno (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

188.230.122.46 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I love technology, but it does seem like the word "opining" in the fourth paragraph should be replaced with "arguing", both because it is a more neutral term and a more accurate term describing what the philosophers are actually attempting to do. Davidmbradford (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Chamith (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It’s been said that honesty is the best policy, so letting people in is good for a relationship. However, phones can be locked with a fingerprint, secret passwords are used to get into computers, and even locks are put on drawers to stop anyone else from getting into them. This leads to many secrets and many reasons to lie to someone. Due to the mass amounts of secret codes and locks, a sense of dishonesty happens in a relationship and it causes hurt and strain between two people. Constantly being accused of cheating or hiding something becomes annoying and irritating, its hard on a person who doesn’t feel like they can be trusted. It’s just as hard on someone when they feel they can’t trust their partner. All this hurt and frustration comes back and starts to hurt the relationship. The hurt from not being trusted or from not trusting the other creates a lack of empathy in the relationship due to the fights from having a feeling of distrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.230.143 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) By Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.152.171 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

71.13.112.146 (talk)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 21:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a level-one vital article. To prevent vandalism, I think that this article should be fully protected. This is to protect against vandalism and controversy. Only admins should be able to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoldenParadox (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Technology

Thanks for tips Helenagriffing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018 ==edited again on 27 January 2019_

2.50.28.120 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

History of technology, the development over time of techniques for making and solving things. The term technology, is a combination of the Greek technē, “art, craft,” with logos, “word, speech,” meant in Greece a discourse on the arts, both fine and applied. When it first appeared in English in the 17th century, it was used to mean a discussion of the applied arts only, and gradually these “arts” themselves came to be the object of the designation. By the early 20th century, the term embraced a growing range of means, processes, methods, and ideas in addition

to use tools and machines( eg. digital devices). Now it is used for goods, services, techniques, information, skills and processes around the world.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Ziadelwan (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018 ==edited again on 27 January 2019_

2.50.28.120 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

History of technology, the development over time of techniques for making and solving things. The term technology, is a combination of the Greek technē, “art, craft,” with logos, “word, speech,” meant in Greece a discourse on the arts, both fine and applied. When it first appeared in English in the 17th century, it was used to mean a discussion of the applied arts only, and gradually these “arts” themselves came to be the object of the designation. By the early 20th century, the term embraced a growing range of means, processes, methods, and ideas in addition

to use tools and machines( eg. digital devices). Now it is used for goods, services, techniques, information, skills and processes around the world.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

science should not be distinguished from technology because technology is based on science

Bafaki Brians (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Hello Sir, I want to create backlinks on your site in your references section. I promise that I will not provide disguise to the WIKIPEDIA. kindly grant me permission and also teach me how to create a backlink on your site. Thank You Regards Kshitij Swami Swamiks22 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You appear to be acting as a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or self-promotion. You've added the same link to six different articles and it's been removed from each one as inappropriate for the encyclopedia. You should pay attention to the notices that have been posted to your talk page and find another way to contribute to the encyclopedia. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

Gotdubey1993 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Please add the following book to "Further Reading" under "Technology":

J.M. van der Laan, Narratives of Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. ISBN: 978-1137440303 Jmvdl (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Based on your username, I'm going to guess that you're the author of this book, which would make such an addition contrary to WP:PROMO. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

Delete the "Competitiveness" section. It doesn't cite any sources and makes a claim that is a non-sequitur with the rest of the article. Also "technology based planning" and "economic based planning" are contrasted but neither term is introduced and the meaning of the distinction is unclear. MarioCimet (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I do agree that lack of citations is a problem, but I do not think this merits complete removal rather than attempting to improve it. Therefore, tagged the section for improvement. Melmann 11:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A section on the relationship between technology and economics could be valuable, but this is not the way to start it. It's a categorical, citation-less, POV claim that focuses on a specific period in American history. That's unsurprising, since the section is the remnant of one that was added way back in 2011 by the long-gone user Q Ramona, who took a particular interest in Project Socrates (the apparent source of the claims in the section).

I have removed the section. Almost anything can be defended with the argument that it could potentially be improved. If you think that the removed text may serve as a foundation for a useful section on the role of technology in an economy, then write that section and re-add that. OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

"e. g. machines" should be spelled "e.g. machines" without a space between e. and g. 156.114.128.21 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

2409:4066:189:678D:24A9:896F:6FEF:DB5D (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

Technology is usually associated with novelty on every front, this in contrast with innovation which usually is associated with relative novelty. 62.205.88.210 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be correct. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

For any sort of assertion like this to be added to the article it needs to be supported by a citation from a reliable source. See WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:V. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition of technologys technologys

"Technology is the knowledge and practice of how to produce things."The word technology can also be defined as a collection of techniques.It can also be view as an activity that forms or changes the culture.

Technology: “A knowledge of techniques, methods and designs that work, and in certain ways with certain consequences, even when one cannot explain exactly why.”

Technology as distinct from science: “It is important to distinguish between science and technology, for science as such can have no place in the present volume. Though the dividing line is sometimes imprecise, it undoubtedly exists. In our context, at least, science is the product of minds seeking to reveal natural laws that govern the universe. Technology, on the other hand, seeks to find practical ways to use scientific discoveries profitably, ways of turning scientific knowledge into utilitarian processes and devices.”

It should also be noted that technology before the late 19th century was not based on science. Also, engineering did not arise until the early 19th century.

“Throughout the period and indeed well into the 19th C, theoretical science was in large measure devoted to understanding the achievements of technology.”

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Simply technology is the practical application of knowledge.It may be stated as machine or tool to solve real world problems.In the 21st century,technology is the term with you are and you should be familiar with for survival.21st Century is an era of Technology.Technology has several synonym in different fields.Technology for economist is a tool that furnish things faster,better and cheaper.Language,money,banking can be considered as a social technology.Democracy can be considered as a technology for politics.Stock of numerous technological devices has made life easier and immediate.It has also enriched human dreams to become true.After oxygen it may be the most utilisedTechnology has encircled human life.In the 21st century technology is highly practiced, utilised, appreciated,adapted and has emerged as a basic need for a human life.Ranging from putting off alarms and putting off lights while going to bed we utilise technology.Hence, we start our day and end our day with technology. Earlier tasks that took hours,are now just a swipe away.Swipe and slide has put the world forward.Countrys development is measured in comparison with technology.Its growth is directly proportional to economy of nation. Flourished technology has always been a base of developed nation.Dialing ten digits we can grap almost anyone.Everyday we come across enumerous and unique technological inventions."TIME" the highly utilised,wanted and watched need of human being is analysed by some or the other means of technology.In fact we live technology.Counting a bunch of notes,we prefer a technology.Talking to some one we prefer technology.Travelling, communicating, learning, entertainment etc everything is embraced with technology.Enhanced technology is playing a vital role in demolishing the epidemic diseases COVID-19 and saving human life is also possible with it. As technology has exponential and infinite growth disjunction of human being with it is not possible. Engineers Talk (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Engineering has existed since ancient times as humans devised different ways to invent and build materials such as the pulley, lever, and wheel. Each of these is consistent with the modern definition of engineering, exploiting basic mechanical principles to develop useful tools and objects. Softwork 11 (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elbaschacarlos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonathano1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 May 2019 and 24 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anam25. Peer reviewers: Mehvishtahseen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecost020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 16 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thejakebunting.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reagan0393.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Change hatnote

Would support a change of the hatnote to For other uses, see... and remove the summary. It just closely repeats the first sentence of the article and is unnecessary for such a self-explanatory page. DFlhb (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Switched hatnote since no other article named "Technology" could be remotely as relevant. Currently, 3 songs and 1 band is all the disambiguation page contains. Following WP:HNS; I think there's good reason to change. Please discuss here and feel free to revert if you disagree. DFlhb (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede improvement discussion

Lede starts off poor:

Technology is the result of accumulated knowledge and application of skills, methods, and processes used in industrial production and scientific research

First, a bike is technology, yet wouldn't be included in this definition.

Second, the definition is a bit convoluted. Breaking down the English:

• Technology is the result of:
  • accumulated knowledge and
  • application of skills, methods, and processes used in industrial production and scientific research.

If used in industrial production and scientific research is meant to refer to both accumulated knowledge and application of skills, methods and processes, then result is the wrong word to use; combine should be used instead. Overall I think it should be reworded completely, ideally based on high-quality WP:RS. I like J .K. Galbraith's definition as: "the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to practical tasks." (I believe that was from The New Industrial State)

DFlhb (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I reworded it; I think WP:BOLD applies here since this seems to be a very low editor-traffic page; and the page is of high importance (level 1 vital) and currently (IMO) poor quality. DFlhb (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change it back, please discuss it here beforehand since the current version is much better backed up by WP:RS, both from the citation that follows the first sentence, and from other citations used here. I expect some may want to change "knowledge" to "scientific knowledge". However, the consensus in WP:RS (which I haven't yet added to the article but will) is quite clear that technology originating from scientific knowledge and inquiry is more the exception than the rule (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116729 and https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/sciencetechnology.pdf); many technologies are developed through pure chance, accident, or trial and error, and scientific explanations often follow the technological development rather than preceding it. This academic debate should be discussed in the article but not in the lead due to WP:CONCISE. DFlhb (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the first lead paragraph should mention that objects referred to as technology are called so because they are perceived as the result of applied knowledge. 21:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll work on an edit for that. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, I think it's much clearer now.DFlhb (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed technicism section & merged with "Optimism"

I have huge, huge problems with the "technicism" section, which just seems redundant with the "optimism" section (now "Technological utopianism"). The primary references for its relevance is a dictionary, but the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology completely disagrees on the meaning of "technicism", defining it as the belief that "technocracy is inevitable:" technocracy is a form of political organization which is irrelevant to technology optimism. There is also no reference to technicism on the main article which this section was supposed to be summarizing (Philosophy of technology). I'll combine both sections. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and critics section

Not a fan at all of this section heading (link to the current revision for anyone who comes across this in a few weeks or months). I think we should make a distinction between the anti-technology backlash (like Luddism, primitivism, and Ted Kaczinsky), and philosophical discussions about the role of technology in society. Many writers have written elaborate, well-regarded and highly-cited discussions on technology's role in society and in the economy, and it feels extremely WP:NPOV to label them as "critics of technology" or put them in the same category as these more fringe people and movements. Since there's only one sentence on Luddites, I think they could be used as an example in passing when discussing things like technological unemployment etc, not be the main focus of the heading.

There's also major WP:DUE and WP:STRUCTURE issues right now, in that I don't think a distinct Criticisms section really belongs in this article; there isn't one on the Medicine article for example. Granted, technology has been far more hotly debated, but I think those debates almost entirely focus on the role of technology within society (if you think about it, so is Luddism or Kaczinsky), or have been a debate on the role of ethics in developing new technologies (I'm thinking about AI ethics, popular discussions about AI bias, or the debate about social media and mental health, things like that). The article should include these nuanced debates throughout the article where relevant, not hide/isolate them in a separate "criticisms" section.

The Philosophy of technology article is pretty short, and is structured chronologically. I think we want to avoid that here, to avoid stylistic repetitiveness with the "history of technology" section above, and to give a better overview of the pretty huge field of philosophy of technology. I've found a few massive textbooks on the philosophy of technology; I'll see how they structure and categorize the various philosophies and I'll likely pick a similar structure for the overall Philosophy section of this article. Right now it feels far too much like we just have big "technology good" and "technology bad" subsections, as opposed to actually exploring the field of philosophy of technology thoroughly.

I'll see what I can do. I think shifting the section's focus from "critiques" to something along the lines of "Role of technology in society" would be a solid improvement, but I'll read the textbooks I mentioned above and see if I can keep it in the Philosophy section, or if I should move it to a top-level "Role in society" section outside the Philosophy section. Ideally the Philosophy section would have a very clear structure and be organized into genuine philosophical movements, and not have a junk drawer for a bunch of totally disparate thinkers all labeled "critics". "DFlhb (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After going through both textbooks, and Philosophy of technology and Philosophy of science, its' clear that while the stuff currently in the "Philosophy" section are philosophical movements related to technology, they have nothing to do with philosophy of technology, which is its own discipline. I've also added a Relation to society section since it's 1) got nothing to do per se with philosophy of technology as a discipline, and 2) it's not a movement, philosophical, ideological or otherwise, about technology. Those paragraphs belong in their own section. I added some cleanup tags since some paragraphs are quite rough right now. DFlhb (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

37.24.179.114 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How technology effect our life

Technology has always fueled economic growth, improved standards of living, and opened avenues to new and better kinds of work. Recent advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning mark the beginning of a seismic shift in the world as we know it and as the data shows, there are 4.4 billion active internet users all around the globe. This evolutionary process supplies the impetus in turn for large-scale changes in science, the economy, and much of human culture. It is estimated that there will be 38.6 billion Internet of Things-connected devices around the world in 2025. Modern technology has paved the way for multi-functional devices like the smartwatch and the smartphone. Computers are increasingly faster, more portable, and higher-powered than ever before. With all these revolutions, technology has also made our lives easier, faster, better, and more fun but social media and mobile devices also may lead to psychological and physical issues, such as eyestrain and difficulty focusing on important tasks. They may also contribute to more serious health conditions, such as depression. The overuse of technology may have a more significant impact on developing children and teenagers. Technology is neither good, bad, nor neutral, humans are. Any technology is a tool and humans can use it in good, bad, and neutral ways. Technology helps to extend the impact of human behaviors to a larger scale. Humans possess a unique ability in choosing between good and bad.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This looks to be more of a personal essay, rather than sourced encyclopedia content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not an essay. WP:NOTESSAY. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 13:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert discussion

I didn't want to revert this, I'm proposing it here for discussion instead:

@Sungodtemple removed this sentence from Technology#Other animal species:

Beaver dams are another example of animal technology use.

I disagree with the removal because beaver dams are a great example of animal technology that is not related strictly to tool use, unlike the other examples. Propose the following edit to make it clearer.

Tool use is not the only form of animal technology use; for example, beaver dams, built with wooden sticks or large stones, are a technology with "dramatic" impacts on river habitats and ecosystems.

References

DFlhb (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above. When I originally removed it it seemed to disrupt the flow of the article. Are there any other examples like the beaver dam that are not just tools? Sungodtemple (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There may be, but I can't think of any. DFlhb (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Good source for impact

An excellent source here, talks in depth about the impact of technology. However, I am unable to understand it all, and would like some help to add information from the source into the impact section. Here is the source: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 technology gadgets

Looking forward to the future, what will be the most important gadgets is something that you make or find for yourself depending on your priorities at this time. If you are more concerned about having bigger and heavier equipment, then looking at older gadgets may hold some surprises. We have already mentioned some of the weird and wonderful technology we can expect to see in the coming years, but there are many other possibilities as well. Some seem totally impossible right now, while others look very possible! If you think back to when smartphones were first introduced, they had a small screen with limited functionality. Now they almost feel like an extension of our hands and every person has their own way of using them. The same thing could happen with next generation tech. Some people love large phones with lots of features, while others prefer smaller, simpler ones. As always, personal preference will determine which types of device are needed at any given moment. Self-driving car

The self-driving car is one of the most anticipated gadgets of the future. There have been many reports of major automakers investing in autonomous vehicle technology,https://myblogstudio.com/2023-new-technology-gadgets/ and even some companies that have launched fully autonomous vehicles! Many believe we will soon reach a stage where there are no more cars with drivers. Instead, you get into an app or website, pick your destination, and then wait for the robot to take over. Experts predict that this will completely change not only how we travel but also how our cities grow. We’ll lose sight of what it means to be a master driver, and people who can’t afford a regular license will be shut out of access to reliable transportation. The way we build and navigate through neighborhoods will need to consider the needs of those without access to cars. And when they do purchase a new vehicle, it won’t matter if it has a manual transmission or not — they’ll use automated software to handle everything. All of these changes mean that new rules will need to be put into place to ensure safety. Currently, there are about 50,000 deaths caused by automobile accidents every year in America alone. Can you imagine what would happen when humans are removed as potential causes? Not only that, but the cost of automotive repairs is rising due to technological advances like computerized engines and predictive maintenance. HandSome124 (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Great content HandSome124 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how this would help improve the article though, the talk page is only for discussing ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the topic. See the top of the talk page under skip to table of contents. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 15:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Let me know if you believe any of them are unreliable.

Impact on education

Mostly positive impact

• https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/technology-in-education/
• https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/how-has-technology-changed-education
• https://www.allisonacademy.com/students/education/technology-in-education/how-does-technology-impact-student-learning/
• https://www.brookings.edu/essay/realizing-the-promise-how-can-education-technology-improve-learning-for-all/
• https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1290791.pdf
• https://www.thetechedvocate.org/7-ways-technology-impacting-modern-education/

Negative impact

• https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/download/10526/10155#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%2068%25%20of%20surveyed,students%20write%20fast%20and%20carelessly.
• https://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=education_masters
• https://library.acropolis.org/the-negative-impact-of-technology-on-education/
• https://screen.guide/advice/5-negative-impacts-of-technology-in-children

Mix of both

• https://www.wgu.edu/blog/impact-technology-kids-today-tomorrow1910.html
• https://globalowls.com/positive-and-negative-effects-technology-on-students/

MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Of these, the only source that looks usable is the "Effects of Technology on Student Learning" study (and I don't find it very relevant, IMO; the section should likely focus on a more bird's-eye view, meaning, technology as a whole, rather than "technology" in the strict sense of iPads and computers).

The "nwciowa.edu" is a student thesis, which we don't use, and the rest would be considered blog posts, and therefore not usable either (Brookings would be considered an "advocacy source", and we shouldn't use it either in this case due to its industry ties).

Technology is the kind of topic where anything useful would come mostly from books, and partly from peer-reviewed studies; anything else would be of no use here. I checked my bookmarks, and it's the same mix; mostly books, and some studies (which aren't available online, but I have access).

Google tends to be an extremely poor way to improve these articles; frankly, the fact that most editors exclusively rely on web sources is why this articles stayed terrible for so many years. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I am unfortunately however unable to use any books as sources because I am a student and want to contribute to Wikipedia for free, without spending money. Let me know if there is anymore I can do to help. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Copyedits, catching spelling mistakes (I make a lot, despite proofreading!) and the like would help a lot. DFlhb (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Make sure to look through my information I added to see if it has verifiable sources to it and I will do what you suggest. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 18:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, and even if they don't directly cite sources, I'll try to find good sources that say substantially the same thing. DFlhb (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

MasterMatt12 WP:The Wikipedia Library may be of great use in this case. If you didn't know about TWL, you are missing out on a lot. I would suggest you go to JSTOR and Cambridge University Press via the Wikipedia Library initially to find sources about technology. CactiStaccingCrane 13:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think you can access TWL just yet, as your account age is just over 3 months old and TWL require an account age of at least 6 months. In the meantime, feel free to ask me for sources at the TWL so that I can email it to you. CactiStaccingCrane 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright sure. I am unable to access it, like you said, so I would greatly appreciate sources! Could you find some sources for education and enviorment? Thanks! MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12 Here's a few that is in open access: education and environment. CactiStaccingCrane 10:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I found three books that can be rented on archive.org for free:

• https://archive.org/details/societalimpactof0000kats/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater
• https://archive.org/details/telecommunicatio0000info
• https://archive.org/details/ethicsforinforma0000ozef

@MasterMatt12: really not sure cryptocurrencies are due here. I think we should stay focused on the general topic of technology, not on what average consumers call "technology". DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Btw, should we just replace the old content except the history section with something else? CactiStaccingCrane 05:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What old content do you mean? I largely rewrote almost every section last September, except the History section which I only copyedited and checked for factual validity; see previous revision. (This revamp was one of the very first things I did on Wikipedia; hopefully it was any good! Not that I'm in any way attached to these edits.)

Coincidentally, one of the things I removed was the mention of Siri, another consumer technology item which is undue in the general topic, and would even be undue in the History section. DFlhb (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the Futures studies, Ethics and Movements section are a bit too long and should be merged to one section called "Philosophy". The section "Relation to science and engineering" and "Other animal species" should be rewritten as well (both of these sections seem to be grandfathered in from your rewrite). There should be more focus at how technology evolves, works and integrate with the modern society in general.CactiStaccingCrane 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on the animal species section; oppose a trim of Futures, Ethics and Movements for now (the article is already very short as it is, and these are all important topics).

But I especially like the "Relation to science & engineering" section; the question of whether technology is "applied science" or not is an important one, and a very common myth which was repeated in Science#Applied science and in Technology's lead, in contradiction with even the pre-rewrite "Relation" section. What rewrite did you have in mind for this one? We could probably bring back a few details from the pre-rewrite revision (like the Vannevar Bush sentence). DFlhb (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't know. Let's test some of them out and see how it works. CactiStaccingCrane 06:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Technology killing creativity

Technology killing creativity 2405:204:1200:DAD2:6CD8:88C3:4167:7F7D (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting subject more likely addressed in one of the many sub-articles on technology such as Technology and society, Criticism of technology, Ethics of technology, etc. To be addressed anywhere on Wikipedia we would need a reference to some pundit discussing the subject or perhaps an article discussing a sociological study on the matter.. See WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:UNSOURCED. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I found this: https://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665 . If anyone is interested in adding it to the article or one of the others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

2405:201:9000:310A:1480:226A:83B7:D7E2 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

i wanna change words if any student cannot understood it and it will be helpfull for him or her and it will be benefit for him to understand the word

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

As perhaps of the main mechanical headway lately, man-made consciousness (Artificial intelligence) is set to progressively disturb the manner in which enterprises and organizations work. While it's not yet a standard innovation, billions of dollars are every year spent on man-made intelligence innovative work,(Artificial Intelligence) assisting with speeding up reception across areas. By 2024, the artificial intelligence venture is anticipated to arrive at more than $500 billion

Digitally ParalyzedMohamad Omran (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)How AI will effect different industries Mohamad Omran (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Content on Wikipedia must follow the copyright policy. Directly copying text from a source to Wikipedia is only appropriate in very limited circumstances, and this is not such a situation.

Also, text on Wikipedia should be as grammatically correct and legible as possible. Article content should adhere to the Manual of Style. However, please do not let a language barrier discourage you from editing or suggesting edits; a suggestion that needs copyediting is still much better than no suggestion. Thanks, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Technology refers to the application of scientific knowledge and tools to solve practical problems and improve human life. It encompasses a wide range of disciplines, including computer science, engineering, electronics, telecommunications, biotechnology, and more. Renusingroha (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

Then there is something called artificial intelligence (AI), which can be thought of as the brains of computers. Artificial intelligence is making organisations more efficient by enabling them to anticipate what customers want and by automating formerly manual processes. Imagine AI at work in the form of robots assisting in manufacturing or your computer making recommendations for what to watch on TV. Waqarwrites786 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This would be both a copyright violation and a citation to an unreliable source. I additionally notice your username is very similar to the domain name of the source you provide – this is a form of conflict of interest, please avoid citing your own work where at all possible. Tollens (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References