Algorithm is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think this article should have some reference to the fact that "algorithms" are now being discussed in the context of social media platforms, "Big Tech", and related Internet technologies. As governments in Europe, the US, and other regions are discussing whether to regulate social platforms and companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google, the discussion often comes back to "algorithms". For instance, this is coming up quite often in discussions around Section 230 in the US. In Europe there is an EU activity of "Algorithm Awareness-Building." [1] Just recently, two representatives introduced the "Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act" [2].
Given that many people may turn to Wikipedia to help understand what an "algorithm" is, I feel like there should be some mention of this usage on the page. But given the amount of detailed and academic info on the current page, I'm not sure how to best integrate this other content. Perhaps something brief in the lead paragraph and then a mention under "Informal definition"? Or a new section about "Algorithms in current politics"? Or a new section under "History" (although that seems mostly about the refinement of algorithms)? Any thoughts? - Dyork ( talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
'Algorithm' as used by non-computer-scientists / non-experts to discuss recommender systems in social media (which, surely, are implemented by large numbers of algorithms) is a technically-incorrect use of the word almost entirely unrelated to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.126.73 ( talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This page is quite long and rambling and seems to have some content that could go to other pages such as the section on Euclid's algorithm and the conversation between Turing etc. This is a gateway concept to many related issues and it would be good if it was easier for the general reader to navigate. I can get started on some of this. Amanda Lawrence 01:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
As added by User:2601:196:180:dc0:7c5a:37cb:a8c6:32d7:
:"One box is to be singled out and called the starting point. ...<!-- Is this punctuation (a period, followed by a space, then an elipse) correct? A recent editor assumed it was supposed to be this .... and changed it thusly. Can someone with access to the original source please verify it, and amend this inline note "stet" to indicate it should remain as verified.--> a specific problem is to be given in symbolic form by a finite number of boxes [i.e., INPUT] being marked with a stroke. Likewise, the answer [i.e., OUTPUT] is to be given in symbolic form by such a configuration of marked boxes...
Someone, i guess( talk i guess| le edit list)
02:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
One box is to be singled out and called the starting point. We now further assume that a specific problem is to be given in symbolic form by a finite number of boxes being marked with a stroke.As I read MOS:ELLIPSES, we leave the period in the quotation mark, then do nonbreaking space, ellipsis, space, and pick back up with the text. The alternative would be to gloss the text, which would be something like (condensing) "...and called the starting point. [A] finite number of boxes [are] marked with a stroke." — C.Fred ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone, i guess( talk i guess| le edit list)
02:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)I'm not sure if this is a good definition as algorithms may contain loops that sometimes may not stop (unless you close the program) and yet be correct, for instance a service that runs on the background Luiz Felipe de Barros Jordão Costa ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Anyone against merging Algorithmics into Algorithm? That page seems almost completely useless. Weebney ( talk) 19:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
While I understand the thought behind contrasting algorithms with heuristics, I think it makes the page longer than it needs to be. It doesn't add new information about algorithms nor does it clear up common misconceptions. It seems like more of a detour in what should be a concise article. Any thoughts on keeping or removing the heuristics paragraph? Clubspike2 ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Algorithm is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think this article should have some reference to the fact that "algorithms" are now being discussed in the context of social media platforms, "Big Tech", and related Internet technologies. As governments in Europe, the US, and other regions are discussing whether to regulate social platforms and companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google, the discussion often comes back to "algorithms". For instance, this is coming up quite often in discussions around Section 230 in the US. In Europe there is an EU activity of "Algorithm Awareness-Building." [1] Just recently, two representatives introduced the "Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act" [2].
Given that many people may turn to Wikipedia to help understand what an "algorithm" is, I feel like there should be some mention of this usage on the page. But given the amount of detailed and academic info on the current page, I'm not sure how to best integrate this other content. Perhaps something brief in the lead paragraph and then a mention under "Informal definition"? Or a new section about "Algorithms in current politics"? Or a new section under "History" (although that seems mostly about the refinement of algorithms)? Any thoughts? - Dyork ( talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
'Algorithm' as used by non-computer-scientists / non-experts to discuss recommender systems in social media (which, surely, are implemented by large numbers of algorithms) is a technically-incorrect use of the word almost entirely unrelated to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.126.73 ( talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This page is quite long and rambling and seems to have some content that could go to other pages such as the section on Euclid's algorithm and the conversation between Turing etc. This is a gateway concept to many related issues and it would be good if it was easier for the general reader to navigate. I can get started on some of this. Amanda Lawrence 01:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
As added by User:2601:196:180:dc0:7c5a:37cb:a8c6:32d7:
:"One box is to be singled out and called the starting point. ...<!-- Is this punctuation (a period, followed by a space, then an elipse) correct? A recent editor assumed it was supposed to be this .... and changed it thusly. Can someone with access to the original source please verify it, and amend this inline note "stet" to indicate it should remain as verified.--> a specific problem is to be given in symbolic form by a finite number of boxes [i.e., INPUT] being marked with a stroke. Likewise, the answer [i.e., OUTPUT] is to be given in symbolic form by such a configuration of marked boxes...
Someone, i guess( talk i guess| le edit list)
02:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
One box is to be singled out and called the starting point. We now further assume that a specific problem is to be given in symbolic form by a finite number of boxes being marked with a stroke.As I read MOS:ELLIPSES, we leave the period in the quotation mark, then do nonbreaking space, ellipsis, space, and pick back up with the text. The alternative would be to gloss the text, which would be something like (condensing) "...and called the starting point. [A] finite number of boxes [are] marked with a stroke." — C.Fred ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone, i guess( talk i guess| le edit list)
02:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)I'm not sure if this is a good definition as algorithms may contain loops that sometimes may not stop (unless you close the program) and yet be correct, for instance a service that runs on the background Luiz Felipe de Barros Jordão Costa ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Anyone against merging Algorithmics into Algorithm? That page seems almost completely useless. Weebney ( talk) 19:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
While I understand the thought behind contrasting algorithms with heuristics, I think it makes the page longer than it needs to be. It doesn't add new information about algorithms nor does it clear up common misconceptions. It seems like more of a detour in what should be a concise article. Any thoughts on keeping or removing the heuristics paragraph? Clubspike2 ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)