This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Cybernetics:
This article can be a featured article after some work. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
2: 2010 - 2019 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flagg2020.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have never read anything on cybernetics, so coming from a complete outside perspective. I found the lead and definition section to be a bit difficult to grasp. Offering these in simpler English and then widening their definition to included nuances might help clarify exactly what cybernetics is to the lay reader.
Oxford languages provides that cybernetics is: "the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things". Starting with something along these lines and building onwards to more complex ideals of what cybernetics entails would be beneficial. Jamzze ( talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
--- Good points. I have had a go, bringing the example of steering a ship up into the lead section. How does this read? I think its best to avoid definitions in the lead paragraph as once you start with definitions of cybernetics they start expanding (there is a whole section of these in the article...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:60A9:5301:71A6:A1FE:79F9:E25C ( talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm probably not able to write a better introduction, but I feel like this is the most verbose way of opening the subject of cybernetics, while ignoring the part where it has to do with living beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Word Lizard ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
-- I thinned out the opening paragraph - moving detailed examples of feedback to main body section. See what you think. The multiple examples in the first para were added in response to other comments on the talk page, so its a question of finding the right balance I think. Hinterlander1 ( talk) 11:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xen725 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Xen725 ( talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
--- thanks for adding the cybernetics and socialism section. I wonder if it might fit better under 'wider influence' rather than history? Hinterlander1 ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Re the edits by the anon IP. I think removing the top level categorisation here is not the best move. At the bottom level, cybernetics touches almost every field. Whereas the groupings in terms of (1) natural science/technology, (2) social/behavioural sciences, (3) various forms of practice such as design and management, and (4) philosophical concerns and cultural impact do make sense as a way to describe the field's structure (and to some extent periodisation). Perhaps it would work out best to keep these top levels categories and combine underneath them. I will have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I have done some edits to improve/trim the history section. It could have some more detail removed from precursors and first wave section if desired, but I think how the water clock worked is helpful to keep (desire generally on this talk page for examples), the von Neumann sentence was the result of some careful negotiation I think (see talk page) and seems to get it right. Perhaps more of the Soviet details can just be on their own page, but there is also a balance to strike in making sure the page isn't too of a USA story (again see talk page). There will be a bit to add to second/third waves, so it should even out in time. Hinterlander1 ( talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
History
The history of cybernetics is organized in waves. The people who helped introduce this structure were A1 and B1. There are X waves of cybernetics:
Yes agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There are many issues with the current section and perhaps the best way to summarize them is that while they are obviously relevant to the topic, much of the information there probably doesn't fit the criteria of importance to be on a general-purpose encyclopedia article on cybernetics.
While I haven't found any manual to help in this particular conumdrum, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a repository of links (internal or external), Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which are all directly relevant here.
Another issue is that as the number of entries in this heading grows, we will go back to the "very long" issue that was just fixed recently. This section can be and has been a "catch all" for all types of trivia-like (but relevant) information and it cannot grow indiscriminately without lowering the article's quality with each new sub-heading and entry.
My proposed solution is to move the entire section to a new article Applications of cybernetics, where all this information will be both relevant and important enough - much of the trivia currently in this section is not of any interest to the general person reading the page but is going to be right a home in a page that is specifically and solely about the many applications of cybernetics.
The idea has come from finding Applications of artificial intelligence, which sets a very clear precedent for this change as a good intervention.
If this improvement goes through, the current section should be rewritten as a summary that explains how far-reaching the applications of bybernetics are (from psychology to biology to engineering...) with an appropriate "Main article" hat-note to the new page.
I hope this is a thoughtful solution (with a great reference in Applications of AI) for the last major outstanding issues with this article, which has been majorly improved recently with the help of all involved. 2804:14C:183:8BED:A14B:1DDC:26F5:FE2 ( talk) 02:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The precursors section was removed as uncited. That's fair enough, and actually deals with the 'too detailed' flag (which can now be removed). But there should be something re precursors (otherwise the article underrepresents non-US centric sources and the extent that those in the 40s were building on historic work). I have copied the deleted text below in case anyone wants to rescue some of this (with sources).
The first artificial automatic regulatory system was a water clock, invented by the mechanician Ktesibios; based on a tank which poured water into a reservoir before using it to run the mechanism, it used a cone-shaped float to monitor the level of the water in its reservoir and adjust the rate of flow of the water accordingly to maintain a constant level of water in the reservoir. This was the first artificial truly automatic self-regulatory device that required no outside intervention between the feedback and the controls of the mechanism. Devices constructed by Ktesibios and others such as Hero of Alexandria, Philo of Byzantium, and Su Song, are early examples of cybernetic principles in action.
In the late 18th century James Watt's steam engine was equipped with a governor, a centrifugal feedback valve for controlling the speed of the engine. In 1868, James Clerk Maxwell published a theoretical article on governors, one of the first to discuss and refine the principles of self-regulating devices. Jakob von Uexküll applied the feedback mechanism via his model of functional cycle (Funktionskreis) in order to explain animal behaviour and the origins of meaning in general. In the Electric Mind 2-2 Model Model Patent from 1898, Tesla demonstrates his radio-controlled torpedo boat at Madison Square Garden in Ney York City.[18] Electronic control systems was also described with the 1927 work of Bell Telephone Laboratories engineer Harold S. Black on using negative feedback to control amplifiers. In 1935 Russian physiologist P. K. Anokhin published a book in which the concept of feedback ("back afferentation") was studied. Other precursors include: Alexander Bogdanov's tektology, Scottish philosopher Kenneth Craik and Romanian physician Ștefan Odobleja.
Hinterlander1 ( talk) 10:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a flag to expand the lead section. However, there was recently a longer version that was in good shape, but then there was an editing push to reduce it. Rather than just adding to it, I think it would be good to discuss how it should be expanded on the talk page first. Lots of things could be added - but else should be? How long should it be? Hinterlander1 ( talk) 11:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The lede sentence as it is is meaningless. "Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with circular causal processes such as feedback." This is not a useful definition, nor is it a definition at all, for it does not actually state what cybernetics is, but merely what it concerns. A lede sentence should state what the field is, for example, " Physics is the natural science of matter."
I attempted to correct this by way of reference to other definitions available [1] [2], which mention control theory. @ Hinterlander1 objects to this use, so I propose we work on a definition here.
Also, I removed a section called "circularity" that seemed to have no apparent connection to the article and having little sources. @ Hinterlander1 If you could include some sources and demonstrate relevance, then I think it's a start, but I have no idea why the section as it stands should be included.
Dawkin Verbier ( talk) 06:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Cybernetics:
This article can be a featured article after some work. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
2: 2010 - 2019 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flagg2020.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have never read anything on cybernetics, so coming from a complete outside perspective. I found the lead and definition section to be a bit difficult to grasp. Offering these in simpler English and then widening their definition to included nuances might help clarify exactly what cybernetics is to the lay reader.
Oxford languages provides that cybernetics is: "the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things". Starting with something along these lines and building onwards to more complex ideals of what cybernetics entails would be beneficial. Jamzze ( talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
--- Good points. I have had a go, bringing the example of steering a ship up into the lead section. How does this read? I think its best to avoid definitions in the lead paragraph as once you start with definitions of cybernetics they start expanding (there is a whole section of these in the article...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:60A9:5301:71A6:A1FE:79F9:E25C ( talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm probably not able to write a better introduction, but I feel like this is the most verbose way of opening the subject of cybernetics, while ignoring the part where it has to do with living beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Word Lizard ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
-- I thinned out the opening paragraph - moving detailed examples of feedback to main body section. See what you think. The multiple examples in the first para were added in response to other comments on the talk page, so its a question of finding the right balance I think. Hinterlander1 ( talk) 11:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xen725 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Xen725 ( talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
--- thanks for adding the cybernetics and socialism section. I wonder if it might fit better under 'wider influence' rather than history? Hinterlander1 ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Re the edits by the anon IP. I think removing the top level categorisation here is not the best move. At the bottom level, cybernetics touches almost every field. Whereas the groupings in terms of (1) natural science/technology, (2) social/behavioural sciences, (3) various forms of practice such as design and management, and (4) philosophical concerns and cultural impact do make sense as a way to describe the field's structure (and to some extent periodisation). Perhaps it would work out best to keep these top levels categories and combine underneath them. I will have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I have done some edits to improve/trim the history section. It could have some more detail removed from precursors and first wave section if desired, but I think how the water clock worked is helpful to keep (desire generally on this talk page for examples), the von Neumann sentence was the result of some careful negotiation I think (see talk page) and seems to get it right. Perhaps more of the Soviet details can just be on their own page, but there is also a balance to strike in making sure the page isn't too of a USA story (again see talk page). There will be a bit to add to second/third waves, so it should even out in time. Hinterlander1 ( talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
History
The history of cybernetics is organized in waves. The people who helped introduce this structure were A1 and B1. There are X waves of cybernetics:
Yes agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterlander1 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There are many issues with the current section and perhaps the best way to summarize them is that while they are obviously relevant to the topic, much of the information there probably doesn't fit the criteria of importance to be on a general-purpose encyclopedia article on cybernetics.
While I haven't found any manual to help in this particular conumdrum, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a repository of links (internal or external), Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which are all directly relevant here.
Another issue is that as the number of entries in this heading grows, we will go back to the "very long" issue that was just fixed recently. This section can be and has been a "catch all" for all types of trivia-like (but relevant) information and it cannot grow indiscriminately without lowering the article's quality with each new sub-heading and entry.
My proposed solution is to move the entire section to a new article Applications of cybernetics, where all this information will be both relevant and important enough - much of the trivia currently in this section is not of any interest to the general person reading the page but is going to be right a home in a page that is specifically and solely about the many applications of cybernetics.
The idea has come from finding Applications of artificial intelligence, which sets a very clear precedent for this change as a good intervention.
If this improvement goes through, the current section should be rewritten as a summary that explains how far-reaching the applications of bybernetics are (from psychology to biology to engineering...) with an appropriate "Main article" hat-note to the new page.
I hope this is a thoughtful solution (with a great reference in Applications of AI) for the last major outstanding issues with this article, which has been majorly improved recently with the help of all involved. 2804:14C:183:8BED:A14B:1DDC:26F5:FE2 ( talk) 02:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The precursors section was removed as uncited. That's fair enough, and actually deals with the 'too detailed' flag (which can now be removed). But there should be something re precursors (otherwise the article underrepresents non-US centric sources and the extent that those in the 40s were building on historic work). I have copied the deleted text below in case anyone wants to rescue some of this (with sources).
The first artificial automatic regulatory system was a water clock, invented by the mechanician Ktesibios; based on a tank which poured water into a reservoir before using it to run the mechanism, it used a cone-shaped float to monitor the level of the water in its reservoir and adjust the rate of flow of the water accordingly to maintain a constant level of water in the reservoir. This was the first artificial truly automatic self-regulatory device that required no outside intervention between the feedback and the controls of the mechanism. Devices constructed by Ktesibios and others such as Hero of Alexandria, Philo of Byzantium, and Su Song, are early examples of cybernetic principles in action.
In the late 18th century James Watt's steam engine was equipped with a governor, a centrifugal feedback valve for controlling the speed of the engine. In 1868, James Clerk Maxwell published a theoretical article on governors, one of the first to discuss and refine the principles of self-regulating devices. Jakob von Uexküll applied the feedback mechanism via his model of functional cycle (Funktionskreis) in order to explain animal behaviour and the origins of meaning in general. In the Electric Mind 2-2 Model Model Patent from 1898, Tesla demonstrates his radio-controlled torpedo boat at Madison Square Garden in Ney York City.[18] Electronic control systems was also described with the 1927 work of Bell Telephone Laboratories engineer Harold S. Black on using negative feedback to control amplifiers. In 1935 Russian physiologist P. K. Anokhin published a book in which the concept of feedback ("back afferentation") was studied. Other precursors include: Alexander Bogdanov's tektology, Scottish philosopher Kenneth Craik and Romanian physician Ștefan Odobleja.
Hinterlander1 ( talk) 10:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a flag to expand the lead section. However, there was recently a longer version that was in good shape, but then there was an editing push to reduce it. Rather than just adding to it, I think it would be good to discuss how it should be expanded on the talk page first. Lots of things could be added - but else should be? How long should it be? Hinterlander1 ( talk) 11:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The lede sentence as it is is meaningless. "Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with circular causal processes such as feedback." This is not a useful definition, nor is it a definition at all, for it does not actually state what cybernetics is, but merely what it concerns. A lede sentence should state what the field is, for example, " Physics is the natural science of matter."
I attempted to correct this by way of reference to other definitions available [1] [2], which mention control theory. @ Hinterlander1 objects to this use, so I propose we work on a definition here.
Also, I removed a section called "circularity" that seemed to have no apparent connection to the article and having little sources. @ Hinterlander1 If you could include some sources and demonstrate relevance, then I think it's a start, but I have no idea why the section as it stands should be included.
Dawkin Verbier ( talk) 06:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)