![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I have some ideas for how sections of the article could be organized. In4matt ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
These are all good. To me, the term Information Infrastructure is very broad. It could include libraries, or books themselves. Similar to what Innis and Basbane described, and fits with the description by Pironti. Historically it dates back to Mesopotamia. Do you think the description in the head (is this the correct term?) is sufficient? Rankinke ( talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
what about Etymology? The origin of both words? Rankinke ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think etymology is important because it reminds us that language has a history of its own. By thinking about the origins of words we come to understand that sometimes the words and phrases we use today have been co-opted for specific purposes which thereby dilute their original meaning. This appears to be a common practice in information communications technology.
The term 'information infrastructure' is a modern one and refers to a very specific information systems perspective, it relies on two words that have their own history. When they are used to form this new phrase their origins and meanings remain 'underneath' the new meaning of the term.
Information infrastructure broadly defined is a fundamental urge, the need to organize, categorize, and give order. The urge to differentiate and articulate; to inform. The infrastructure refers to the frameworks used to accomplish this, but does not necessarily imply technology (understood as tools), it also implies invisible technologies or a mind-set.
Pironti's description speaks to the dynamic meaning of these words, "to the as all of the people, processes, procedures, tools, facilities, and technology which supports the creation, use, transport, storage, and destruction of information." His definition is closer to the fundamental urge, rather than a technical description of information systems research.
Consider Heidegger’s essay, the Question Concerning Technology. He suggests that the tools (what we call technology) we use to order our environment are symbolic of an enframing, dualistic mind-set.
In Technological Utopianism in American Culture, Howard Segal also suggests that technology applies to more than just machines and includes structures as well. The difference between machines and structures is that the former are small-scale, reproducible, temporary and mass-produced. The later are large-scale, permanent and location-specific. Machines and structures are interdependent: “structures are built by machines, and machines have structures to hold them together,” (p. 12).
I would add an elaboration to structures, what Neil Postman describes in Technopoly as “invisible technologies.” Although Segal does not say that social institutions, management, etc., could be described as structures, i.e., technology, there is evidence in his book that supports this description. For example, his description of the term ‘system,’ on page 17. Segal describes the first use of the word ‘system’ in the report “American System of Manufacturing." Segal notes, “…this system includes the integration of human activities into ever more complex patterns, many consciously designed by society’s leaders and architects but others reflecting less formal daily choices by ordinary citizens.”
The invisible technologies are structures that standardize and control human activity into a pattern compatible with machines and structures (buildings, etc.). Thus, machines, structures and invisible technologies operate in unison, like the parts of a machine. This brings us back to Heidegger’s theory, that essence of technology is a metaphysical or dualistic mind-set, and not simply the technological objects in the environment.
Thus, understanding the origin of the words “information” and “infrastructure” is important to understanding the term information infrastructure. It shows that, although it was coined in the 1990s for political purposes (invisible technologies) the term trivializes the meaning.
Perhaps etymology is the wrong section, maybe it should be something like the philosophical underpinnings of the term "information infrastructure." Rankinke ( talk) 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Definitions" section also needs proper citations so they appear in the Notes section. Rankinke ( talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought we could post suggested edits to sentences others wrote here. We could suggested the edit to each other, and if we agree, the individual who added the sentence could change it.
In the introduction,
to,
-or-
Next sentence,
to,
Another possible change could be to connect the two sentences by using because,
I think these changes make the sentences more neutral and clearer, what do you think? In4matt ( talk) 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Revised introduction (Notes section will need revision if this version (or any part) is implemented):
In the above 'imbrication' and 'bootstrapping,' are described, but not 'figure/ground' or 'infrastructural inversion.' Additionally both imbrication and bootstrapping are also Wikipedia articles, should they not be linked internally? Rankinke ( talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Information infrastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The level of presentation here is simply too academic. I've seen this kind of thing in the context of graduate level literary criticism: a fluffy corn-maze of interlocking abstractions.
I suspected it was doomed when the second sentence of the lead began this way:
The notion of information infrastructures, introduced in the 1990s and refined during the following decade, has proven quite fruitful
Fifteen words pass before arriving at a passive main verb, followed by an intensifier (of no fixed address), followed by a florid adjective (of no tangible colour). — MaxEnt 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by
WikiProject Wikipedia and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I have some ideas for how sections of the article could be organized. In4matt ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
These are all good. To me, the term Information Infrastructure is very broad. It could include libraries, or books themselves. Similar to what Innis and Basbane described, and fits with the description by Pironti. Historically it dates back to Mesopotamia. Do you think the description in the head (is this the correct term?) is sufficient? Rankinke ( talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
what about Etymology? The origin of both words? Rankinke ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think etymology is important because it reminds us that language has a history of its own. By thinking about the origins of words we come to understand that sometimes the words and phrases we use today have been co-opted for specific purposes which thereby dilute their original meaning. This appears to be a common practice in information communications technology.
The term 'information infrastructure' is a modern one and refers to a very specific information systems perspective, it relies on two words that have their own history. When they are used to form this new phrase their origins and meanings remain 'underneath' the new meaning of the term.
Information infrastructure broadly defined is a fundamental urge, the need to organize, categorize, and give order. The urge to differentiate and articulate; to inform. The infrastructure refers to the frameworks used to accomplish this, but does not necessarily imply technology (understood as tools), it also implies invisible technologies or a mind-set.
Pironti's description speaks to the dynamic meaning of these words, "to the as all of the people, processes, procedures, tools, facilities, and technology which supports the creation, use, transport, storage, and destruction of information." His definition is closer to the fundamental urge, rather than a technical description of information systems research.
Consider Heidegger’s essay, the Question Concerning Technology. He suggests that the tools (what we call technology) we use to order our environment are symbolic of an enframing, dualistic mind-set.
In Technological Utopianism in American Culture, Howard Segal also suggests that technology applies to more than just machines and includes structures as well. The difference between machines and structures is that the former are small-scale, reproducible, temporary and mass-produced. The later are large-scale, permanent and location-specific. Machines and structures are interdependent: “structures are built by machines, and machines have structures to hold them together,” (p. 12).
I would add an elaboration to structures, what Neil Postman describes in Technopoly as “invisible technologies.” Although Segal does not say that social institutions, management, etc., could be described as structures, i.e., technology, there is evidence in his book that supports this description. For example, his description of the term ‘system,’ on page 17. Segal describes the first use of the word ‘system’ in the report “American System of Manufacturing." Segal notes, “…this system includes the integration of human activities into ever more complex patterns, many consciously designed by society’s leaders and architects but others reflecting less formal daily choices by ordinary citizens.”
The invisible technologies are structures that standardize and control human activity into a pattern compatible with machines and structures (buildings, etc.). Thus, machines, structures and invisible technologies operate in unison, like the parts of a machine. This brings us back to Heidegger’s theory, that essence of technology is a metaphysical or dualistic mind-set, and not simply the technological objects in the environment.
Thus, understanding the origin of the words “information” and “infrastructure” is important to understanding the term information infrastructure. It shows that, although it was coined in the 1990s for political purposes (invisible technologies) the term trivializes the meaning.
Perhaps etymology is the wrong section, maybe it should be something like the philosophical underpinnings of the term "information infrastructure." Rankinke ( talk) 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Definitions" section also needs proper citations so they appear in the Notes section. Rankinke ( talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought we could post suggested edits to sentences others wrote here. We could suggested the edit to each other, and if we agree, the individual who added the sentence could change it.
In the introduction,
to,
-or-
Next sentence,
to,
Another possible change could be to connect the two sentences by using because,
I think these changes make the sentences more neutral and clearer, what do you think? In4matt ( talk) 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Revised introduction (Notes section will need revision if this version (or any part) is implemented):
In the above 'imbrication' and 'bootstrapping,' are described, but not 'figure/ground' or 'infrastructural inversion.' Additionally both imbrication and bootstrapping are also Wikipedia articles, should they not be linked internally? Rankinke ( talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Information infrastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The level of presentation here is simply too academic. I've seen this kind of thing in the context of graduate level literary criticism: a fluffy corn-maze of interlocking abstractions.
I suspected it was doomed when the second sentence of the lead began this way:
The notion of information infrastructures, introduced in the 1990s and refined during the following decade, has proven quite fruitful
Fifteen words pass before arriving at a passive main verb, followed by an intensifier (of no fixed address), followed by a florid adjective (of no tangible colour). — MaxEnt 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by
WikiProject Wikipedia and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)