![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Information Age Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Information Age |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Information revolution was merged into Information Age with this edit on 15 February 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The Information Revolution technically goes back to Gutenberg if not clear to the papyrus or the invention of written or spoken language, but what's generally being discussed here is the changes digital technology has made to information retrieval and propagation since the 1980s or so when microchips became widespread. Thevideodrome ( talk) 20:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Malik Conn 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikconn ( talk • contribs)
This page sets off my nonsense and auto-generated thesis alerts. How about you? Philip ( Respond?) 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Anything could be classified as "nonsense", without justification. Most likely Philip is not familiar with related literature. For instance, why the OECD countries are measuring the information sector ( http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_34449_1_1_1_1_37441,00.html)? PlatonicIdeas 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, actually I agree with Philip. The first fact that caught my attention is the listing of a birthdate as 1932, immediately followed by the claim that the man was writing "in the late 1930s." Yes, this could just be a case of a typo, but with no references and no way to fact-check, I choose to disbelieve the article as a whole. Oh and P.S. -- I don't have a wikipedia account, yeah I realize that's lazy. Email located at chelseaism@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.170.153 ( talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article does not provide a definition of the term and its historical context and does not provide examples. A reader trying to find out more about the term will find it's usefullness quite doubtful. 62.90.164.39 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The graphic 'Veneris Modeling the IR.jpg' under the 'Measuring and modeling the Information Revolution' section is so low resolution, it is difficult to read the text and the lines themselves impossible to differentiate - rendering it essentially worthless. -- 38.117.157.176 ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article as it stands is full of unexplained jargon, as well as being in need of copy-editing, and is lacking in clear information. The term "informational" isn't standard English, and reseasrch shows that it's mainly used by people whose first language isn't English; I've therefore renamed the article. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Meletitis as an Oxford philosopher, self-described as "not Greek but English (half Irish, in fact, but born and brought up in England)" should know that the same controversy arose when OR was invented during WW2. This is also stated in the article Operations Research or Operational Research (OR): ""It is known as "operational research" in the United Kingdom"" (my italics). In the UK the type "operational" is favoured, while in the US "operations" is preferred. PlatonicIdeas 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Also, "geographic information system (GIS), also known as a geographical information system" (definition by The National Institute of Building Sciences) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.117.45 ( talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be (in addition to very poorly written) full of original research - that at best describes a series of personal essay/viewpoints that are in no way accepted or viewed as "the norm" - and at worst is someone's pet OR soap box for a social science hypothesis. Major clean-up is needed. Given how impenetrable the current version is it may be sensible to delete and see if it is naturally recreated in time where it is able to follow WP policies of V, OR and NPOV. The term does have usage - but it has no defined or accepted usage - that is a problem, and leads to the current jargon/junk that is in this article. SFC9394 ( talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(Has anybody seen a PhD Thesis "accepted to a peer reviewed journal"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.109.235 ( talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The WP editors should read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. At least, they should try to be more specific (especially about jargon/junk). If SFC9394 agrees that the term has usage, but lacks definition, then an article like this could be very helpful. PlatonicIdeas ( talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The information revolution and the digital revolution are two separate things. The digital revolution is the trend of computers getting smaller, and started in 1980's. The information revolution started in the late 1890's to the early 1900's. It was the start of new technology being planned and developed. Two different revolutions here. Malik Conn 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikconn ( talk • contribs)
{{
rfc|sci|soc|media|econ|rfcid=BC2D12C}}
Should the article
information revolution be merged with one or more better developed articles, such as
digital revolution and/or
scientific revolution? If so, how you would prefer this be done? —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Information Age#Suggested merges — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Information revolution. 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) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Information revolution. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sparky.ncl.ac.uk/F/G8521LMQB43XGTBF8F9TTGLAET3TICLYU61CSXP5SVNC1DEPTS-69792?func=full-set-set&set_number=004195&set_entry=000001&format=999When 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) 18:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Society 5.0 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Society 5.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
10 Major Effects of the Industrial Revolution | Learnodo Newtonic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.120.220 ( talk) 15:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Information Age Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Information Age |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Information revolution was merged into Information Age with this edit on 15 February 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The Information Revolution technically goes back to Gutenberg if not clear to the papyrus or the invention of written or spoken language, but what's generally being discussed here is the changes digital technology has made to information retrieval and propagation since the 1980s or so when microchips became widespread. Thevideodrome ( talk) 20:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Malik Conn 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikconn ( talk • contribs)
This page sets off my nonsense and auto-generated thesis alerts. How about you? Philip ( Respond?) 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Anything could be classified as "nonsense", without justification. Most likely Philip is not familiar with related literature. For instance, why the OECD countries are measuring the information sector ( http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_34449_1_1_1_1_37441,00.html)? PlatonicIdeas 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, actually I agree with Philip. The first fact that caught my attention is the listing of a birthdate as 1932, immediately followed by the claim that the man was writing "in the late 1930s." Yes, this could just be a case of a typo, but with no references and no way to fact-check, I choose to disbelieve the article as a whole. Oh and P.S. -- I don't have a wikipedia account, yeah I realize that's lazy. Email located at chelseaism@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.170.153 ( talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article does not provide a definition of the term and its historical context and does not provide examples. A reader trying to find out more about the term will find it's usefullness quite doubtful. 62.90.164.39 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The graphic 'Veneris Modeling the IR.jpg' under the 'Measuring and modeling the Information Revolution' section is so low resolution, it is difficult to read the text and the lines themselves impossible to differentiate - rendering it essentially worthless. -- 38.117.157.176 ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article as it stands is full of unexplained jargon, as well as being in need of copy-editing, and is lacking in clear information. The term "informational" isn't standard English, and reseasrch shows that it's mainly used by people whose first language isn't English; I've therefore renamed the article. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Meletitis as an Oxford philosopher, self-described as "not Greek but English (half Irish, in fact, but born and brought up in England)" should know that the same controversy arose when OR was invented during WW2. This is also stated in the article Operations Research or Operational Research (OR): ""It is known as "operational research" in the United Kingdom"" (my italics). In the UK the type "operational" is favoured, while in the US "operations" is preferred. PlatonicIdeas 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Also, "geographic information system (GIS), also known as a geographical information system" (definition by The National Institute of Building Sciences) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.117.45 ( talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be (in addition to very poorly written) full of original research - that at best describes a series of personal essay/viewpoints that are in no way accepted or viewed as "the norm" - and at worst is someone's pet OR soap box for a social science hypothesis. Major clean-up is needed. Given how impenetrable the current version is it may be sensible to delete and see if it is naturally recreated in time where it is able to follow WP policies of V, OR and NPOV. The term does have usage - but it has no defined or accepted usage - that is a problem, and leads to the current jargon/junk that is in this article. SFC9394 ( talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(Has anybody seen a PhD Thesis "accepted to a peer reviewed journal"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.109.235 ( talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The WP editors should read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. At least, they should try to be more specific (especially about jargon/junk). If SFC9394 agrees that the term has usage, but lacks definition, then an article like this could be very helpful. PlatonicIdeas ( talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The information revolution and the digital revolution are two separate things. The digital revolution is the trend of computers getting smaller, and started in 1980's. The information revolution started in the late 1890's to the early 1900's. It was the start of new technology being planned and developed. Two different revolutions here. Malik Conn 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikconn ( talk • contribs)
{{
rfc|sci|soc|media|econ|rfcid=BC2D12C}}
Should the article
information revolution be merged with one or more better developed articles, such as
digital revolution and/or
scientific revolution? If so, how you would prefer this be done? —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Information Age#Suggested merges — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Information revolution. 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) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Information revolution. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sparky.ncl.ac.uk/F/G8521LMQB43XGTBF8F9TTGLAET3TICLYU61CSXP5SVNC1DEPTS-69792?func=full-set-set&set_number=004195&set_entry=000001&format=999When 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) 18:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Society 5.0 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Society 5.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
10 Major Effects of the Industrial Revolution | Learnodo Newtonic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.120.220 ( talk) 15:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)