This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Err ... why this page? Charles Matthews 13:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, content has now arrived. Would exponential timeline be a better title?
Charles Matthews 13:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, one can be a redirect. It's true that an exponential scale down one side of a graph is normally thought of as logarithmic graph paper (which, more importantly, shouldn't be a red link).
Charles Matthews 17:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You mean line = ln time? May be. Kenny sh
Shouldn't "modern communications" or something like that be in the second section? Very important, I think. r3m0t 15:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
May be to unify Events and Inventions / Discoveries ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny sh ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2004 (UTC)
The stated criterion - "as progress toward the current state of human civilization" - is inherently pov. As such it stimulates thought, whereas, a bland appearances vs dissapearances is Ho-hum. Extinction of the dinos was bad for them, but where would we be if it had not happened? So although my initial reaction a while back was similar to yours, now I'd have to disagree. Thinking is good for the brain :-) - Vsmith 13:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:MyRedDice deleted the "Outside context problem" column with the comment rm OCP - Iain Banks is not a scientist - out of place here.
This seems like a spurious criterion to me: after all, "robot" and "robotics" were coined by science fiction writers. But let's be generous and assume that MyRedDice meant something like "this term is not in widespread use in the scientific community and so not appropriate for an encyclopedia". But that doesn't mean that the material in the column is wrong, perhaps just that the header could be improved.
So what would be a better column heading? Gdr 15:58, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
---
James Joyce was "not a scientist". Does that mean we should delete the quark from Wikipedia and (while we're at it) from particle physics?
chocolateboy 21:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I vote for merging the "progress" and "regression" columns into one "major events" column. Although some of the judgements might be obvious, others are just a matter of opinion. For example, to classify mass extinctions in the "bad" column is pure speculation - who knows whether the present world would be better or worse if they had not happened? A nasty species that was even more destructive than mankind might have gained dominance and blown the planet to bits. On the "good" side, we might think that nanotechnology is cool today, but in a few centuries it might (and this is just a wild guess) be viewed in the way that we now think of 20th-century eugenics and racial theory, or nuclear weapons. -- Heron 13:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK. I agree that your definition of progress has a valid basis, and I agree that we should take advantage of hindsight. I am just making the points that (a) some people might classify events differently than you (they might not even think that "progress" is a good thing, or they might think that all nonhuman species are worthless except as food, although these points of view are probably rare amongst Wikipedians), and (b) whatever definition we use, it should be stated. -- Heron 17:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Paleolithic belongs with Pleistocene, and holocene started (not ended - it's the current period) 10k years ago -- Random| 832 18:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let's rename Progress & Regression to some more NPOV like Appearance and Disappearance. And move all distinctions, end of dynasties, empires, Troy to Disappearance column. Conan 11:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's vote to rename to Appearance and Disappearance. Conan 13:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's not rename or vote until you read the previous dicussions and clarify your proposal with some detailed reasoning and consideration of the results. Are you Conan the Destroyer or Conan the Builder :-) - Vsmith 15:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am Conan hacker :), BTW, I've founded this page under name Kenny. Thanks for participation :) I've read sometimes all discussion. Conan 20:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely it would be more intuitive and convenient to use a scale based on powers of five in the second chart? 102/3 is, after all, about 4.6. --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ ᑐ]] 20:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that a massive rewrite which was disguised as a dozen minor edits was fair play. This talk page is here for discussion - if you think a total rewrite is needed then discuss here first. - Vsmith 00:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Date | Progress | Regression |
105AD | Cài Lún invents paper . | Paper litter started at the same time |
( Conan 09:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))
I can't find him on here. Also, the progress and regression lists were severely POV. Just list major events (like Jesus's birth, fer crissakes!) and be done w it. Also I prefer eequor's change to the second timeline, the old version was too weird, mathwise. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've created Logarithmic timeline/New version which takes into account many of the criticisms discussed above. I've written a new introduction which discusses by whom and why this was proposed. I've also attempted to NPOV the table by merging the seriously POV Progress and Regression columns into a single Events column and I've deleted a few of the events. I've also deleted the second table, as that seemed to be original research, and not very usable as a timeline. I hope that people think this is an improvement and can replace the current version (obviously with modifications where necessary). -- G Rutter 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The New version is quite possibly more problematic with regard to NPOV problems. It is quite impossible to not have a bias when creating a limited or selective list of important events. The list is POV for what is included and what is not -- who decides and what is their POV? The current version at least states up front This is an arbitrary listing as progress toward the current state of human civilization is the apparent selection criterion; as such it is a thought provocative rather than a bland listing. Sure is it going to be biased by the writers and their background - everything is. Quite impossible to do this without being a bit POV - better than a dead listing of everything that ever happened all lumped together and dull. Vsmith 20:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I spent months on this 1000-line logarithmic timeline: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html
I propose redoing it as a (partial) index to Wikipedia, if anyone wants to help.
(maybe break it into ten 100-line pieces?) -- robotwisdom 16:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The 'NOW' date could be set as 10 January, 2001, which was the launch of Wikipedia.
I limited myself to one 80-character line per entry, but we could open things up so every relevant article gets a link. -- robotwisdom 16:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In fact, it might be handy to do it to base 'e' and allow 2000 lines, because events get pretty thick in certain places-- Greece and Rome, the Sixties. -- robotwisdom 16:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've started an experimental implementation of one 100-line page covering 1000AD to 1901AD: E3e2 -- robotwisdom 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Converting it is trivially easy-- I put square brackets around each individual, and so far only 10% of them have even needed tweaking! -- robotwisdom 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit which in the edit summary said it coloured the thousand groups (the 10k-100k, the 100k-1M, the 1M-10M and the 1B-14B) as I was not at all clear what this was meant to show. Weirdly, it now appears to have vanished from the revision history (how did that happen?) so I can't remember who did it or their exact explanation. Anyway, it needed some form of explanation both on the talk page first and then on the article page if agreed. -- G Rutter 16:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, Colors are redundant. Conan
I've reverted the longer version of the logarithmic timeline as original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. The "short version" is an example of a logarithmic timeline of the sort envisaged by Heinz von Foerster and is there to illustrate his point on how such a timeline could work. There's lots of different sorts of logarithmic timelines that could be created, but unless they've actually been used by someone in a published work (or equivalent) I'm afraid that we can't include them in this article. -- G Rutter 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What would a reverse-direction log timeline look like?
It seems possible but unenlightening.-- robotwisdom 1 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I decided to give it a shot, using Timeline of the Big Bang. Not sure if it works or not.-- robotwisdom 2 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
I don't really think the current emphasis is right. The singularity business is secondary, and that graph isn't really a logarithmic timeline, imho. I only see two natural forms of log timeline-- the 'inverse' where the pov is from the big bang forward, and the usual where the pov is from the human ego backward. If a singularity occurs, it will screw things up because the log sequence will change after the singularity. -- robotwisdom 11:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Digg linked this future-timeline this morning-- can we use it to rough out a log timeline that starts now and looks forward?
I think it's impossible to choose the right scaling-factor until you know how dense the events are, eg:
Event ideas: Sun expands; Viking (et al) reach galactic milestones; "I Love Lucy" reaches other galaxies? -- robotwisdom 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ultimate fate of the universe -- robotwisdom 14:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Just wondered, if there is any kind of template that can automatically extract from the current events portals e.g. the first news story, and place it in the first row, last column box of the looking backwards table? --gejyspa ( talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logarithmic timeline. 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) 06:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Err ... why this page? Charles Matthews 13:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, content has now arrived. Would exponential timeline be a better title?
Charles Matthews 13:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, one can be a redirect. It's true that an exponential scale down one side of a graph is normally thought of as logarithmic graph paper (which, more importantly, shouldn't be a red link).
Charles Matthews 17:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You mean line = ln time? May be. Kenny sh
Shouldn't "modern communications" or something like that be in the second section? Very important, I think. r3m0t 15:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
May be to unify Events and Inventions / Discoveries ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny sh ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2004 (UTC)
The stated criterion - "as progress toward the current state of human civilization" - is inherently pov. As such it stimulates thought, whereas, a bland appearances vs dissapearances is Ho-hum. Extinction of the dinos was bad for them, but where would we be if it had not happened? So although my initial reaction a while back was similar to yours, now I'd have to disagree. Thinking is good for the brain :-) - Vsmith 13:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:MyRedDice deleted the "Outside context problem" column with the comment rm OCP - Iain Banks is not a scientist - out of place here.
This seems like a spurious criterion to me: after all, "robot" and "robotics" were coined by science fiction writers. But let's be generous and assume that MyRedDice meant something like "this term is not in widespread use in the scientific community and so not appropriate for an encyclopedia". But that doesn't mean that the material in the column is wrong, perhaps just that the header could be improved.
So what would be a better column heading? Gdr 15:58, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
---
James Joyce was "not a scientist". Does that mean we should delete the quark from Wikipedia and (while we're at it) from particle physics?
chocolateboy 21:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I vote for merging the "progress" and "regression" columns into one "major events" column. Although some of the judgements might be obvious, others are just a matter of opinion. For example, to classify mass extinctions in the "bad" column is pure speculation - who knows whether the present world would be better or worse if they had not happened? A nasty species that was even more destructive than mankind might have gained dominance and blown the planet to bits. On the "good" side, we might think that nanotechnology is cool today, but in a few centuries it might (and this is just a wild guess) be viewed in the way that we now think of 20th-century eugenics and racial theory, or nuclear weapons. -- Heron 13:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK. I agree that your definition of progress has a valid basis, and I agree that we should take advantage of hindsight. I am just making the points that (a) some people might classify events differently than you (they might not even think that "progress" is a good thing, or they might think that all nonhuman species are worthless except as food, although these points of view are probably rare amongst Wikipedians), and (b) whatever definition we use, it should be stated. -- Heron 17:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Paleolithic belongs with Pleistocene, and holocene started (not ended - it's the current period) 10k years ago -- Random| 832 18:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let's rename Progress & Regression to some more NPOV like Appearance and Disappearance. And move all distinctions, end of dynasties, empires, Troy to Disappearance column. Conan 11:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's vote to rename to Appearance and Disappearance. Conan 13:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's not rename or vote until you read the previous dicussions and clarify your proposal with some detailed reasoning and consideration of the results. Are you Conan the Destroyer or Conan the Builder :-) - Vsmith 15:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am Conan hacker :), BTW, I've founded this page under name Kenny. Thanks for participation :) I've read sometimes all discussion. Conan 20:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely it would be more intuitive and convenient to use a scale based on powers of five in the second chart? 102/3 is, after all, about 4.6. --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ ᑐ]] 20:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that a massive rewrite which was disguised as a dozen minor edits was fair play. This talk page is here for discussion - if you think a total rewrite is needed then discuss here first. - Vsmith 00:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Date | Progress | Regression |
105AD | Cài Lún invents paper . | Paper litter started at the same time |
( Conan 09:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))
I can't find him on here. Also, the progress and regression lists were severely POV. Just list major events (like Jesus's birth, fer crissakes!) and be done w it. Also I prefer eequor's change to the second timeline, the old version was too weird, mathwise. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've created Logarithmic timeline/New version which takes into account many of the criticisms discussed above. I've written a new introduction which discusses by whom and why this was proposed. I've also attempted to NPOV the table by merging the seriously POV Progress and Regression columns into a single Events column and I've deleted a few of the events. I've also deleted the second table, as that seemed to be original research, and not very usable as a timeline. I hope that people think this is an improvement and can replace the current version (obviously with modifications where necessary). -- G Rutter 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The New version is quite possibly more problematic with regard to NPOV problems. It is quite impossible to not have a bias when creating a limited or selective list of important events. The list is POV for what is included and what is not -- who decides and what is their POV? The current version at least states up front This is an arbitrary listing as progress toward the current state of human civilization is the apparent selection criterion; as such it is a thought provocative rather than a bland listing. Sure is it going to be biased by the writers and their background - everything is. Quite impossible to do this without being a bit POV - better than a dead listing of everything that ever happened all lumped together and dull. Vsmith 20:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I spent months on this 1000-line logarithmic timeline: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html
I propose redoing it as a (partial) index to Wikipedia, if anyone wants to help.
(maybe break it into ten 100-line pieces?) -- robotwisdom 16:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The 'NOW' date could be set as 10 January, 2001, which was the launch of Wikipedia.
I limited myself to one 80-character line per entry, but we could open things up so every relevant article gets a link. -- robotwisdom 16:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In fact, it might be handy to do it to base 'e' and allow 2000 lines, because events get pretty thick in certain places-- Greece and Rome, the Sixties. -- robotwisdom 16:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've started an experimental implementation of one 100-line page covering 1000AD to 1901AD: E3e2 -- robotwisdom 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Converting it is trivially easy-- I put square brackets around each individual, and so far only 10% of them have even needed tweaking! -- robotwisdom 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit which in the edit summary said it coloured the thousand groups (the 10k-100k, the 100k-1M, the 1M-10M and the 1B-14B) as I was not at all clear what this was meant to show. Weirdly, it now appears to have vanished from the revision history (how did that happen?) so I can't remember who did it or their exact explanation. Anyway, it needed some form of explanation both on the talk page first and then on the article page if agreed. -- G Rutter 16:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, Colors are redundant. Conan
I've reverted the longer version of the logarithmic timeline as original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. The "short version" is an example of a logarithmic timeline of the sort envisaged by Heinz von Foerster and is there to illustrate his point on how such a timeline could work. There's lots of different sorts of logarithmic timelines that could be created, but unless they've actually been used by someone in a published work (or equivalent) I'm afraid that we can't include them in this article. -- G Rutter 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What would a reverse-direction log timeline look like?
It seems possible but unenlightening.-- robotwisdom 1 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I decided to give it a shot, using Timeline of the Big Bang. Not sure if it works or not.-- robotwisdom 2 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
I don't really think the current emphasis is right. The singularity business is secondary, and that graph isn't really a logarithmic timeline, imho. I only see two natural forms of log timeline-- the 'inverse' where the pov is from the big bang forward, and the usual where the pov is from the human ego backward. If a singularity occurs, it will screw things up because the log sequence will change after the singularity. -- robotwisdom 11:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Digg linked this future-timeline this morning-- can we use it to rough out a log timeline that starts now and looks forward?
I think it's impossible to choose the right scaling-factor until you know how dense the events are, eg:
Event ideas: Sun expands; Viking (et al) reach galactic milestones; "I Love Lucy" reaches other galaxies? -- robotwisdom 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ultimate fate of the universe -- robotwisdom 14:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Just wondered, if there is any kind of template that can automatically extract from the current events portals e.g. the first news story, and place it in the first row, last column box of the looking backwards table? --gejyspa ( talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logarithmic timeline. 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) 06:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)