CZ Talk:Computers Workgroup: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer
(→‎wrong group I think: it's fun to get to say "I completely agree")
mNo edit summary
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Sub Workgroups? ==
''This is the talk page for '''[[CZ:Computers_Workgroup]]'''''


"Computers" seems awfully broad to me.  Perhaps we could break this down into more specific workgroups?  Is there currently a policy on workgroup breadth? --[[User:Jim R. Wilson|Jim R. Wilson]] 12:23, 7 February 2007 (CST)
---- 


:We eventually need a set of subgroups, but since we currently have only a handful of active people, it's really not worth it at this point.  What were you thinking of working on?  If you want to help out with [[personal computer]], I'd be much obliged. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Talk]]) 12:29, 7 February 2007 (CST)
:I don't know why but in my browser, I cannot get back to the main page from here, so I am providing the link explicitly right above here.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


One thing I am planning to focus on, once we've recovered from the Slashdotting, is recruitment. Then we'll have more active editors and authors and more interest in making subgroups.  In the meantime, could you be persuaded to pretend that there is a subgroup you desire and proceed to plan, and work on articles, on behalf of that group but in the context of the Computers group?  (Make sense?) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:33, 7 February 2007 (CST)
{| cellpadding="1" style="float: middle; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #eeeeee; padding: 5px; font-size: 90%; margin: 0 0 15px 15px; clear: middle;"
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | '''<big>[[Discussion Archives]]</big>'''
|-
| style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 1, 8-28-07 (stuff taken off main workgroup page):''' [[Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive1]]
|-
| style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 2, 2-15-09: (old stuff from workgroup talk page)''' [[Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive2]]
|-
<!--
| style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 3, date-here''' [[Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive3]]
|-
| style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 4, date-here:''' [[Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive4]]
|-
| style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 5, date-here''' [[Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive5]]
|-
-->
|}


:Hoo boy just got a look at the Slashdot [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/1442229 article]. Wow they're flaming all over the place. Oh well... at least it's coverage :) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 04:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


==Pseudocode==
Do we have any standard definition of pseudocode we should be using?  If not, I would recommend that we adopt one for use whenever we are not talking about one particular language.  This would bring a more consistent user experience for our readers.
--[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 09:53, 9 February 2007 (CST)
:The above was moved over here by me -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Talk]]) 10:41, 9 February 2007 (CST)


::Although it's a nice idea, in practice I find it frustrating to read pseudocode.  I'd rather see a snippet that "really can execute" in some common language: C, Java, VB, C++, C# or whatever.  That way, a person can try to figure out what the code should really do, whereas with a made up language, it can become imprecise. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:44, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
__TOC__


== Titular article, miscelleny ==


I would like to propose replacing the current content of the [[Computer]] article with a copy of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer corresponding article].  Myself and another editor rewrote the Wikipedia article a while back and, while it is far from perfect, I honestly think it is an improvement over the old Wikipedia revision upon which the current Citizendium article is based.  There are a some things about it that will probably need changing to conform to this wiki's stylistic preferences, but on the whole I think it offers improved organization and topical coverage.
== Forgot talk was here -- additions to article page ==


I was also wondering why the Citizendium article title uses the plural form of the word.  The singular form seems like it would be the preferred encyclopedic style.  In addition, would there be any objection to importing Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit CPU] article, either on grounds of topical relevance or accuracy? I wrote the article myself, and it was a featured article on Wikipedia until recently when it was realized that it doesn't have sufficient citations to keep featured status.
I put some draft writing guides and style guides there, completely blanking that there might be a talk page. Shall I move them here, or can we discuss them? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if this isn't the correct place to post this information, I'm still getting acquainted. -- [[User:Matt Britt|Matt Britt]]


:I think the term computers got inherited and copied onto the workgroup, to have the same word all over everything related to computers.
:Howard, I would like to move the draft writing and style guides, either to this page or into a page of their own (possibly linked with a brief disclaimer on the main page).  My personal judgement is to keep the main page quite simple, and give writers freedom until someone objects. New people already have a lot of policy regulations to plow through; us providing a computer-specific one could just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Let's make it drop-dead simple for someone to glance at the page and start authoring. If you don't object, I'll move it over here, for now.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
To change it would be a nuisance since every link used throughout CZ needs be changed manually.
To use the WP article, by all means feel free to. Befoere however, move the computers home page to something like computers_old page.
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 19:31, 15 February 2007 (CST)


::I would, but the page is move-protected. Is there any particular reason I shouldn't just replace the page text? -- [[User:Matt Britt|Matt Britt]]
::No problem; as I mentioned, I forgot this page was here but then had several choices of where to move them. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


:I came along just now, months after the above was written.  In the meantime, I had rewritten the [[Computer]] article in Citizendium.  The Wikipedia version is very good.  I also like the one we have here now (though it could use more eyes).  I now like that we offer a somewhat different discussion of the same topic.  I think our [[History of computing]] article is still immature, as compared to the Wikipedia treatment of the same subject in the top-level computer article, but I imagine we'll eventually catch up in this any many other areas. Anyway, sorry I didn't see this request before I did the rewrite. Please let me know what you think of the current version of [[Computers]] (which has much less detail than its Wikipedia counterpart but does offer a different perspective). [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 11:00, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
:::Here is the link the saved writing-guide: [[CZ_Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Writing_Guide]]  [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


== New look of workgroup page ==
::::I would like to make the point that the guide is not intended as policy, but as ways I have found useful to write. No one has to use it, but, at the same time, don't expect everyone automatically to develop their own style. This has been productive for me; it may be productive for others. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Since the old workgroup page looked a little bit shabby I copied over content from other groups and added a few headings we might want to use to further organize us. It would be nice if we could remove the "old content of page" list of articles soon as that has no advantage over the automatic listing of Computers WG articles available. So please move any link you want to keep from there to e.g. "subtopics" or "most-wanted articles" soon.
== Help plan Computers Week! ==
'''[[CZ:Computers_Workgroup/Workgroup_Week|Go here and sign up!]]'''


--[[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 18:46, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
:I have moved this here from the main page.  Not sure it's even current, but it's been there a while and has had no takers.  Let's leave it off the main page, for now, in hopes of making it simple for people to feel welcome and start authoring.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


== wrong group I think ==
==Simplified, stripped down main page==
Right now, there is a great need for people to begin authoring in Computers.  To that end, I have stripped down the main page so it's simple and clear how to begin, and hopefully has a welcoming tone.  Let's try to keep it simple for now.  Newbies have a LOT of policy to plow through, so let's don't raise any barriers in terms of learning curve.  People, join us!  We need authors![[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Paul
== DOD IA Policy Chart??? ==
you (or somebody) removed computers away from natural sciences. It should howver be there as it is based in: mathematics, physics, chemistry and is applied by these sciences. cheers. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black">&nbsp;[[<font color="red"><b>Talk</b></font>]]&nbsp;</span> 20:55, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


Larry moved this workgroup to the Applied Arts branch and I changed the banner to match it.
There have been changes of this page to reflect something called "DOD IA Policy Chart". This seemed not to be appropriate to me. Thus I undid the change. If it was an intended change please explain it here. -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 08:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Paul Derry|Paul Derry]] 21:12, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


Thanks Paul, I will have a verbal intermission with Larry :) (I wonder if popcorn and coke is available then as well). Anyway just thought it worth mentioning that computer/computer science here is a subdivision or sub-faculty of the faculty of mathematics and natural sciences. cheers and thanks for your great work. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black">&nbsp;[[<font color="red"><b>Talk</b></font>]]&nbsp;</span> 21:33, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
== [[Mainframe]] ==


This is a matter for the Editorial Council to discuss, and when I get a chance I will finally get that group started.  (We're also waiting on the new servers because that's where our many new mailing lists will live.)
Hi there Computers Editors. The [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mainframe&action=history original contributors intention] was to make a definition for mainframe but what they got was an article. A look at another online encyclopedias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainframe_computer version of the same article] shows that a full article is possible, so I do not want to make it just a definition.


The difference between natural, social, and applied is vague, but reasonably well understood, I should hope. If the focus of a broad area of study like comp sci is on applications of science to solve particular technological problems, it's "applied science" or "applied arts."  That anyway will be my argument. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
I plan to add the subpages, metadata and definition, which gives other contributors more ways to contribute to the article, like adding related articles or external links, catalogs or just editing the main article. Of course it would be great if someone wrote the whole thing up in one go, but we are more likely to get to a complete article by lots of people making small edits over time, and having the article properly categorised and conforming to the subpages system is a good idea.


There has long been a tension between computer science as an academic discipline, and supposedly application oriented disciplines such as computer engineering. I say "supposedly" because I do not accept that theoretical computer science is of no practical interest, even if departments are scrambling to come up with programs called something else, as if "computer science" were an epithet! I'm also aware that many people argue that computer sience does not deserve to be considered a science because the object of study is not part of the natural world, but this is not a view that I think is generally held among professionals in the field. There is, of course, the well-known comment attrirbuted to Dijkstra (I'd love to find a definitive source here) that "computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes". The essential object of study in computer science is ''computation'' in the abstact, much as the basic object of study in mathematics is number, quantity, structure or pattern. I don't claim that this makes computer science a natural science, but it is at least as out of place when classified as an applied art as it among the sciences. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Before I do any of that though I'd appreciate some advice - that other encyclopedia I mentioned has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainframe disambiguation page] that lists 8 uses for the word mainframe, although perhaps only three that would be useful to us. Would this article be better titled Mainframe, computing or something like this? [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 
::My way of resolving this has been to cross-categorize several articles with the Mathematics Workgroup.  It's pretty easy to see where that needs to occur (the articles dealing with theory, algorithms, and discrete math cross both disciplines; however, hardware and operating systems do not).  So on an article by article basis, we can cross-list as needed. If we get it right, the mathematicians won't argue with us. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:53, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:In many cases, that makes a lot of sense. Computability theory, quantum computing, neural networks, and noise in physical systems are a few examples of research areas that clearly fall under the natural sciences (mathematics and physics). There are other areas of research in computer science that clearly do not (programming methodology), and a whole continuum in between. With all due respect to Larry, this isn't his area of expertise, and it really ought to be up to experts in computer science to determine where their work naturally falls. I guess my basic criterion is whether or not research in the field leads to a greater understanding of fundamental physical phenomena, as opposed to computers ''per se''. If computer science is only about building better computers, then I think the answer is clear (applied sciences). But I strongly disagree with the claim that computer science is fundamentally the study of how to build better computers. (Remember what Dijkstra had to say?) [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::i complete agree! wow.  wish I could say that more often :-) [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 18:25, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== We need some structure on the main page ==
 
There is a very practical reason that we need more structure on the main page: volunteers are going to go there to get an idea of what needs to be done and where they can best focus their efforts. At present, we are effectively giving ''no'' guidance. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 12:30, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
I agree.  Take it away!  Redesign! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:15, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
Well, I don't know if they qualify as "most wanted" (except maybe by me), but I filled in "most wanted articles" with a selection of fairly basic computer science topics. They should probably be moved elsewhere, because to me, "most wanted" means "most (often) requested". [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 15:29, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:Yes please from an author give us some guidance on a concentrated effort for improving the Computers articles, rather than me just editing whatever randomly floats around in my head at that moment :) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 17:52, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
I think working on networking topics is great. My experience has been there are a lot of people who ''really'' want to understand how networks work (and I'm talking about things like window size in TCP or the spanning tree algorithm used by bridges). I started out expecting that people wouldn't really care about low level details like this, but it just isn't so. Maybe there aren't a lot of people out there who really care about lambda calculus, but I'm confident that this is one area where we would be providing people with information they really want. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 18:30, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== structs ==
for that reason - there have been many authors but not many editors active - that needed be put in the future. The structure however should be reflected in the main page. We can even discuss the correct name for this workgroup - as the way I see it it is science that gets an application in computers and not the other way around. Were it once common for many natural sciences to contribute to what now is known to computer science (materials science, physics, theoretical physics/chemistry  etc) it now is more structured around the scientific approach both in the used materials (IBM lab, Intel) as in used algorithms and their development and use. It wouldn't come as a surprise to me if the idea of renaming computers into computer science will become the predominant idea as it not just is more accurate, it also shows the reversed dependency of ''computers'' to the computer science. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="white"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 12:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
==Needed Articles?==
Don't we ''need'' really basic articles like [[kernel]], [[GUI]] and [[programmer]] before what's in this list? This sounds like a "theoretical computer science" list that was carried over from Wikipedia or something --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 16:01, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
It's not carried over from anything, just my thoughts about some (not all) basic computer science topics. By all means, include topics like [[kernel]] or [[operating system]], too. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 16:08, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
From the list I see missing: databases and the structs needed to tell their history and use. The two lists are very theoretical, but that is ok. As work on kernel is going on as we type, as well as programming languages etc. we need only decide how to make things coherent without offering too much detail on the top level(s). [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="white"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 16:19, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:"How to make things coherent without offering too much detail on the top level(s)." <br/> This was an argument of mine over at [[Talk:Central_processing_unit]]. That article is HUGE. It makes more sense to me to break articles like that up into "CPU Fabrication", "CPU design", "CPU architecutre", etc. The CPU article should give a brief overview and have a nice intro paragraph, but after that if the reader wants to "dig in deeper" to a particular section they can, with the expectation that the technical side of the "deeper" article will go up some  --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 17:09, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
:yes, for that reason you need to know before you start working on such articles how you want its structure to be. CPU for instance seems like one article highlighting all specs in a simple way, diverting into 3-4-5 or 6 articles digging deeper into details. Or you choose the start simple and delve deeper with each subsequent article. These thoughts need being drawn out in a basic structure before anything serious can be done, else it is a madhouse let out into a rollercoaster. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 17:43, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== All programming languages renamed? ==
 
Were articles about programming languages recently renamed from "Foo programming language" to "Foo (programming language)"?  If so, where was the discussion of this issue (I can't find it.)  --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 
I don't know who made the change, and I agree it should have been discussed, but the change certainly makes sense. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:17, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 
: I've gone ahead and fixed a bunch of links to "Foo programming language", replacing them with "Foo (programming language)".  There are probably many I missed. --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 11:18, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 
::Noooo! I don't agree at all.  It makes it very difficult to link to these languages.  If the link is [[C programming language]] that can go right into an article.  Please reconsider using () in a title; it always annoys me and costs me a bunch of time to copy with it. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:48, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== man pages ==
 
A lot of computer languages and their associated libraries are documented in manual pages (in unix, we call them man pages).  Almost any system using the GNU system, I believe these pages are covered by the GNU FDL.  Can we import these to start off a lot of these language entries?  --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 12:55, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== need to break out history parts from some articles==
A lightbulb has just gone on for me, as I have been frequently arguing against approving various articles in Computers Workgroup.  The reason nearly always comes down to the "history" part of the article.  I propose that we start splitting out the "history" part of many technologies into separate articles.  For example, I'd like to see:
<pre>
[[computer network]] and [[history of computer networks]]
[[compiler]] and [[history of compilers]]
[[operating system]] and [[history of operating system]]
[[Windows]] and [[history of Windows]]
[[personal computer]] and [[history of personal computers]]
[[Computers]] and [[history of computing]]
[[virtual memory]] and [[history of virtual memory]]
[[cryptography]] and [[history of cryptography]]
</pre>
The reason for this is, that each of these important technologies have undergone radical and rapid change over the decades since they were first introduced.  I envision that [[history of computing]] would point out to all the other histories. I also think this will make it much easier to reach agreement on quick approval for [[compiler]], whereas the [[history of compilers]] make take much longer to flesh out (and agree about).  When we have been trying to combine all the history with the current description, I find it makes the article very long.  Also, many times people are expert in a current technology but don't really ''know'' all about its history, because its not necessary to know it to work with it.  This is the direction in which I find I am moving as an author.  I hope other people will consider it as well. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 12:15, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:Pat I have been arguing for this for like... ever lol. Welcome to the bandwagon. We need good broken-out articles (to include History articles) for a lot 'o stuff --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 16:06, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
Is history of the operating system significant enough to separate from history of windows? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:10, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:Yes most definitely! Windows' development stands on the shoulders of half a century of operating system theory. If we need good "History of Windows" and "History of Operating Systems" articles I can help out, but Windows itself is most definitely a descendant of many different ideas used in operating system design. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 16:17, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::yes, I think two separate articles make sense.  [[history of windows]] would probably be primarily a catalog of past versions, whereas [[history of operating systems]] would include certain versions of windows because/if they contained an annovation (such as a new implementation of virtual memory, or background processing for printing--whatever). [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:17, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 
The real point is, when you get involved with a specific article, please pay attention to how it links in with other articles, including splitting out its history to a subarticle.  If you start a history subarticle, please drop a note on [[Talk:history of computing]] so we can make sure that we add a blurb at an appropriate place in [[history of computing]] that summarizes the topic and then points off to your history subarticle. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:23, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 09:10, 4 June 2022

This is the talk page for CZ:Computers_Workgroup

I don't know why but in my browser, I cannot get back to the main page from here, so I am providing the link explicitly right above here.Pat Palmer 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion Archives
Archive 1, 8-28-07 (stuff taken off main workgroup page): Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive1
Archive 2, 2-15-09: (old stuff from workgroup talk page) Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Archive2



Forgot talk was here -- additions to article page

I put some draft writing guides and style guides there, completely blanking that there might be a talk page. Shall I move them here, or can we discuss them? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Howard, I would like to move the draft writing and style guides, either to this page or into a page of their own (possibly linked with a brief disclaimer on the main page). My personal judgement is to keep the main page quite simple, and give writers freedom until someone objects. New people already have a lot of policy regulations to plow through; us providing a computer-specific one could just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Let's make it drop-dead simple for someone to glance at the page and start authoring. If you don't object, I'll move it over here, for now.Pat Palmer 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem; as I mentioned, I forgot this page was here but then had several choices of where to move them. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the link the saved writing-guide: CZ_Talk:Computers_Workgroup/Writing_Guide Pat Palmer 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make the point that the guide is not intended as policy, but as ways I have found useful to write. No one has to use it, but, at the same time, don't expect everyone automatically to develop their own style. This has been productive for me; it may be productive for others. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help plan Computers Week!

Go here and sign up!

I have moved this here from the main page. Not sure it's even current, but it's been there a while and has had no takers. Let's leave it off the main page, for now, in hopes of making it simple for people to feel welcome and start authoring.Pat Palmer 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simplified, stripped down main page

Right now, there is a great need for people to begin authoring in Computers. To that end, I have stripped down the main page so it's simple and clear how to begin, and hopefully has a welcoming tone. Let's try to keep it simple for now. Newbies have a LOT of policy to plow through, so let's don't raise any barriers in terms of learning curve. People, join us! We need authors!Pat Palmer 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DOD IA Policy Chart???

There have been changes of this page to reflect something called "DOD IA Policy Chart". This seemed not to be appropriate to me. Thus I undid the change. If it was an intended change please explain it here. -- Alexander Wiebel 08:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mainframe

Hi there Computers Editors. The original contributors intention was to make a definition for mainframe but what they got was an article. A look at another online encyclopedias version of the same article shows that a full article is possible, so I do not want to make it just a definition.

I plan to add the subpages, metadata and definition, which gives other contributors more ways to contribute to the article, like adding related articles or external links, catalogs or just editing the main article. Of course it would be great if someone wrote the whole thing up in one go, but we are more likely to get to a complete article by lots of people making small edits over time, and having the article properly categorised and conforming to the subpages system is a good idea.

Before I do any of that though I'd appreciate some advice - that other encyclopedia I mentioned has a disambiguation page that lists 8 uses for the word mainframe, although perhaps only three that would be useful to us. Would this article be better titled Mainframe, computing or something like this? David Finn 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ_Talk:Computers_Workgroup&oldid=868431"