Talk:Information revolution

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

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.

Should be merged with Digital Revolution

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)[reply]

I agree with you, for the most part, although I question the part about Gutenberg. I don't know, I guess this is a broad and fuzzy subject.

Malik Conn 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikconn (talk • contribs)

Some of it probably belongs elsewhere (if on WP at all, per WP:NOR), and Digital Revolution should be lower cased as digital revolution, like scientific revolution. It was not a war. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

This page sets off my nonsense and auto-generated thesis alerts. How about you? Philip ^(Respond?) 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unsatisfactory

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OR

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)[reply]

It's significantly worse than that, almost the entire article appears to be self promotion for this "Veneris" idiot. Half the citations are from a doctoral thesis that wasn't even accepted to a peer reviewed journal.--122.106.251.190 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above ^ anonymous slander hidden behind 122.106.251.190 is defacing wikipedia and open media... What are his academic qualifications, if any? Environment and Planning A by Pion Press, IS a top quality peer reviewed journal.

(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)[reply]

A thesis/dissertation should not be cited here, unless after its presentation and acceptance, later work validates it; otherwise it's not a WP:reliable source. PS: Don't make hyperbolic claims of libel (or "slander" as you incorrectly put it – slander only applies to spoken defamation, not written), or you may be blocked from editing indefinitely for making legal threats. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

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)[reply]

Different subjects

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)

That's highly debatable. Most of the commentary on this talk page suggests that much of the present article is WP:OR nonsense. About 1/3 of it looks like material that belongs at scientific revolution, 1/3 at digital revolution and 1/3 in the trash can. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus against merge with scientific revolution, no consensus on merge with digital revolution. Proposal rescinded by nominator. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The topic of this article, "current economic, social and technological trends beyond the Industrial Revolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scientific Revolution (the emergence of modern science during the early modern period).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definitely not merge with scientific revolution per Machine Elf. Agree that this article has some problems, and that digital revolution isn't limiting itself to transistorisation and digital vs analogue as it perhaps should, but I don't think the proposed merger is the right answer to that problem. Maybe we should look at the relationship between this article, Information society and Information Age instead. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the three topics - information, digital and scientific revolution - are all quite separate subjects. While there is clearly some interdependence between them, they cover different material and have different ramifications to society. Mitch Ames (talk)

Oppose As the other comments have pointed out, the Scientific Revolution is a significantly different historical entity from the information revolution. The information revolution might have some relationship to the general concept of scientific revolutions discussed by Thomas Kuhn, but that's not what the article Scientific Revolution is about. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Machine Elf 1735. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge discussion notice

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

See Talk:Information Age#Suggested merges — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118072720/http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0 to http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Society 5.0" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]