breaking out the "history" from key articles

[Pat_Palmer]

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:

[[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]]

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.

- Pat

[Robert_W_King]

Pat-

I recognize that we are both here in good faith, but I find your oversimplification of the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/History_of_computing article extremely troubling.

It seems like you want a bulleted list with practically no references or technological background to explain the evolution of computing.  I am frustrated by the complete removal of all background information that would provide the user with a basic fundamental history of advances in technologies that I had begun to lay out.

Secondly, I also object to your use of phrases like "In 1968, a working prototype was created and exhibited by IBM, and a hot debate ensued about whether this was a true computational device." 

In my opinion, and I believe this is true with the CZ project, that article entries should not read like editorials. 

Additionally, Reducing the "Herman Hollerith" section to a simple:

"Herman Hollerith, an employee of the United States census bureau, is remembered for having created a method for inputing program instructions to computing devices by using holes punched in cards."

says absolutely nothing about the actual contributions he made to the advancement of computing. 

I want to discuss this, and although I relegated responsibility for the article I feel I cannot just let these things slide.

[Pat_Palmer]

Robert,

Let me try to explain the approach I've taken so far, after first stating that I tend to write in an experimental style.  So the article as it now stands (if I were writing it alone) would almost certainly change form hugely several times in the process of my working with the material.  It seems that a lot of authors are different in their process: they write it once, then never touch it again.  That makes me not the easiest of collaborators when authoring; I realize it.

I've been a bit of a bully lately in trying to keep each blurb in the "history of computing" article short.  I am concerned about this particular article becoming unmanageably large (60 years of action-packed progress to cover).  I consider the article in an experimental stage.  My intention has been to, INITIALLY AT LEAST, create some kind of timeline of important landmarks.  I intended for the timeline to point off to detailed articles for the people, concepts, computers and technology involved at that point.

With that approach, we've only made it to the early 1950's and the timeline is still missing many important things.  Often, each item on the timeline generates an argument, such as the Shannon blurb (where he linked boolean algebra to logic design).  If other authors didn't know that (and I hadn't put in the reference yet), it gets challenged.

Herman Hollerith deserves his very own article, written by someone who knows a lot more about him than I do and who will do his memory justice.  It would be a shame to duplicate that effort right smack dab in the middle of another article ("History of computing"), but I have no problem at all with having "History of computing" point off to the Hollerith article as often as it needs to, which would be (in my opinion) whenever the "history of computing" article needs to flag a development along its timeline of many many many developments.

I urge you to edit the sentences you don't like, but request also that you:
1) keep ONLY to the topic of the heading that it's under
2) keep to no more than 8-10 lines per heading

In the approach we're now taking, longer things need to be subarticles.

Unless of course we scrap the "timeline" approach and give in to section creep...

I've taken this approach because "history of computing" is a very large subject.  Many books, and even entire museums, approach it, often with startlingly different contents.  So I don't want "history of computing" to BE the history, but just to be a timeline, and you drill into the timeline's subarticles to get the juicy bits. 

There are alternate approaches possible.   Some museums take a "biography" approach; we can do that also (at the bottom of the article is a placeholder for that, which can be developed some day).  Others take a "list of breakthrough concepts" approach--there is a placeholder for that also.

I've felt some urgency about getting this article going because a lot of people want to get their Computers Workgroup articles approved, but whenever I've looked at them, the history part isn't ready.  If we can get people to break their articles into, just for example, [[computer network]] and [[history of computer networks]], that serves two purposes:
1) it makes it easier to bring [[computer network]] to a state ready for approval
2) it makes it easier to link in [[history of computer networks]] with all the other history-related parts (centered around "history of computing" as the hub of the wheel, so to speak)

The urgency of this is also about prevent some of the Duplication of Effort that I've been seeing.  It can easily work out that "history of computing" holds a bunch of stuff about history of networks or Herman Hollerith or whatever, and then subarticles ALSO DUPLICATE the same information in another form.  I guess that offends me as a programmer; it usually is a bad idea to duplication information, as it invariably starts to contradict itself :-)

If you would like to propose an alternate approach, please do (as long as you have a reason for thinking it will do a better job in the long run).

If we find, over time, that the timeline thing is appallingly bad, I'm willing to abandon it.

If you want to take the "history of computing" article over now, I'm alright with that too.  I really should be doing other things.  Just wanted to try to explain why I removed the Hollerith stuff temporarily.

What I was planning to do is, after the timeline gets relative near completion, then step back and look it all over and see about creating a more coherent narrative.  But without all the information at least tabulated first, I could not think of a way to end up, someday, with a balanced approach.

Please do take it over if you want to!

[Pat_Palmer]

Robert,

---------

You wrote:

"In 1968, a working prototype was created and exhibited by IBM, and a hot debate ensued about whether this was a true computational device."

In my opinion, and I believe this is true with the CZ project, that article entries should not read like editorials. 

----------

Please help me understand your objection.  I don't know a lot about the Pascaline, but I did think that there was a controversy over the prototype which was built, and that IBM withdrew it from public display.  Is it that you want more explanation right on the spot in the "history of computing" article?  Or is the sentence as it stands incorrect?  If you can correct it briefly, just do it.  Maybe the section could say, "Please see [[the Pascaline]] article for a full discussion."

Or, take the whole thing "history of computing" and do it quite differently.

I don't quite understand the issue with the above statement.

[Robert_W_King]

I have no intentions of creating entire bios for everyone involved in computing in the history article.

In fact, I had made it up to the 1900s already in a matter of a few paragraphs.  If a timeline approach is appropriate, then I would recommend that a long vertical image be created that coincides with the article to perhaps summarize it in that way.

I don't think it will become unmanagably large.  I was pretty concise in summarizing each point while providing enough of a technical link to go onto to the next significant advancement.

I agree that all inventors and contributors deserve their own article--but it should be left in the computing article what they actually contributed, resourced/referenced/explained.

I would personally like to develop the article before sweeping changes are made.

[Robert_W_King]

What I mean by that is phrases such as "hot debate", and other "gotcha" words.

[Pat_Palmer]

okay, that makes sense.  it's fine with me if you just edit those out immediately. 

thanks!

[Robert_W_King]

Pat, if you don't mind, I'm going to put both my most recent version and the current version in a single text editor and work on putting the two together, and continue the article from that.  If you see a huge revert, don't freak out.

Would you be agreeable to that?

[Pat_Palmer]

Just take it over and own it.  I trust you!  Go for it.