Talk:Being Digital

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atallent, DamianDanielly, TyraWashington, KRCPhilmon. Peer reviewers: Jtakin02, ParkerJennings, Jlowe022, TheSeedV, Metroidm, Deasbarker, Destyanderson, Kaitlyn.Kelly, Flagg2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VincentH81.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Since Negroponte switch is an orphan and there's a (small) section discussing it here, it would make sense to merge it into this article. Benjaminoakes (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Negroponte switch article is not orphaned. At least not any longer, as it is referred to by the biographical article about  Nicholas Negroponte. I would oppose a merger. There are people who have not even heard of the man or of this book of his who will hear the expression "Negroponte switch" and having a page that explains it provides them with an explanation directly. Also the book, while it is cited as evidence of the meeting where he originally suggested the idea, was not the place where he originally published the idea. Grow (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I would oppose a merger of the Negroponte switch article with this article about the book "Being Digital" because the Negroponte Switch idea was suggested a decade before this book. The book is sometimes cited because it described some of the history around how the Negroponte Switch idea was first popularised. But the book was not the source of the idea. Grow (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Being Digital. 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/19970506002643/http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/wireless.html to http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/wireless.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bits and Atoms
Hello Wikipedians! There is a sentence under the heading Bits and Atoms that I feel is incorrect according to Negroponte's views. The sentence reads, "The bit is the digital, such as computers, but now the bits are becoming the atoms." The second half of the sentence, "but now the bits are becoming the atoms," I feel is incorrect. The bits aren't becoming atoms, the physical components, but rather the bits are encompassing and taking over the atoms. Negroponte states the change from atoms to bits, or from the physical matter to the weightless digital realm, is inevitable. I have a source to back up my point: Schmitt, Bernd. “From Atoms to Bits and Back: A Research Curation on Digital Technology and Agenda for Future Research.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 46, no. 4, Dec. 2019, pp. 825–832. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz038. Let's discuss so we may contribute or update properly! - KRCPhilmon (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Negroponte Switch
Hey classmates I would like to add this sentence to negroponte switch section because I feel it adds a more detailed view on what the term means. " that imformation currently coming through the ground ( read, wires) will come in the future through ether, and the reverse". TyraWashington (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

April 23 feedback for NMAC 4460 Students
Hello, all. I see your some progress has been made in improving this article. Please one of you make a group appointment to talk with me about your progress next week. I thought I'd give you a couple of notes before then.
 * Consider using shortened footnotes like this article. Note that all the footnotes look the same and refer to a bibliographical entry below. This may seem complicated, but you'll find it much easier to use once you practice. Current references will have to updated.
 * Many sentences, too, are not sourced and should be.
 * Consider reorganizing the article to include the sections that our other books use; e.g., see Draft:Convergence Culture (book).
 * Some of these sections (if not all) are integral, like Synopsis. Be sure you include them.
 * Spend most of your time on the Analysis and Reception §s. These are the truly helpful parts of the article. This is where your research comes in—the primary reason for this project. You have been doing research, right? These sections must be your areas of concentration. You must do research and incorporate that research into the article. I cannot emphasize the importance of this enough.
 * Please proofread and revise. Almost every sentence could use revision or correction. I expect advanced, college-level writing here.

That's a start. You may post questions below. Let me know how I can help. —Grlucas (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Here are some questions that came to mind when reading your feedback: I appreciate your time and I'll get with my group so we can schedule a time for our Zoom meeting. KRCPhilmon (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While using the shortened footnote, how do I go about referencing it to its original source in the bibliography? I have studied the template you linked, but I'm confused on that end.
 * We were cut off this past Tuesday, however, does every sentence need a footnote/reference? I have several sources that I've combined ideas from to incorporate into the article. I, of course, have put the ideas in my own words. Do I reference all the sources at the end (with a footnote)?
 * Is our Lead too long? What's the main difference between the Lead and Synopsis?
 * This article had already been in existence and therefore some of the links, as you stated, need updating. How do we go about updating them (if they no longer exist perhaps)? If we can't, does that mean we need to delete all sentences associated with it? Also, some of the original sentences (that weren't created by us) aren't referenced.Do we delete those and start from scratch with our own sources?


 * You will nee to add  to every reference as it explains. (You might also see Template:Harvard citation documentation.) Ideally, every sentence should be sourced no matter whose words you use.  See How to create and manage a good lead section for a discussion of the lead section. It should cover the main points of your article; a synopsis should cover the main points of the book. They overlap, but are not the same. You may edit/delete/add anything about the article you wish; it doesn't matter who created it. Just try to improve it with your edits. —Grlucas (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * When you create the analysis section, make sure that you have secondary, independent sourcing to back up claims. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has already been stated about the material, either by the author (via an author's note or by something where he explicitly states that X is meant to signify Y) or by someone in a reliable source that is interpreting the book. We cannot analyze and interpret the source material ourselves, drawing our own conclusions. I'm concerned that some of this can be seen as original research, particularly with casual, persuasive language such as "yet, this is not the case". Also pinging . Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

General comment
Hi Grlucas (I pinged Shalor as a courtesy). It seems you are teacher participating in a Wiki Ed project and that this is one of the articles that some of your students are working on. I think that’s really great and hopefully this will turn out to be a positive contribution for all involved. However (and perhaps you already know this), Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project where anyone anywhere in the world who wants to can participate in at their leisure. So, there’s really no way to stop others from editing any article as long as their edits are being made in good faith and are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, while you students are editing the article their may be also others working on improving too. The point I’m trying to make is that article’s and their talk pages are for everyone; so, while you can use them to communicate with your students, others can also read the posts and some of these people may possibly “disagree” with some of the suggestions being posed. When that happens things are going to be expected to be resolved by WP:DR and WP:CON with what’s best for Wikipedia generally being the deciding factor. Please try to keep that in mind when posting because your “audience” so to speak is not just your class and changes might not necessarily be accepted by others just because a university class wants to make them. I’m not trying to be rude or discourage any of the students from editing; it’s that tensions often are created between student editors and non-student editors because sometimes students mistakenly assume they have some claim of ownership over their Wikipedia work (perhaps out of concerns for their grades).One thing about citations that you and your students might want to consider before making any major changes to an article’s citation style is WP:CITEVAR. Wikipedia doesn’t have anyone particular “house-style” when it comes to citations and we as editors are encouraged to defer to and work within the existing style whenever possible. This doesn’t mean that we can never switch from one style to another, but it does mean we should be WP:CAUTIOUS when trying to do so and see if there’s a consensus to do so first. Citation styles (like MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, etc.), in particular, is one of those seemingly “no big deal” types of things which can turn into a big deal between editors if people are a little careful. Finally, I think you should be careful about statements like You may edit/delete/add anything about the article you wish; it doesn't matter who created it. Just try to improve it with your edits because while true in many ways being too WP:BOLD and completely disregarding WP:RETAIN and WP:CAREFUL can quickly lead to major problems with others; moreover, it also works both ways. Sometimes WP:TNT is necessary but at the same time it’s better to build on what others have done and not completely toss it in favor of something new. There are specific things like WP:DEADLINK, etc. which also should be considered, but generally consideration should be given to others edits, particularly when explained through edit summaries or article talk page discussions. Often articles are the way they are because of article talk page consensus. Although a consensus can change over time, it really shouldn’t be ignored. My advice would be for your students to at least do a cursory scan of article talk pages (including archives) as well as edit summaries before making any major changes to any articles just to see whether their changes might possibly be contentious. I’m assuming the students are working on some sort of class schedule and the last thing they probably need is to end up at one of the administrator noticeboards involved in some discussion started by someone disagreeing with their edits. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience with these new Wikipedia editors. Working with WikiEdu and using my own tutorials, I try to equip them with the necessary tools to begin editing. I have found that giving them too much at once often stifles their participation and enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I'm sorry if they (or I) caused you unnecessary frustration. Any assistance that you provided is certainly appreciated as we grow the Wikipedia community. —Grlucas (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Analysis and reception
This was touched in the above discussion by, but some things to be careful about when it comes to adding content related to analyses or critical reviews of any type are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Any content about analyses or critical reviews of the book should be supported by citations to secondary reliable sources. Try to limit such content to analyses and reviews given by persons with well-established reputations among their peers, etc. as explained in WP:UGC, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:NEWSBLOGS. Peer-reviewed academic journals are generally OK, but also are major newspapers, magazines or other publications with some sort of reputation for editorial control should be fine. Most analyses and critical reviews are going to be subjective to some degree, but if you're citing people for whom you feel there's a need to identify by relative clauses (e.g." Scott London, a California-based author and journalist, ..."), then you might be reaching a bit too far and getting a little too close to WP:Namechecking. Not everyone you cite or attribute needs to have a Wikipedia article written about them (though that's a good place to start), but they should be well-established enough to be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)