Talk:Information technology/Archive 3

Proposal to remove healthcare from the lead
"Engineering" and "healthcare" were added to the list of associated industries in this edit in August of 2015 well after the supplied source was added. This edit was made by, a banned sockpuppet. The supplied source states that IT is commonly a synonym for computers and computer networks but more broadly designating any technology that is used to generate, store, process, and/or distribute information electronically, including television and telephone. The other industries that were listed alongside healthcare are computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, e-commerce, and computer services. All of these clearly are supported by the source with the possible exception of the last two items. In contrast, healthcare is not mentioned anywhere in the source. I have added a failed verification tag to denote this fact. If we add health IT to the list of associated industries, then we logically should add a very long list of other applied industries. It is WP:UNDUE to include that one technology while excluding a very long list of other applications of IT. IMHO, it is better to keep the list focused and include only industries that are directly supported by the supplied source. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose.Per WP:Preserve keep text to build an encyclopedia, and find sources. For example healthit.gov. FYI Britannica, calls the term ehealth. There is also a linked WP Health IT article.

Per WP:Lead The lead should have a summary of the significant industries, like health IT (per Report to Congress) a long list can be in the details in the article. Also per WP:Lead the lead should be a summary of the article, in this article the lead supplies the detail, the article could be restructured. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from short definitions in the lead sentence, there should be nothing in the lead that is not dicussed in more detail in the body of the article. It would be WP:UNDUE to have an extensive discussion of health in the this article, especially since we already have a stand alone article on health information technology. It would be appropriate however to list this in the see also section. Neither the current source, nor any of the other sources presented above suppport the addition of health care as a closely associated industry. It is an important industry, yes, but not central to the topic of IT. Boghog (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My opinions: Your statements are illogical and biased against healthcare IT. The lead should summarize the details, yes but the article is a class c article under construction, again per WP:Preserve keep text to build the encyclopedia. Your use of WP:UNDUE is exaggerated and invalid. What is missing is text in the details of the article about healthcare IT which could be added.
 * Building an encyclopedia involves adding relevant, in scope material to an article and not expanding the scope to the point where the article becomes meaningless. We already have a separate article on health information technology. There is no reason to needlessly duplicate material from that article into this one. Boghog (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The scope of the IT article includes healthcare IT. Articles frequently include a summary of another main article, and refer to the main article using a "Main article    xxxx" subheading.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea of how WP articles are supposed to be constructed, and specifically of how the main template ought to be used. Eric   Corbett  12:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Eric Corbett, well maybe you could please teach me here, if you are interested. I read on your user page you have a lot of experience, I don't. What do you think I am not understanding correctly in my statements here?  Thanks for any advice you wish to provide.
 * Stepping back:user Boghog proposed deleting healthcare IT from the lead because the source did not substantiate the claim, and there is no Healthcare IT text in the body to summarize in the lead, which I agree are valid.
 * When I read WP:preserve I understand it to mean keep text as WP is being built and add flags like citation needed given the 3 main WP principles can be met.
 * I think Healthcare IT is in scope of this article per this article definition "Information technology (IT) is the application of computers..." and healthcare IT is an "application of computers..." like an Electronic Health Record and the definition in "Health information technology (HIT) is information technology applied to health..."
 * Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Main_article, the main template is used in an article to refer to a subtopic article, with a summary provided in the "parent" article, like is done is this Information technology article sections.
 * Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE includes Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article. We already have Health information technology. We are talking about removing two words from this article, healthcare and engineering.  What is there to preserve??  These subjects are already covered better by existing articles. Also while it is possible to do something, that doesn't mean we should do it. Including healthcare in this article is off topic and distracting. Boghog (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Boghog, I think our difference is I consider Health IT is in scope for this IT article, because Health IT (and engineering IT) is a subset of IT and is worth mentioning in this article with a link to the main HealthIT article. I agree with you the mention in the lead is not done well, and the lead should be a summary of the details and details should be sourced.  My thinking is in building the encyclopedia, not to delete valid text, and at least note citation is needed.
 * I think presently this IT article seems to cover only the computer systems subset of IT, and does not include the computer application subsets of IT, like healthcare IT, engineering IT, business applications IT, applications development IT et al. Eventually I think the major subsets of IT could have a summary section in this article with links to the main articles
 * I apologize if my comments seemed abrasive above. Thank you for your comments.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason to apologize because your comments are not at all abrasive. However I do think we need to distinguish between "core" IT related industries and application specific industries such as health IT. To give you some idea of the relative economic importance of the two, please compare the list of the largest information technology companies with the largest health IT companies:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Company !! 2016 Revenue (Billion USD)
 * Optum part of UnitedHealth Group || 6.2
 * Cerner || 4.4
 * Cognizant || 3.7
 * McKesson Corporation || 3.1
 * }
 * There are currently 14 IT companies in the Fortune 500, but the largest health IT companies does not even make the Fortune 500. Furthermore, the smallest of the Fortune 500 IT companies has revenues four times as large as the largest health IT company. To be sure, some of the largest IT companies also work on healthcare (e.g. Apple HealthKit), but these remain a small part of their business. Perhaps we could add a list of application industries, but these should clearly be distinguished from the core industries. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * McKesson Corporation || 3.1
 * }
 * There are currently 14 IT companies in the Fortune 500, but the largest health IT companies does not even make the Fortune 500. Furthermore, the smallest of the Fortune 500 IT companies has revenues four times as large as the largest health IT company. To be sure, some of the largest IT companies also work on healthcare (e.g. Apple HealthKit), but these remain a small part of their business. Perhaps we could add a list of application industries, but these should clearly be distinguished from the core industries. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are currently 14 IT companies in the Fortune 500, but the largest health IT companies does not even make the Fortune 500. Furthermore, the smallest of the Fortune 500 IT companies has revenues four times as large as the largest health IT company. To be sure, some of the largest IT companies also work on healthcare (e.g. Apple HealthKit), but these remain a small part of their business. Perhaps we could add a list of application industries, but these should clearly be distinguished from the core industries. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Boghog I agree you make a valid case that Health IT companies are not leading IT companies by revenue. The sources I read for health IT use qualitative terms like "significant", "leading", or "used to save lives and help reduce suffering", or reduce cost, but is not well measured.
 * I think your suggestion of industry specific application IT is a good place to add health it. I think a table of these applications is a good method to include the info.  What do you think?CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In thinking more about this, there is not a single industry that has not been effected by IT. As these industries would be an extremely long, list, it would be ridiculous to mention all of these. There may be a shorter list of "application industries" where IT play a central role, but I have looked for a reliable source that supports this concept, but have not been able to find any.  Without a reliable source, per WP:V, this list cannot be added to a Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How do we distinguish between between industries that have been affected by


 * Boghog I did not find a list or inventory of application industries either. I will add Health IT to the see also section. Checking for other application industry articles in WP I only found Health IT. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: To even propose this is frivolous. I don't see most of the other examples in the dictionary source, either. Health information technology is one of the most WP:NOTABLE types of information technology. To not include it would be remiss. Absolutely keep health information technology in the lead. Otherwise, most of the others listed would also have to go, which would be even more frivolous. The health information technology article clearly points out that it is information technology applied to healthcare. There, healthcare is the application, while health information technology is the actual information technology. Castncoot (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The current source states: Commonly a synonym for computers and computer networks but more broadly designating any technology that is used to generate, store, process, and/or distribute information electronically, including television and telephone. Below is the relationship between the current text in this article and the source:

The failed verification does not apply to most of the items on the list. Health information sticks out as a sore thumb. It is not supported by the source. Most of the other items listed are directly supported by the source. Boghog (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're adding extra dots to connect and inferring generously. Then I could similarly infer and say that health information technology, including telemedicine, involves a computer network, hardware, and software. I'll accept your inferences if you accept mine. Castncoot (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, semiconductors and computer hardware involve engineering. Your arguments not to include these highly WP:NOTABLE facets of IT are baseless. Castncoot (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, semiconductors and engineering involve physics and mathematics.  Where do we draw the line? The number of dots becomes longer as you go down the list. The first six items are directly related.  After that, the links become more tenuous. And health IT? It is not central to IT, the way the first six items are. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You draw the line at WP:NOTABILITY. Plain and simple. For you now to state that e-commerce and computer services should also not be included in this article on information technology is surreal. Castncoot (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You drawn the line at WP:RELEVANCE. I am not proposing that e-commerce and computer services be removed, but I am saying they are border line. Engineering is redundant as it is already covered by several of the items above it on the list.  The real outlier is health IT. Boghog (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence merely reads, "Several industries are associated with information technology, including..." Healthcare IT and engineering and e-commerce and computer services are all as WP: RELEVANT as the light of day. Castncoot (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevance means within scope and as health IT is not essential to IT, it is clear as day that it is out of scope of the main IT article. Engineering is too broad in scope to be included and also redundant to other more specific and hence relevant items on the list (i.e., electronics, semiconductors, and software). Health and engineering are not support by the source and were added without consensus. Hence both should be removed. Boghog (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, let me repeat, the sentence merely reads, "Several industries are associated with information technology, including...". Are you disputing the relevance of that sentence? Or are you trying to artificially split hairs within the sentence? Which one is it? It's totally constructive the way it reads now, and I even think that the cn-needed tag is unnecessary. Remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to affect the discussion on Talk:Silicon Alley. Castncoot (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the items in the list are clearly supported by the source and therefore are within the scope of the this article, but healthcare IT is not one of them. This is not splitting hairs. This this a straightforward interpretation of the source. Building an encyclopedia involves adding relevant, in scope material to an article and not expanding the scope to the point where the article becomes meaningless. We already have a separate article on health information technology. There is no reason to needlessly duplicate material from that article into this one. Finally you are the one that brought up the issue of this article at Talk:Silicon Alley by inappropriately trying to use it as a source. Boghog (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Health information technology is WP:NOTABLE and a huge and rapidly growing component of information technology, as the population ages, and is far from irrelevant. But again, let me repeat, the sentence merely reads, "Several industries are associated with information technology, including...". Are you disputing the relevance of that sentence? Because that's what it comes down to. Castncoot (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Health information technology is WP:NOTABLE but not central to this article. It is out-of-scope. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with previous statements. Health IT use the same infrastructure as any other IT, save a LOB application and compliance requirements. If it has its own page then just link to it and leave it be. Butler, Dustin (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 May 2019 and 24 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avneet K. Peer reviewers: Avneet K.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 16 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jay Patel1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Computer security
Should we show mobile security under Information security?

Yes it should be included, but perhaps not given its own section. Information security standards and practices are focused on the information, which can reside on servers, workstations, or mobile devices. It will be easier to write and the audience to understand to focus on the principles of infosec rather than what devices we can make infosec apply to. Don’t forget, information security even includes hard paper copies of sensitive documents. Butler, Dustin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree as it would be much easier for the audience to understand. Information security also includes mobile security as it is considered to be information Technology.  It would cause less confusion and make it easier for the audience to understand.  But if you put it this way, Information Security can fit under so many different categories.--ComputerGuyAW (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to your suggestion, I have added the new section "The Need for Computer Security" as it contains content that is relevant to computer security and why we need it. Since computer security is very similar to cybersecurity, I have put it under the category of cybersecurity when adding the content to my article.  I have also added content to the "History of Computer Technology" section regarding the evolution of computer technology and computer security.  And as the section "Electronic Data Processing" talks a lot about databases, I also included another subsection "Database Problems" which describes how there is an increasing problem for security as everyone is relying on them more than ever.--ComputerGuyAW (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)