Talk:Positive computing

Untitled
The article is difficult to read and on some sentences it is necessary to spend some seconds to read them again to fully understand. Can you be more precise on the description? for example, in the chapter "Well-being in technology and technology research" can you name a technology for each category that are identified? Can you expand on the concept of superintelligence? can you name some example of common ideals and the debate behind them (if present)? --Ettore morosini (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments
The article aims to intoduce a very interesting topic. However it's not well articulated in terms of content and main issue of discussion within the article. An early section about the defintion of computing or what does it the terminology refer to after the lead section would be appreciated. Computing and technology have been used interchangebly; which in some cases might confuse the reader about what does it really mean, and for a non-expret reader computing might mean a diffeent notion than the intended notion in the article.

The section about Design, seems quite separated from the main topic of discussion. it seems to jump into a descussion about the general design prococess followed in differet design practices. However the connection with positive computing can not be seen clearly.

The section for superintelligence, aslo sounds fragmented as it doesn't build a clear connection with the previous section.

The article over all is lacking an organinc structure so that all the sections would have clear connections with each other.

--Criticaldesigner (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The article introduces a relevant concept in our society, however I believe that the article is not a useful source for a person who has never heard of positive computing before. It is hard to understand the meaning of some sentences, I tried to fix some of the sentences and also fixed some typos.

I think the structure of the article is not ideal, as each section seems to be a stand-alone paragraph. I would try to make more clear the connections between the different concepts presented: for example, why did you speak about superintelligence at the end of the article? Could you explain more in detail how it is related to positive computing?

I would put the section "what is positive" as a subsection of "background" and I would then dedicate a section to explain more in detail what the problem is and why we need positive computing, maybe adding some examples of how technology designed without thinking of the psychological/social impact has created problems.

Anyway, the topic is really interesting, so I would really like to read a reviewed version of this article! --Lavalec (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements
The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Tecnology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2021.

The article reads a bit biased (also pointed out but the automatic algorithm run under the hood by Wikipedia).

The organization of the article can be improved by adding some introductory paragraphs before the subsections.

Terminology and language are appropriate even if some statements would need some more references to provide support.

A very introductory article to probably an area that needs further investigation.

Ettmajor (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)