Talk:Robot/Archive 8

Dr. Michel's edit
This is just a request (which you guys are free to ignore) not to revert Dr. Michel's addition of the Webots link (which then links to the site where he sells his software). I've sent him some email explaining a little about Wikipedia policies and offering my assistance, if he wants it. He developed Webots back in 1998 and I believe he owns the company that sells the software...and it's expensive for non-educational users, so this is just the type of link we usually revert. But, the best I can tell, his work is important and notable, and there are a lot of university students who agree, and he has a very active group of users on Yahoo. I think Wikiversity would benefit from sharing in some of that work and community, and I hope Wikipedia too, some day. Strike that, I will invite him and his users to join Wikiproject Robotics. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Robotics
I'd like to just make a personal plea for interested editors to jump in over at WT:WikiProject Robotics. What is great about editing robotics articles on Wikipedia? (The fact that I meet so many highly accomplished people is tops for me.) What sucks? (Wikipedia rules? Or just the fact that it's such an intimidating subject?)  Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk about what you do, and does that mean we need more support and understanding from the admins? Join us! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Roboethics
This link, added 2008/1/31, does seem to pass the test...they don't seem to be promoting or selling anything in particular, it's an attractive website representing the long-time work of a group, mostly academics in Italy, as far as I can tell. I'll check up on them (and all the other links) in a month or two. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Robo

Review of external links
Most of the external links are working and have content that doesn't violate any WP policy. Some appear to be deletable...if the broken links don't start working, and if no one objects, I'll delete the bad links in a couple of days.

Ten Best Robots isn't working at the moment. HUAR is working, but the HUAR page on Wikipedia seems better than the link in all respects, to me. Robot news, theory of robotics is a Polish-language site based in Krakow. Although they have an English flag to click on, there's very little English content. The roboethics official website was just added, but seems notable and fine. I just added Society of Robots myself, today. I have no connection to anyone at the site, except that I like them...they have "wiki values" and a lot to offer. I am trying to acquaint them with Wikipedia and Wikiversity, and get them to participate here in WP:WikiProject Robotics. Of course, if anyone knows any reason we shouldn't accept this link, please share, I can't claim to know them well, but their tutorials are outstanding. Although their yearly contest is fairly small, I'm thinking of adding it in the "contest" section because of the high value of the tutorials...but I don't have any strong feeling about this, if anyone would prefer we not include smaller contests in this section. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

JIRA vs. JARA
It's wierd, but the anonymous edit was right: I can't find any link to JIRA now, it's JARA. I thought I had double-checked Rocket's link. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, strange. I thought it was right too. Rocketmagnet (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not add links"
We have had a hidden message (that is, using ) for a while now on the article page at the top of External links saying that links will be reverted if they're not discussed on the talk page first. This is sensible, given the frequency of linkspam here. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of undiscussed wikilinks in See also, which then link to new pages that send people off to new external links ... which is the same problem, so I propose to treat it in the same way: I've added the same hidden message at the top of the See also section, and I intend to revert undiscussed wikilinks, unless anyone has a problem with that. There's been recent discussion on WP:Layout that 60 wikilinks is too many, so that's another reason to ask for new wikilinks to be discussed first. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the same subject, several of the external links were never discussed on the talk page, so to be fair, someone (I can do it) should post a nice note for the webmasters, as well as leaving a message for them here, explaining that our policy is to ask people to make the case for inclusion of their link on our talk page, rather than forcing each of the editors here to try to figure out for themselves whether the external web site contains verifiable information and adds something to Wikipedia that's unique, and important, and can't be worked into the Robots article.  This is a touchy subject, because many Wikipedians feel strongly that "spashy" sites should never be in an external link for any reason, because such sites are too likely to already be, or turn into, something promotional; but we're talking about robots here, which makes it hard not to come across as "splashy" if we're going to also be accurate and up-to-date.  Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article is intended for inclusion in both Version 0.7 and Version 1.0, which is the printed and DVD version of Wikipedia, and some of the deadlines for Version 0.7 are this month. This makes it very important not to include any links that the general public might perceive as advertising, or even any links which might take advantage of the link from Wikipedia to become promotional at a future time, so I'm afraid the "newsy" links, no matter how well done, have got to move to DMOZ. (And btw, DMOZ isn't just an acceptable alternative, it's recommended by WP:EL.) Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dank55.. the included link has a quite useful content, which is very good for someone interested in robotics, providing a set of good stuff and research papers for free. As you can see it at Robotics Research Papers – DMOZ Directory....#|:C), —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.43.166 (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with the Tufts Univ. Softbots edits
(Copied at anon. user's talk page) "130.64.177.109", you're more than welcome to collaborate on this article, I hope you are up to speed on the research at Tufts University and will help us write the article. But most people around here will say that "revolutions in medicine, the military and even outer-space exploration" and "Kaplan believes that..." are not sufficiently encyclopedic, in context, and will need some editing. Also, everything has to go if the only two sources you have are web press releases from Tufts. See WP:V for acceptable sources. (Yes, I know there was a press release there and elsewhere originally as a source, but it attracts attention when the article specifically promotes work done at Tufts. Also, there's a lot of work to be done to find verifiable sources for everything ... we tend to pick on whoever was the last to speak up, but sooner or later, all the "press releases", in some sense of the phrase, have to be re-sourced.)  This all seems like common Wiki-knowledge to me now, but if I'm wrong or clarification is needed, someone jump in here please. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing a link
Hello, Thanks for your great effort reducing spam links, it is becoming a serious problem over the web, and i hope soon this 'spam culture' will fade away... (although i am not quite sure!). Anyway, here is an external link i am proposing for the robotics page:

http://www.ikalogic.com/cat_robot_navigation.php

I am not quite sure if this is the right place for that link. but the content is specially authentic and interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.95.247 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it...no obvious ads, solid tutorials, active discussion boards, and a creative commons license for Kamal's work. The products mentioned are robot parts, not robotic toys.  Other opinions?  One request: if you're going to have an external link on this page, we need to be able to communicate if something shows up we don't like.  You don't have to create a username, but it's a good idea. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Human-robot interaction
Any feelings about DaveFS's new wikilink to Human-robot interaction? No identified sources, but it appears to be a collaboration, and there are potential academic sources in the article. I'm not familiar with the field. The presumption for Robot at the moment is "we have more than enough links", so perhaps we should lean on those guys to at least source the article and make their case for inclusion of the link before we let them keep it? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While the article itself is weak (and currently, it is), the topic is a major area of research in robotics, involving numerous conferences and meetings, and should be listed in the list of topics. Not that the page is marked for expansion, and that the lack of sources has not gone unnoticed. DaveFS (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point is valid. On the other hand, understand that there's a special situation here at Robot: this is kind of a "hangout".  I suggested breaking the article up a couple of months ago, and there was no support for that; I'm agnostic about that now, but it might have to happen some time before Version 1.0, depending on what standards are agreed on at that project.  But that leaves us with what is called around here a "link farm"; the article has so much material, so many links, and so many references, that it's hard for the typical reader to quickly find what they want.  I'm not expressing a personal opinion here; for instance, see the current discussion at WT:CITE.
 * I'll concede that your subject is important, but there is a certain standard to be met at Robot for new links. Another way of saying this is: everyone seems to want to link to this article, and there's a limit on the number of acceptable links, so we can afford to be choosy.  I hope the guys working on your article will at least give us a clue what the sources for the various statements are (and if you need help with formatting, let me know.)  Jimbo used to encourage people to aggressively delete anything in articles that wasn't sourced; people are a little more patient now, but not a lot more patient. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangers and fears 2
I believe the section on protests against robotics should have it's own article, for several reasons. Unfortunately, there are so many protest against the advancement of robotics, they can't fit in a tiny section of thier article; it needs it's own page in order to truly be comprehensive. Does any one else agree?The Pink Panther (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We already had a section in this talk page called "Dangers and fears" so I renamed this one; see above for good information. See HUAR, Cybernetic revolt, Military robots, Machine rule, and Three laws of robotics.  But the main place to look is in the astoundingly huge collection of discussions about harmful robots in fiction in general and science fiction in particular on Wikipedia and Wikia.  For whatever reason, 99% of what has been said (including some very intelligent and well-sourced stuff) has been discussed among science fiction fans, so that's the best place to go for information.  I would support more in-text links in this article to good sources of information. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think other people might get annoyed with so many in-text links. I think it would be much easier to give this it's own article.The Pink Panther (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I need to explain "I would support more in-text links in this article to good sources of information." The main thing I'm saying is that you'll encounter resistance to adding more links in the See also and External links sections, because we have more than enough already.  For how to approach working new links into the article itself, the two best pages I've found on the topic are WP:Manual of Style (links) and WP:Context.  Whenever an editor gets the idea, "I think we need a link from this article to a new article on a new topic", this is a good checklist:


 * 1) Read this article.  Think about whether a significant number of readers will think that your topic and this article are related, and if so, find the place in the text that is the most related.
 * 2) Consider carefully how much you have to say, and whether it's really so much that it couldn't be just worked into this article.  (In this case, the article is already very large by Wikipedia standards, so you're right, any major new section should probably be on another page.)
 * 3) This is the tough part: everyone would rather just start writing down their own ideas, rather than seeing what other people have done.  Wikipedia serves the readers more than the writers, and the readers are not well-served by having several different takes on the same issue scattered across several different articles.  In general, you should look at any link from this article that has any chance of discussing your topic, and also any article that's in the same or similar categories as this article.  However ... in this particular case, you'll get a headache if you try to do that much work, so I'm making your job easier.  Read the links I mentioned above, and also browse the science fiction categories on Wikipedia and the science fiction wikis on Wikia.com.  If you like to chat on irc, drop into some relevant irc channels and ask people if they know where to find more information on your topic.
 * 4) After you've done all that, if you really think no one else has covered what you want to say, and you think it would be interesting to a variety of readers, then start creating an article on a subdirectory of your userpage.  (If you aren't experienced at creating new articles, your new article might get deleted if it doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy.  Safer to keep it to yourself while you're working on it and asking for help, until you're ready to show it to the world.)  Spend more time looking for and reading sources than writing. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleted www.personalrobotics.nl link
Just got this email:

"Hi Dan, I just returned from holiday ...

I'm very sorry to hear this. www.personalrobotics.nl is a news/hobby/ blog site. Knowing that the robot article on wikipedia does refer for instance to "Boe-bot" and its company "Parallax", I don't understand why my site is removed?! Can you explain to me the policy of wikipedia with respect to this situation? On what basis are decisions made to remove one site and link to another? Knowing this policy, I can adjust my site." [name withheld, since I haven't gotten permission to release it]

Well, because I'm involved in a lot of conversations at once and I've gotten behind on link-patrol in Robots, and also because it's common practice on a page like this to suggest the changes first and then wait a while to see what the reaction is. I waited too long, I see, and the current External links aren't at all what we've agreed on; I'll fix that shortly. All the links that either are promotional or could become promotional without too much alteration have to move to http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Robotics/, and notice that we have a link to that site. (I would not be opposed to a proposal to link to some other link farm, if there's a good reason, but dmoz.com is the one that's recommended at WP:EL.) You were asking about "adjusting your site"; roughly speaking, the more a site looks like a collection of people trading information, and the less it looks like a site with pictures of neat robotic toys, the more likely the link is to survive here. See, just 3 sections above. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal, overlinking to non-notable or irrelevant sites (if not actual linkspam) is a common problem on many articles that have a strong "hobby" component, like this one. Arnoutf (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

External link review
I really like the link to robots.net, even though it's a "newsy" site. The site doesn't just post cute press releases; it selects news that it thinks is important, and then explains why, and I like their judgment, too. Here's a typical example: "Posted 23 Mar 2008 at 16:50 UTC by Rog-a-matic. This nice overview of the differences between biological brains and modern computers highlights important reasons why our digital electronics and even neural network simulations running on them fall short of the abilities we take for granted in living systems. The list of points include content-addressable memory, variable clock rates, pointers as short term memory, lack of separation between software and hardware, unification of memory and processing, the underestimated complexity of synapses, self-organization, and the overall size of the systems."

Anything else people want either in or out? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink review
Deleted epigenetic robotics which is a redundant redirect, robot baseball which is a stub, future of robotics which has no non-wiki sources and is unevenly written, carbon chauvinism and Technocracy movement (little to do with robotics), and all references to specific consumer robots. Links to articles that represent a category of consumer robots are fine. Again, we want to make sure that when the printed Wikipedia Version 1.0 comes out, we don't get stuck with any links that could be interpreted as promotional of any product. Suggestions? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Academia
It seems to me Wikipedia is reaching a tipping point of greater participation by academics, and we should encourage that in every way possible. WP:Flagged revisions is coming to Wikipedia, probably in mid-April, and depending on how it's handled, it may deal with the top objection of academics to Wikipedia, that they have to constantly "baby-sit" their work to keep it from being vandalized.

As a first step, I rewrote the Softbots section. It needed it anyway, probably, but one thing that really upsets academics is when some competitor gets a glowing review in Wikipedia and they get no mention. It's better to keep discussions of what any particular group is doing brief, even when it may be significant work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting, the baby sitting is an issue indeed; but I think it is not as much vandalising that is the problem, but good faith edits by editors who lack critical self-reflection and are overly enthused about the topic (who wouldn't be if (s)he were a student of a very good professor (both in teaching and research) in robotics) that is resulting in the bias you dscribe above. Arnoutf (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Howthingswork.org video link and future of robotics
Hi Mac. At Robot, we're really choosy about external links, you can see the long messy history on the talk page, because everyone wants to link to us. I had to think about it a while, but I'm going to revert your video link from howthingswork.org ... although that's a great site. The first item in the video, the dentistry student, is apparently non-notable, because I could find no hits at all in newspapers (and I tried several different spellings). The second video about the video screen on wheels that makes medical rounds isn't particularly new or interesting as a robot, and we don't really do much with medical robotics in this article. It's also a news story from last July, and I don't see a lot of follow-up in newspapers since then. The third story is about combat robots, and it talks cheerfully about "saving soldiers' lives". A little too cheerfully ... a video about robots that kill people or assist the process should at least be somber and thoughtful. But I do like the howthingswork.org site. If you'd like to suggest other links, please do it here on the talk page, and consider adding links to other articles. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article has a big problem: it does not talks or includes a section about the future of robotics. I agree I don´t like combat robots also ;-) --Mac (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A few days ago, I deleted a wikilink to Future of robotics, which has no sources (wiki sources don't count as sources) and is unevenly written. I'll be happy to help if you want to work on that article. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are robots necessarily intelligent?
The most recent edit complained that robots are not intelligent. The lead said that robots have "some degree of intelligence or ability to make choices based on the environment, often using automatic control or a preprogrammed sequence". I agree with the new editor that that's a little controversial and a little distracting for the lead, so I removed just "degree of intelligence or". See artificial intelligence for a good discussion. The bottom line is, 30 years ago, most people had a fairly wide view of what demonstrated "intelligence", and every time machines start getting good at something, we tend to "move the goalposts" (sorry for the American slang) and decide that maybe what they can do is not a good measure of intelligence after all. Since the meaning of the term keeps changing, it might be best not to try to use it to define what a robot is. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article lead wasn't saying that a robot must be intelligent, it was saying that intelligence is one of the ways that robots can distinguish themselves from normal machines. Although I'm not too bothered to see that line change, it would be a real shame if, every time someone complained about a word in the article, we removed it. Eventually we'll have no content left. Rocketmagnet (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I sometimes lean too far in the direction of inviting participation. A camel is a horse designed by a committee, as they say.  Still, in this case, I like the change, Rocket, because I think that your idea that it's a perception of intelligence that is sometimes the distinguishing feature is better covered by your discussion of "agency", which goes into some detail, than by "intelligence", which isn't useful in a definition because of the ever-shifting goalposts. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone heard...
of the reference to the early Westinghouse robots that I just reverted? I left a note on the user's talk page offering assistance to try to find a reliable source for that information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be arguing against a perfectly good reference from personal ignorance. Reverted - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi David. That's entirely possible; I have a vast store of personal ignorance.  Fortunately, very little gets by the folks who hang out at WP:RSN, so I'll run this by them, and hopefully learn something. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I've got a problem with the "Oh yeah, I've got one of the original robots in my garage" flavor of the article. Some of these robots may or may not be housed at the Mansfield Memorial Museum in Ohio.  Elektro from the 1939 World's Fair is certainly well known, and I can find a picture of Televox, but as to how much "useful work" something that looks like a cardboard cutout did...um.  Well, I'll keep looking. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Got an answer at WP:RSN: "Yes, you may cite free newsweeklies. However, they're more typically used to provide background on topics of local interest, local bands, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)"

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted good faith link
I just reverted the IP edit that added a couple of links to Super Why!, per the invisible html comments on the article page asking people to discuss links first, and per this talk page. I also left a message on the user's talk page offering help in finding articles to link to. This issue comes up from time to time, so I'm asking again: does anyone think that we shouldn't revert undiscussed and improbable wikilinks and external links on sight (with a nice message on the user's talk page, of course)? The amount of linkspam has died off recently, so maybe that's a good sign; on the other hand, maybe the reason it died off was aggressive reverting, who knows. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly again invented by a Muslim
Can someone please stop the trend in Wiki Articles of important and positive achievements of mankind surprisingly originating from some Muslim inventor or origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.5.166 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. But the thing is, a great deal of things *were* invented in the Middle East between 800 and 1100. Baghdad was the centre of the scientific world at that time. That's where we get Algebra (al-gabar), Arabic numerals, a lot of astronomy, science, mathematics... If someone is writing incorrect information about Muslim inventions, then remove it, otherwise stop complaining. Rocketmagnet (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit tag
May apply to about the first half of the article - convert some lists to prose and make better text consistency (join alonestanding sentences into articles).--Kozuch (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you going to make those changes? Because I disagree that the first half needs changing in that way.  IMHO, the lists genuinely help the reader.  I agree that in some cases, lists can be terribly bland and unhelpful. But I think that in some cases lists are actually better than prose, and so converting into prose would do a disservice to the reader.  When this article was written, it was tested against several layman readers, and none of them found the lists to be a problem.  The article has been around a long time now, and has been rated vary highly.  If you want to make those changes, please go ahead. Otherwise I vote to remove this tag. Rocketmagnet (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's something I can do now that I couldn't do before: I have become pretty good at getting articles through WP:FAC. Even though I've put a lot of time into this article, I don't feel any ownership here, and I don't have any feeling one way or the other whether it's a good idea, but I think we can get a bronze star and our day on the main page if we want it.  That would deal with the current objections to the article quality, and many future objections, too.  On the downside, we would have to give up a little autonomy to have the article just the way we like it; for instance, some of the lists would need to be at least a little less list-like, or it won't pass WP:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any more comments on this? I disagree (as usual) that the first half needs much copy editing.  I certainly think that the lists actually help the reader, as they lay out information in a clear way.  IMO, there are two types of lists, ones which are designed to help convey information to the reader, and ones which are lists because nobody had bothered to write prose.  I believe that the lists in the robot article are the first (good) type of list.  However, the structure of the the Competitions section reads more like a list of competitions, and does not make compelling reading at all. I think that bit needs editing.  Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags
Rocket asked me if I was the culprit behind the "citation needed" tags; I was. The edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robot&diff=208022475&oldid=208006142. In other cases, I've been able to either improve the article myself or come up with a reason to delete inserted material, but I couldn't go either way in this case. The competition looked legitimate to me, so I didn't have a good reason to remove it, but I couldn't find reliable sources and none were provided. We haven't heard from 75.186.81, the original poster, in a while. I guess if the material still can't be sourced after almost 3 months, it may be time to delete it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't quite understand. Why did you select those particular sentences to have a fact tag?  It's just that they don't sound  very disputable, especially compared to all the others in the same section, almost none of which have tags.  Rocketmagnet (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the other competitions were added before I started watching this page in January, and I have generally tried to be reactive rather than proactive (for better or worse). More important, even when there isn't an inline citation, most of the other listings don't claim much more than that the events happened, which easily fits the requirements of WP:SELFPUB; that is, a competition's organizer is a perfectly reasonable source for the claim that the competition happened.  (The FIRST competition and Botball do claim a bit more, but then, there are tons of newspaper stories on both.)  But look at what the IGVC poster is trying to establish, and this is after I had "toned it down" quite a bit: "It is multidisciplinary, theory-based, hands-on, team-implemented, outcome-assessed, and based on product realization. Many of the participants design their vehicles during year-long coursework. Students in business and engineering management, language and graphic arts, and public relations also participate. Students solicit and interact with industrial sponsors who provide component hardware and advice, and in that way get an inside view of industrial design and opportunities for employment."  WP:SELFPUB isn't going to work here; we need reliable sources to establish that all these things apply, or else we need to rewrite it.   - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I move that we delete those statements, and replace the single link in the paragraph with a ref. Any opinions? Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. They can always be added back when we get refs. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just reading this list of things, I would be highly surprised if they were not true.
 * multidisciplinary: It's robotics after all.
 * theory-based: quite likely
 * hands-on: extremely likely if they are making robots
 * team-implemented: Just a daft way of saying that more than one person works on the robot
 * outcome-assessed: How else might they asses it? On the casting couch?
 * based on product realization: Possibly another way to say outcome-assessed.

Anyway, this is all text straight from the IGVC web site. Which, surely, is reliable enough to be a reference in itself. If you were interested in entering the competition, and read their web page, would you be highly suspicious of those claims, or would you just accept them? Personally, I'd have no to reason to doubt them. Which begs the question, why not just use the web page as the ref? Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Straight from the web site" makes it a copyvio for one thing. And looking at the sentence:
 * multidisciplinary: doesn't need to be said then - all robotics is multidisclipinary, not just IGVC
 * theory-based: either doesn't need to be said, or needs a ref to show IGVC is theory-based in some notable way
 * hands-on: again, is just IGVC hands-on?
 * team-implemented: daft wording
 * outcome-assessed: again, duhh... Although another way of assessing might be based on grasp of theory, regardless of whether the robot worked. But really, all robot competitions revolve around the robot actually working, so this too is not necessary
 * based on...: again, superfluous for our purposes
 * As to the three cite tags, I'd support eliminating the sentences as proposed above. I don't see how they really add anything to the article but extra words. Perhaps a reword into a single sentence, ref'd to the website? Franamax (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And while there's eyeballs here, in "Literature" at "According to the [OED]", looks like a copy-paste has been made - note the [1] & [2] in the text. Wonder where that text came from? Franamax (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: the text was inserted here. Seems to be a cut-and-paste from a mirror site. The original ref's need to be found? Franamax (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Franamax! Found it at Three Laws of Robotics, which is an FA so the ref (just one, the other is a note) will have been checked.  Fixing it now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done chaps. Looks good. Now, does anyone know exactly what the "copy editing" banner refers to?  If it refers to the last few sections, would it make sense to move the banner down there, so other editors know what it's supposed to apply to? Rocketmagnet (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan. It would be great to move the article towards FAC, but there is still a very long way to go IMO. I think the last three or four sections need rework. Rocketmagnet (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Forums as references
In the first section of this article, there were a couple of references to a forum, which were removed because generally forums are not reliable references. However, in this particular case, I believe that a forum is a valid reference and the best reference.

The point being made in the article was there was a lot of discussion about the nature of robots. What reference could possibly be better than a forum where people are actually discussing the nature of robots?

Of the three references that were there originally, one remains. It points to a news article where several definitions are given, but it does not mention any discussion. Below that is a comments section (essentially a forum) where discussion is happening.

It would seem to me that either this ref is referring to the discussion below the article (the original intent of the ref), in which case refs to forums should be allowed. Or it's referring to the article, in which case it's a bad ref.

I move that we should put the two other refs to forums back in. And opinions? Rocketmagnet (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'll give me a date when the refs were there, I'll have a look. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was back in 21:14, 14 July 2008 Rocketmagnet (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first Botmag link doesn't work any more. The second one (2006-10-15) works for me in illustrating that there are many different opinions on what a robot is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first one is still available in the archives. One of the other refs in the first section has gone down too, and has had the archive link added into the ref. Rocketmagnet (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Few of our readers will have time to read the threads from all 3 forums, and they wouldn't be significantly more enlightened if they did. I'd prefer one or two messageboard links rather than 3; any one or two would be fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll put the second one back. Rocketmagnet (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it was I who took the forum links out. I won't argue if they go back in, but I will say that they are unreliable sources. Yes, they show many different opinions, but whose opinions? Housewives, kids, the subset of readers of a particular magazine who care to post to an internet forum? Can I put a link to my blog then, it's at least as reliable as any other random series of postings? If the forum was composed of accredited and/or noted experts, it would be encyclopedic. Sets of opinions contributed by random persons are not encyclopedic. I'd advise you guys to find a better source - if you want to go to FAC, I predict you'll get slaughtered and using those sources will prejudice the whole review. Just my two cents. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Under probably any other circumstance, I would agree that a forum or a blog is an unreliable reference. But I think this is one of the few (the only?) cases where it seems like a good reference.  What else can you reference when claiming the existence of discussion, than the discussion itself.  The fact that forums are generally unreliable was the reason I put three references in the first place.  I wanted to show that there was lots of discussion, and that it was not limited to only one group of people.


 * I think that we do need a reference there of some kind, and I think that the one reference that remains now is actually less good than the other two. It's a link to a general news site, with just random anybodies commenting at the bottom. At least the other two refs were discussions on a robotics forum, which is full of people who are interested in robots and have thought about them a bit.


 * I would be interested to see any other ideas for a better ref there. Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "What else can you reference when claiming the existence of discussion, than the discussion itself." - Answer: a secondary source that is analysing this discussion. The discussion itself is, after all, the primary source; which is seen as a less reliable/preferable source than a secondary source (if available). Arnoutf (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fly by comments: I found this discussion via Reliable sources/Noticeboard but my comments go beyond just the quality of the sources so I'm replying here instead. The first section is the WP:LEAD, which should be a summary of the material in the article proper. Maybe it would be better summarize the definition contents already in the article (which looks relatively well-sourced) instead of adding this new material? For the forum refs specifically, you would need reliable third party sources to establish why these specific discussions on these specific forums are of enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion in the article. Robotics as a field should have plenty of reliable and weighty sources available. I don't see why there's a reason to resort to using internet forums as sources. Secondary sources aren't only used to refer to the content itself, but also its weight. If there are no reliable secondary sources, maybe these discussions just aren't of enough weight to warrant inclusion. Siawase (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above, and I like what we've got now with just the one ref (although it's in the lead, so I may move it around when I try to fix the lead). I get what Rocket is saying, but the ref we've got now (CBC) is much superior to the other two links; those are 4 well-known experts saying important things on the subject.  Readers who want more after they read the expert opinions can keep reading in the discussion board beneath that to see people's reactions to the experts, but we're not highlighting that discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * About the lead: this article is a GA so it's supposed to comply with WP:LEAD, which means for this article that the lead section should be 3 or 4 paragraphs giving a quick summary of the main points of the article and alerting the readers what to expect. I'll give the lead a whack and then self-revert and wait for comments. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Onwards and FAC-wards
I'm doing a bunch of things to push in the general direction of FAC. In general, the things people like at FAC don't make an article worse, and often make it better, but we don't actually have to go to FAC...I'm open to stopping my work at any time. Warning: I tend to make a lot of edits, it's a function of how my brain works (or doesn't). It will probably be easier to read the diff all at once by pulling up the history, clicking on the last and first edit you want to see, then clicking "Compare selected versions". Btw, WikEd is one of the tools you can opt for at "my preferences/gadgets", and WikEd has a great diff screen that works automatically, even when WikEd is "off", that is, even when you have clicked the WikEd icon so that it's gray and it's not your default edit screen. After you've checked WikEd in your "my preferences/gadgets" screen, and when you're editing some page, click the "toggle automatic improved diff" button (to the right of the WikEd off/on button). It will highlight the diffs in a new screen below the normal diff screen, whenever a diff is shown, that is, even when you're not editing.

I added a ref to what I think is the first relevant Chinese technology, a clock tower from 1088 with mechanical figurines that chimed the hours, and I changed the relevant section heading to the less Eurocentric "500 AD – 1500". ("Medieval" implies Western. "Modern" tends to imply Western too, and it wouldn't bother me to change that to a date range, but I prefer to leave things alone that have been in an article for a while, and generally, a focus on Europe is more okay after 1500.)

People at FAC are pretty brutal about links these days; it's best to have at least an argument that readers are going to want to click on the links, and that they'll be happy with what they find when they do. The argument is that very few readers are going to click on even a fifth of the links provided in the article. The reader doesn't know what they'll find when they click, and we do, so it's our job to enforce quality control. But I'll put off de-linkifying until later in the editing process.

The second paragraph in the lead is currently "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots, a typical robot will have several, though not necessarily all of the following properties:
 * is not 'natural', i.e. it is artificially created
 * can sense its environment, and manipulate or interact with things in it
 * has some ability to make choices based on the environment, often using automatic control or a preprogrammed sequence
 * is programmable
 * moves with one or more axes of rotation or translation
 * makes dexterous coordinated movements
 * moves without human intervention
 * appears to have intent or agency (See anthropomorphism for examples of ascribing intent to inanimate objects.)"

Everyone arriving at FAC has a certain amount of goodwill to burn through, and having 6 lists in the introductory material of the article will burn through all of ours and then some. I think we can prosify this list, and since I'm adding a couple of paragraphs to the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, we should prosify it IMO. How about something like this?

"There is still vigorous discussion among experts as to which machines qualify as robots; the current consensus might best be described as "I know one when I see one". There is however broad agreement that robots are artificially created and that they will have many or all of the following properties: they sense and skillfully manipulate their environment, make intelligent or programmed choices, move with one or more axes of rotation or translation, act without human intervention, and give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal would." Some of the details I'm leaving out of the lead are explained well in the text. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I like it.  Only a couple of things, we should change the word "discussion" (already did it in the article).  And I don't know if "I know one when I see one" could be describes as a consensus.  I think it would be more accurate to simply say there isn't a consensus.  Perhaps this:


 * "While there is no single correct definition of robot, there is broad agreement that robots tend to be artificially created, can sense and manipulate their environment, make intelligent or programmed choices, move with one or more axes of rotation or translation, act without human intervention, and give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal would."


 * Also ... one problem with having it as prose, rather than as a list, is that now it seems to be implying that robots have all of those properties, rather than a subset of them.


 * Plus, I still find it much easier to scan-read a list than prose. For a reader with little time (most of them) the eye is drawn to a list, and it able to absorb information from it quickly because it is spacially well structured.


 * But, essentially, what we have now is still a list. But a list that has been collapsed into a heap, and has lost its spacial structure. So really it's the worst of both worlds. The more I think about it, the more I realise that a list is just better for the reader.  It's going to be pretty hard to convince me. Rocketmagnet (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I say, we can pull the plug on heading to FAC at any time, and if you would prefer 6 lists in the first couple of screenfuls, that would be a reason not to head in that direction. It won't fly.  On the subject of people reading quickly and missing "many or all", and thinking that a robot has to be all of those things: I considered "and/or" instead of "and", but I've seen "and/or" shot down a couple of times at FAC.  I can ask about it at WT:FAC if you think it would help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One way to de-heapify my prose would be simply to delete one or two properties to make it easier to read; we can and should rely on the text below the lead for clarity and precision. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For instance: "...most robots make intelligent or programmed choices, many can sense and skillfully manipulate their environment and can act without human intervention, and some give the appearance of acting purposefully in the way a human or animal might." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Japanese Robot Association list for several reasons (but it wouldn't bother me if someone wants to re-insert it, if an up-to-date reference can be found). The ref link is still dead after 2 months.  I can find nothing on their site and nothing on a Google search except very old references, which makes me doubt that this is still the position of the Japanese Robot Association.  Does anyone read Japanese?  Also, I believe we've got enough or close to enough discussion on the point without this reference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. I've never heard of this JRA . --Jiuguang (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would totally worry about it. Firstly, Japan is a major (biggest?) player in the robotics industry, and it would be a massive shame to leave them out. Jiuguang, if you hane never have heard of them, then maybe this article is for you.  Secondly, if we get rid of that the JRA, we have to remove all the text about different definitions of robot in different countries.  Because otherwise we're just comparing America with itself.  I'll try to find a more solid ref. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - maybe you can tell me exactly how influential is JRA? I'm getting ~4000 hits on Google, and even a school lab like this gets more hits. It is also not well-known by its publications (or beyond industrial robots, for that matter). As for the definitions, I think a few paragraphs combining all the ideas from different sources would be good - I don't see the need to list every single national/organizational definition.
 * Oh, and are there any plans for some more technical information, beyond just story telling? --Jiuguang (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give an example of a sentence that you don't like because it sounds like "story telling", and an example of some "technical information" you'd like to see on the page, so that I can get a sense of what you're looking for. I made a similar suggestion, two paragraphs below.  Technical articles are absolutely okay at FAC, but they have to be framed in the right way, and if we're going to do them, they should go to FAC before this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I thought the "Eastern and Western Views" + "Dangers and fears" section was a bit excessive. By story telling, I meant that this is perhaps a bit too much description for a general overview of robots, and I'd like to see the details moved to a separate article, and an high level overview here. By technical, I meant details on the various components of the robot - this is detailed in Robotics, but surely we should have a mention here. The article is currently very much focused on the definition, history, uses, and views on robots, and missing information on the engineering design issues such as perception, knowledge based systems, learning, etc..(which, more than anything, is really what I'm really interested in). --Jiuguang (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally wrote a lot of that in the Robot article, but decided that it didn't really fit, so I moved it all to the Robotics article (everything from "Components of robots" to "Human interaction"). Personally I prefer it that way.  I think there's a huge amount to cover without going into technical details.  The way I imagine the Robot article is sort of like a hub which introduces a lot of information, and leaves it to other articles to go into depth. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But, having said that, I agree that it would be nice to have a little technical information as an introduction, without letting it get too technical. One thing that might be nice is to have a photo of an opened up robot, showing all the bits inside.  Or maybe an x-ray image, like this X-ray Aibo. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the "Eastern and Western Views" + "Dangers and fears" sections are not very good. That's not to say I don't think they should be in the article, but I think they should be shorter and better written Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rocket removed the history from the lead, which is fine at FAC, as long as the history is on another page. After I'm finished with a quick copyedit, I think I'll move the history information over to History of robots, and only leave the summary of the history here.  I copyedit for some people who crank out FAs, such as User:Moni3; the way she would proceed, I think, is to try to get History of robots and any other "spinoff" pages through FA first, so that when Robot gets to FAC, we've got a good answer to "Why didn't you devote more space to X?"
 * Speaking of spinoffs, I think I probably also want to get a more technical page through FAC first, or at least a page that worries less about the general reader and more about nailing down what robots are in theory and in practice. This is on my short todo list. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)