User:TedColes/Archive1

Template:Early computer characteristics
I noticed you removed the color-coding from this template. I thought that the color-coding was useful. It helped to easily distinguish the features of the various early computing machines, and to indicate in a way that was immediately evident which machines introduced the features typical to present-day computers (electronic, digital, binary, programmable). Robert K S (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got that, but it's silly to believe that it's possible to be non-judgmental when talking about computing machine characteristics. General-purpose machines have obvious usage advantages over special-purpose machines; digital machines have obvious accuracy advantages over analog machines; binary machines have obvious computation efficiency advantages over machines that use other bases; stored-program machines have obvious operator time advantages over machines that use clumsier programming schemes; electronic machines have obvious speed advantages over machines that compute or store data using partially mechanical or electro-mechanical means.  History has made its judgment about all of these computing characteristics, and the evolution of computing machines to the present state of the art shows that some of these attributes have won out over their less-desirable counterparts.  It is not wrongly "judgmental" to point out that some of these computing machines shared the characteristics found in modern computers, and some did not share all these characteristics. Robert K S (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Humor me in a thought experiment. Let's say you decide it would be useful to put together a template chart of U.S. presidents to use in Wikipedia articles.  Let's say you further decide that it would be helpful to color-code the chart so that it conveys certain information more readily.  I can think of several useful embodiments of such color-coding.  For example, I might code all one-term presidents in light blue, all two-term presidents in dark blue, and all four-term presidents in violet.  Perhaps I might choose other intermediate colors for those presidents who served less than these amounts because they died in office or resigned.  Or, perhaps I might color-code the chart based on which state the president hailed from, or which region of the country (South, Northeast, Midwest, West...).  Now, is this being judgemental?  That depends much more on the interpretation of the reader.  If the reader prefers two-term presidents, or prefers presidents from Ohio, he will readily find them and say, "That's a good president."  But this is his interpretation--the chart does not have a color key that indicates which presidents are good and which ones are bad--it merely states the facts and makes them easy to distinguish.  You might remove the color-coding from the chart, but all you have done is made the information less instantly digestible. Robert K S (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I am not opposed to the modification of the color coding, only to its elimination. But more significantly, I have described why the various attributes associated with present-day computers (digital, binary, electronic, general-purpose, stored-program) are more advantageous--do you contest it? To link to my analogy with a table of presidents, these attributes are inherently better in the same way that it is inherently better to be a two-term president than a one-term president, inasmuch as it is better to be president than not be president. Calculator vs. computer for the ABC is a matter of semantics (definitions of the two terms), but no one disputes that it was digital, binary, electronic, special-purpose, and unprogrammable, and that some of these traits survive to the machines with which you and I are communicating, while others were discarded in favor of improved designs with inherent, obvious advantages. Robert K S (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Von Neumann architecture
I reverted your addition of a wikilink to the First Draft report in the lead of this article. Reference footnotes should be used for outside references; Wikipedia shouldn't use itself as a reference. Moreover, the First Draft is discussed at length and linked to later in the article. Robert K S (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think Von Neumann architecture and First Draft should be merged. Their subject matter is related but not essentially similar.  One relates to a topic in computing that is still widely and broadly important and taught to students of computer science.  The other relates to a document the value of which is now principally historical rather than instructive.  The architecture article should stick to information relevant to computer architectures in general (topology, ubiquity, etc.), while the document article should stick to information relevant to historical documents in general (their provenances, authorships, distributions, audiences, influences, and impacts), but each may (and should) reference the other. Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ABC calculator/computer

 * For reference, the complete text of the disputed passage is "The terminological distinction between a computer and a calculator had not developed when the ABC was named. However, by today's standards, most would judge it to be a calculator."

Where is the information content in presenting an argument based on semantics? What factual information is your statement imparting to the reader? Nothing doing--what you're trying to add to the article is an unsourced, unattributed bit of rhetoric. It doesn't do anything to inform the reader, it only presents a position. And, just as it was in the 1940s, it's again and increasingly a silly and meaningless distinction to try to make. These days you can buy a pocket calculator with a graphical display and programming capability--a computer. You might as well be trying to argue the difference between a phone and a computer. (Every cell phone you can buy today is Turing-complete.) In the 1940s, the words calculator and computer were used interchangeably to refer to computing machines, not least because the only practical use of computers at that time was as number-crunching aids. If you're going to insist on trying to get language of this nature in the article, I'm going to insist on attribution (who said this?--no weasel words like "generally considered" or "many people"), citation, and a complete description of the meaning of the distinction between "computer" and "calculator" that is likewise fully-sourced. (By the time you work all that in, there's going to be an issue of undue weight.) POV statements are inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. Robert K S (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add that if your intent is to attack the ABC's capability and efficacy in meaningful ways, much has been written about what the device could and could not do. Why would you settle for a silly sentence, easily objected to on numerous grounds, when you could craft an insightful and well-sourced section that was actually informative? Robert K S (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for what you perceive as vehemence. The core issues here are WP:V and WP:WEASEL.  What you're essentially saying is "the ABC was a calculator, not a computer" (actually, you're saying "most people think the ABC was a calculator, not a computer", which is worse, but more on that later).
 * It is sufficient to list the features and inabilities of the ABC and let readers make up their own minds about what class of machines it belongs in. This would be the neutral way to handle the article.  (Trying to push the "it was only a calculator" angle, which is prima facie denigratory, will only bait pro-Atanasoff boosters to emerge from the woodwork and incite an edit war.  "Computer!" "Calculator!" "Computer!" "Calculator!")
 * Trying to distinguish the two classes of machines requires a restrictive definition of each, and whatever definitions make the ABC a calculator and not a computer were not the same definitions used in the 1940s nor are they, for the most part and more with each passing day, the same definitions used today. And in any case, those definitions should be sourced to some authority (not Wikipedia), and if views vary, then multiple authorities will need to be referenced.
 * With reference to the weasel terminology, it will not hold up. I am certain there are instances in the literature of various authorities arguing one position or another as to whether the device constituted a "computer" or a "calculator"; if relevant, you might summarize what they had to say.
 * But is it relevant? As we both agree, "calculator" and "computer" were synonymous in 1940, and are increasingly synonymous today.  (As a hardware device, the calculator will cease to exist in the very near future, and will be only a software function implemented in a computer, as it is in desktop/laptop machines, cell phones, PDAs, etc., which are themselves converging.)  So what does it really contribute to try to make a distinction?  What factual material does it really add?
 * And moreover, once the "calculator" vs. "computer" controversy is covered in sufficient detail such that it is not merely a one-line POV-push, undue weight becomes an issue. A sizeable fraction of the article cannot have suddenly become devoted to one of the lesser controversies surrounding the device, as this would give the impression that the argument over whether the ABC was a calculator or computer was more significant to the subject than some of its other aspects less-developed in the article.
 * So my suggestion is to drop it. I can't see a way to put in what you want to put in without seriously detracting from the article.  By the time you address the sourcing and weasel issues, you've got an undue weight issue.  I'm not saying you can't do it.  I'm just saying I can't imagine how. Robert K S (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, let me apologize if my tone has been hardened to become harsher than it needs to be. One becomes so used to doing "battle" on Wikipedia that it becomes too easy to abandon the courtesies of patience and tact.  But here's one more tidbit for thought, going back to your original language: "However, by today's standards, most would judge it to be a calculator."  I don't know where you're going to source "today's standards" to (to my knowledge, NIST and ISO don't have a spec on what's a computer and what's a calculator), but going from my own personal conception of the difference, it's not true.  When I think of a calculator, I think of a four-function gizmo with a numerical keypad and buttons for the elementary operations.  The ABC didn't do any one-function calculation tasks.  So defining "today's standards" by what you bring up when you call up the Calculator program in Windows, I don't think the statement holds.  By today's standards, one would judge it to be neither a calculator nor a computer.  It was a weird animal of its own. Robert K S (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

cypher v cipher
Your correction of my spelling was inapposite. There is some dispute about proper spelling on this point (see cipher v cypher at Wikiproject:Cryptography for some background). Dictionaries are not infallible, and in this case, are in error in claiming definitive correctness. In addition, other editors' problems in their comments on a talk page are their own and should be left in their gloriously wrong (or right) state. Thanks. ww (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of longstanding dispute whether dictionaries should be prescriptive or descriptive. Since there is not likely to be much settled on this issue in the many decades since Merriam-Webster threw in with the descriptive crowd, it's unlikely our differing opinons will settle the matter. In any case, for WP purposes, the answer is descriptive as WP does not attempt to enforce spelling correctness in matters involving disagreement. And likewise, the incident issue, correcting other editors' spelling in their comments on talk pages, I believe there is even less room for prescription and peremptory correction correction. Even leaving typos aside for the purposes of the discussion. ww (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)