Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sysop has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article to support it.--Fenice 06:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of votes for deletion on articles related to computers and computing. You can find the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computers.

Since you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of computer-related topics, you might want to monitor this list. You might also want to keep an eye on technology-related deletions and internet-related deletions.

If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

PS New members are needed and welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Can someone here tell me whether the term "complete Boolean algebra" is in fact used for the concept defined in the article linked above? In Googling the only references I can find to it are probable reflections of an old article at Complete Boolean algebra (before I changed that article to the mathematical notion), and of the following site, http://users.senet.com.au/~dwsmith/concept1.htm , which frankly does not inspire confidence. If the dwsmith article simply made up the term, we should probably remove Complete Boolean algebra (computer science), though the content might be recreated under a different name. --Trovatore 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Recently in an attempt to help increase the number of useful references in computer science related articles I've been going through some of the seminal works of computer science that I happen to own, looking for topics that I can add them to. For each topic I've located a specific section in the book directly relevant to that topic and cited it specifically by chapter/section and page numbers. Although I made little to no changes to the articles I visited in an effort to cover more ground, my hope was that readers would find the information useful for learning more, and editors would find the information useful for expanding the article. I added about 150 references to Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming and another 150 to CLRS (Introduction to Algorithms).

It seems that at least one editor was alarmed by these changes however, and I wanted to get some feedback on whether you guys believe these changes are appropriate and a positive contribution to the articles. Also, is it legitimate to put them in the "References" section if they're not yet cited, or do they belong in some kind of "Further Reading" section? Thanks a lot for your feedback. Deco 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To help those who want to review, here's a list of some articles I modified:

Iterated logarithm - Big O notation - Master theorem - Indicator function - Insertion sort - Bubble sort - Horner scheme - Loop invariant - Heapsort - Extended Euclidean algorithm - Quicksort - Counting sort - Radix sort - Bucket sort - Stack (data structure) - Queue - Linked list - Parallel array - Free list - Tree data structure - Red-black tree - Interval tree - Disjoint-set data structure - Dynamic programming - Amortized analysis - B-tree - Binomial heap - Linear programming - Minimum spanning tree - Max flow min cut theorem - Shortest path problem - Network flow - Ford-Fulkerson algorithm - Strassen algorithm - Fast Fourier transform - NP-complete - Complexity classes P and NP - Approximation algorithm - Computational geometry - String searching algorithm - Rabin-Karp string search algorithm - P (complexity) - Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm - Convex hull - Greatest common divisor - Euclidean algorithm - Modular arithmetic - Primality test - Chinese remainder theorem - Kruskal's algorithm - Kruskal's algorithm - Prim's algorithm - Bellman-Ford algorithm - Invertible matrix - Matrix chain multiplication - Priority queue - Comparison sort - Perfect hash function - Traveling salesman problem - Hash table - Selection algorithm - Vertex cover problem - Floyd-Warshall algorithm - Matching - Adjacency list - Set cover problem - Adjacency matrix - Breadth-first search - Depth-first search - Topological sorting - Strongly connected component - Dynamic array - Huffman coding - Merge sort - NP (complexity) - Binary search tree - Accounting method - Simplex algorithm - Discrete Fourier transform - RSA - Fermat primality test - Miller-Rabin primality test - Pollard's rho algorithm - Binary GCD algorithm - Graham scan - Gift wrapping algorithm

I looked through a few of your edits; the ones I saw looked fine to me. I also don't think all references need to be cited. That's not a requirement in a journal article, so I don't see why it should be here. (I do think there's a distinction between a genuine reference and a "further reading" entry, though. A reference should give either background information for, or more detail on, something discussed in the article. "Further reading" might be on something that's merely related. That would be a useful distinction that I haven't seen made very much; maybe it would be worth discussing on one of the talk pages of the style pages.) --Trovatore 03:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, particularly since those two are standard works in the field. I think it is legitimate to add them as a "reference" if they've been used to verify the content. This includes at some point in your life having read them to learn about an algorithm, in the case you've made corrections to an article or just read through it and found what it says to be correct. Fredrik | tc 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of detailed references (see Jean-François de Galaup, count de La Pérouse for an example of my highly detailed style of referncing), so I'm happy you're doing this. Keep on! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement. I'm glad to know my effort was not in vain or detrimental. I shall continue to seek useful references to add. Deco 01:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I use wikipedia as my first line of defense against ignorance. It's really great to be able to know just where to go for more information (or to confirm/deny an edit that is about something confusing). I think what you are doing is fantastic, Deco, and you should definitely keep it up. I hope I can find good references for stuff I do in the future to match this! - JustinWick 06:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, folks. I figure that people who watch this project probably know something about computer science. It would be a big help if a few people could take a look at what's going down on that article recently. It seems to me like a couple of people with particularly idiosyncratic definitions of "computer science" have been trying to push their views there, quite opposed to the usual meanings of the expression. --FOo 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As some of the participants in this project may have already noticed, the previously defunct WikiProject Computer science is now active again. Since there's obviously some potential for overlap in subject matter between the two projects, I thought I'd stick a note here to let you know that we're back up and running. --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science by accident then suggested that a couple article areas I been working on perhaps belong there, but was told no, they do not fit in there, but perhaps they fit in here. So I asking if they within the scope of this project.

• Computer security audit
  • Anyone, who has read computer or security news in recent years, will have noticed that there has been an epidemic of major corporations in the news thanks to computer insecurity disasters of all kinds. Further, anyone who uses both a PC and a non-Windows OS can see that from a computer security perspective there is a world of difference between what the security exposure problems are. It sometimes seems like the cyber criminals are winning the war. So this article on what can be done economically for people and companies, who are not neccessarily computer experts, to protect themselves from becoming cyber crime victims. I joined Wiki about 6 months ago, and this was one of my first contributions, but I was inexperienced in NPOV and Wiki style, so as I have been learning, through contributions to other articles, I return here periodically to further improve this article.
  • Now I know what a Information technology audit is. There is a world of difference betwen an Information technology audit and computer security audit. The IT audit is where some outside speciality firm arrives and does a top down detail analysis, which may employ some automated tools like those found in computer security audit, but the IT security audit focus is on getting everything that can be checked, a comprehensive and expensive inspection. computer security audit is what can be done with automated tools, some of them easily downloadable freeware, or usable by going to web sites. They are available for just about every OS and for the most part can be run by people who are novices in computer security. Because of expense, and using outside talent, the work of an IT audit is at risk of making proposals that get ignored. Plus, as we have seen in some computer security breaches in the news, managment personnel who call for some kind of security audit, have sometimes called for the wrong kind for their needs, they passed the wrong kind, then they got security breached in areas that were never audited, and they tried to sue the auditors. Thus there are advantages to using the bottom up automated audit approach which is run by the people to be audited, and acts as an educational process into what areas they need to do a better job of self-educating themselves.
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act, particularly its implementation, has had a huge impact on computer staffs at large companies, particularly in the areas of certifying good computer security and good control of software change management. When I visited the SOX article, I was dismayed to find that it did not seem to be doing a good job of interlinking the meanings of the esoreric accounting auditing and investing terminoloty, some of which probably comes uner Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics.
  • I do not see a Wiki article on software change management. Perhaps this is under some other name. There are tons of packages out there to help with this, as it was a huge area before SOX came along and mandated that certain standards of this area be employed at companies covered by SOX. Basically, the issue is that software should only be altered with appropriate approval process, and before implementing any changes, there needs to be proper software testing.
    • For folks unfamiliar with SOX it is a set of accounting auditing and management standards for companies doing business in the USA, which includes many companies based in other nations, but for purely domestic companies, it only applies to those who are traded on the stock market, or do business with those, which means there are a lot of companies in the USA that SOX does not apply to.
• Enterprise resource planning
  • For the past 20 years my career has been computer support person for ERP. Prior to that I worked in software for transportation, retail, wholesale distribution, publishing, manufacturing prior to ERP. Currently I supporting BPCS. Anyhow, seems to me there are many Wiki articles related to various aspects of these application areas, but the vast majority of them are either stubs, or dominated by people who have such limited exposure that there is great risk of a form of POV.
    • Very few people have a good understanding and appreciation the worlds of commercial package software, open source, and home brew, thus, people who work in one of these areas can have a tendency to write disparagingly about the others.
    • We have several editors with knowledge of failed implementations, and several who know about successes, but few who like me, are familiar with several of both, thus I see what seems to be an imbalance, with writings that would portray one or the other as the normal condition.
    • Basically we are trying to describe a reality that is extremely complex, that needs a business analyst to thoroughly appreciate all the nuances, but 99.99% of the people in the field are not up to such credentials, thus Wiki suffers.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge need for increasing coverage of computer (in)security. I wonder whether there is enough interest for a separate wikiproject. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 09:21Z

User:Capsela and I have a small disagreement that perhaps this community can provide third opinions on. He created the articles Boot partition and System partition as defined by Windows operating systems. I suggested (and edited the boot partition page) to redirect to the Booting article. I later found the Windows NT Startup Process article as well. Capsela feels that his information is important and distinctive enough to merit two additional articles. I feel they are short and should be merge into one of these single, comprehensive articles. Thoughts? Ryanjunk 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a member of this project, but I'll insert my 2c worth anyway :-) The System partition/Boot partition article looks like it's essentially just a definition. IMHO it should be merged into the Booting and/or Windows NT Startup Process articles. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. I submitted the article X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). I hope this is the correct place to ask. Thank you. - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it looks to me like this project is mostly dormant, I'd like to suggest that adding a section to this page for "Missing articles". While a lot of people believe our coverage of computing is quite good, I can say from personal experience (I read a lot of research papers primarily related to supercomputing) it's not uncommon for me to run across specific terminology that I have not heard of before, which doesn't have an article on wikipedia. Two articles I wrote last week - Cellular architecture and Gustafson's law, are prime examples. Two more I have seen in literature but which do not have articles are Sun-Ni's law (related to the memory footprint of a process as the number of compute nodes increases) and Dancehall configuration (some kind of memory configuration for multi-node systems). Raul654 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

...guess not. Raul654 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The newly set-up WikiProject C++ is now recruiting members. Please join if you are interested in C++ programming. Deryck C. 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone involved in this project take a look at the Computer networking WikiProject and see if it could become a descendant. From what I can tell it seems this project is in fact looking for a networking project to coordinate networking related efforts (judging from the red link in the descendant section), so hopefully something can be worked out. --Bruce 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted the silence as okay. I have now defined Computer networking WikiProject as descendant. Have I missed to publish information about this someware? Is it okay to move all networking stuff from WikiProject Computing to Wikiproject Computer Networking. Mange01 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to alert this community to the fact that Wikisource has decided to delete all reference data, some of which may be of interest to this project. This raises the question of whether some of this material should be hosted at Wikipedia. See Wikisource:Category:Deletion requests/Reference_data and the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium. In particular all source code to be deleted.--agr 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I frankly never thought either Wikipedia or Wikisource was an appropriate place for source code, mainly because neither uses a license appropriate for software. This is part of why I started my own wiki for code. Maybe there should be a new Wikimedia project for hosting this information. I do think illustrative code examples are important for Wikipedia though, if not taken to excess like they were once in quicksort. Deco 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny there was a proposal of how your wiki would be a great sister project under the Wikimedia umbrella on wikisource-l not two days ago. However, it was suggested that you were happy to remain independent. If you are in fact interested, I believe you would have alot of support. Here is a link.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does robotics belong here? Of all the wikiprojects this was the one that seemed most fitting. - Jak (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

C programming language is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I regularly contribute to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies. I am the writer of the Google Groups article.

I am looking for WikiProjects to make steady contributions of information to articles of interest, and to make Wikifriends with common interests so we can collaborate on articles of interest.

I am considering joining this WikiProject, but I need to ensure that this is the appropriate WikiProject for me, as there may be a more specific WikiProject for my area of interest. Is there a WikiProject Internet? If so, it may be more suitable for me. If not, I will stick to this WikiProject.

Perhaps someone could look at the Google Groups article and offer me some feedback which I could use to improve my editing skills. In addition, if you know a good WikiProject for Singapore TV shows/movies, please let me know (or I might create it). I am also checking out WikiProject Chess, as I am interested in chess, although I am less likely to make contributions to chess-related articles, and have already signed up for the Good Articles WikiProject, hoping to make the newly-merged Netscape article a Good Article!

Thanks for reading.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article on Memory timing ... if we do have it, could someone please create this as a redirect, otherwise, could someone please write an article? This seems like an important subject to me, but alas, I don't know enough about it to write about it. What does 5-5-5-12 mean anyway? --Cyde Weys 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Help! I'm not a member of this project (no time!), but I just wrote an article on SlickEdit, a fairly popular source code editor. It got marked as sounding like an ad. I don't have any sort of relationship with SlickEdit, Inc., but don't know how to make it sound less ad-like. Any suggestions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It could probably use a lot of trimming. The article should limit itself to discussing the notable and salient facts about the editor; not read like a laundry list of product features. The current "Supported languages", "Support" and "Criticisms" sections can probably be condensed down to a couple of sentences. --Piet Delport 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is actualy my computer. I need an upgrade!

My Computer Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 Display: 17" Benq LCD Monitor Motherboard: Asus P4B-FX Video card: ATi GeCube RADON 9200 SE Sound card: Intergrated CPU: Intel Celeron 2590 MHz 64 bit RAM: 512 DDR1 Expansion cards: None Power supply: 300 Watts Optical disc drive 1: AOpen DVD/R-RW Optical disc drive 2: None HD: 40GB Barracuda 7200.7 HDD Keyboard: Basic Keyboard Mouse: Microsoft Optical Basic Printer: Canon MP150 Series Printer Internet Browser: Mozilla Firefox Internet Bandwidth: 45.2 Kbps