Content deleted Content added
SamJohnston (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SamJohnston (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 763:
::Thanks [[User:Ronz|Ronz]]. Turns out this was [[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] again (as a sock), even though Enomaly have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enomaly very] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Cohen long] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Private_Cloud history] of [[WP:SPAM|spamming]] Wikipedia. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font></sup></small></u> 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
==Advertising Tone==
This whole article needs to be rewritten to deal with its advertising tone. It is full of hype and it is blatantly promoting its subject as a product.
--[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:Unsurprisingly, I disagree. This 'hype' has been thoroughly validated by changes in focus by virtually all significant vendors (even those like Oracle and Microsoft who have traditionally bashed their cloud based counterparts) and the article is balanced, referring to the pros and cons in the key characteristics section. Wording like 'reliable services delivered through next-generation data centers' sounds positive, but it's accurate... the services are reliable and data-centers [http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,,sid80_gci1324347,00.html next generation]. I'm removing the blanket tag, but encourage you to identify passages that are inappropriately worded, so as we can reference, remove or rewrite them. Thanks. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font></sup></small></u> 06:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:Here are some areas:
-The Political Issues section starts off with "<i>The Cloud spans many borders and "may be the ultimate form of globalisation"</i>". This sentence just isn't helpful.
-The list of Companies in the Brief section isn't neutral. It is irrelevant as to whether or not these companies do or don't do whatever here. This listing is, though true, advertising (name dropping). I'm considering cutting it entirely.
-The Key characteristics section is listed as if it was from a marketing presentation. Again, true or not, it needs to be presented in a neutral manner. The "Sustainability" point specifically is improper. A lot of things are "more sustainable" that doesn't mean that it is relevant or proper to them all to be noted as "sustainable". --[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
: Ok so there are political issues because the cloud spans many borders... reword it if you must but multiple jurisdictions are one of the single biggest hurdles for cloud computing. The latter part is a quote, and I would say a relevant one.
: Listing companies is useful iff the companies listed are already associated with 'cloud computing'. Google and Salesforce are two obvious examples. Facebook might be another. Listing SAP, Microsoft, etc. regardless of whether they are getting involved now, is more likely 'advertising' for those companies. Granted there are categories which contain this information but listing a few (2-4) of the best examples of cloud computing actors is IMO a good idea.
: The key characteristics section, as I have explained before, was intended to list exactly that... characteristics. One man's pro is another man's con, and many issues (eg security) would appear in both lists anyway.
: Sustainability is a big issue today, and cloud computing, by vastly improving resource utilitisation, is (or at least can be) a sustainable solution. My partner is a sustainability engineer so this is stuff I'm exposed to every day; I assure you that very few computing solutions come close to the benefit that cloud computing is able to offer. Conversely, these installations do centralise consumption of copious quantities of power so there are associated concerns about sourcing cheap power (which essentially translates to dirty coal). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font></sup></small></u> 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Sorry about being too brief above. My issue with the quote in the political issues section is simply that the section itself is begins with the full quote as opposed to original prose. I guess you fixed that?
:: If you think that sustainability is a big issue with cloud computing, I'll go with that as you seem nearer to the subject than me.
:: Thinking about it, I guess a lot of what is getting me about the article is its heavy use of very hierarchical lists as opposed to prose. I'm not a cloud computing professional by any means. I came upon the article trying to learn about cloud computing but I didn't seem to get whatever it is that a reader might want from it. I spent more time thinking about the quality and presentation of the content I was reading (primarily as a result of the many lists) than the content itself.
:: But regardless of my lack of technical knowledge on the subject, as a reader there is something that can be improved. Such an article isn't written for cloud computing professionals anyways (they can read it of course, but it ought to help lay readers understand its subject). Often times those closest to a subject are less inclined to make a lay-friendly article than those less near to it. I'm sure some investment banker might have jotted in some nice things (and lists of relevant companies) for mortgage backed securities back in 2005. Perhaps many of these things would turn out to be the opposite of useful. Those nearer to a subject can be more prone to the latest industry trends which may not be optimal content here.
:: I could put it this way: a good Wikipedia article should have content that is given in such a way that a fair subject-lay reader who spent some time just on that article, and perhaps a few of its linked sources, could take what he learned and replicate the content and manipulate it into some other format.
:: If I applied this rule of sorts to this article, I could rewrite a lot of it in prose; but it would be a poor work. But it would be poor on account of the content that I set out to replicate in prose more than my ability to write prose (or lack thereof). There's actually a lot of content here, but I just can't translate it into prose without some additional knowledge of the subject.
:: I'm something of a humanities man (although I know quite a bit about economics). Here's the key question: Would someone from some non-tech savvy background get what a reader of a Wikipedia article wants to get out of this article?
::--[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 09:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::The article's already long - turning the lists into prose as you suggest would likely make it less readable. [[Special:Contributions/93.3.248.168|93.3.248.168]] ([[User talk:93.3.248.168|talk]]) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Definitely several of the lists should stay. But in many other places the lists should either be made into prose or perhaps even broken off into separate articles. Actually that would also be a thing that we could discuss. Is this article too big for just one article? ----[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::At 34k, not quite yet but it's something we'll likely have to look at before too long. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font></sup></small></u> 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||