Talk:Cloud computing/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:13, 9 January 2013

Revision as of 01:15, 13 February 2013

Line 383:

I've adusted archiving to preserve discussion for 180 days but reducing the minimum number of discussion from 7 to 5 (default). There are some unanswered discussions on the page that are at risk of being prematurely archived. I've fond on other articles that 30 days is too short for many technical topics. I have reviewed [[Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_2#removal_of_archiving_bot_on_discussion|previous discussion]] and think these changes reasonably accommodate stated requirements there. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

== Introduction to Cloud computing ==

{{archive top|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to cloud computing|Deletion discussion]] of the fork was closed as '''delete'''.}}

{{admin help-helped}}

[[Introduction to Cloud computing]] popped up on a new article list, and whilst I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been put into it, I think it might infringe the [[WP:NOTGUIDE]] or [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]] guidelines. The title alone seems wrong for an encyclopedia. But as this isn't my area of expertise, I thought I'd raise it here for those more involved to decide whether it's a useful article or not. -- [[User:The-Pope|The-Pope]] ([[User talk:The-Pope|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

: I posted the [[Introduction to cloud computing]] article in order to improve the Wikipedia content for this subject. As you can see if you read the past discussions, there have been many complaints about the main article, and often from an understandability or end-user point of view (such as the Technical gibberish comment above). I have called for improvements to (or even a re-writing of) the article, and I was responsible for the call to have it downgraded to a C rating. In the discussions, I suggested that one way forward was to write an introductory article. There are many such articles (you can see all/many of them by typing "Introduction to" or "Introduction to a" - or b, c etc - into the search box). The article has been edited by a member of the computing group, and described by that editor as a "generally accessible, non-technical article", so it seems that others accept it.

: I still believe that the current article needs much improvement, and because of the introductory article, I believe it can be more openly technical. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 03:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

: I don't assume we need an introductory article. The topic is not all that technical. The problem here is that the current article needs work. I think it can be improved by incorporating this new work into it and deleting a bunch of the difficult to understand material. I have put up merge banners. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

: I agree that the current article needs work, but I believe that the subject can be quite technical, especially if the article explains how it all works by dealing with the architecture of cloud datacentres, and the implementation technologies. Also, I believe it would be beneficial to cover the following from a more technical point of view: all types of service, deployment and typical characteristics, with specific diagrams; the various ways that providers can operate, using in-house resources and/or other service providers (as evidenced by comments in the discussion archives, the layers diagram can confuse some readers by implying that each layer must be built on top of the ones below); details of specific examples, rather than just one or two-sentence descriptions; P2P versus client-server examples; the NIST Reference Architecture.

: This is a top-importance, extensive subject with a large and wide audience of technical and non-technical readers, and with aspects ranging from simple facts to in-depth technologies for consumer access and provider implementations. Also, the examples of cloud computing cover the whole range of activities, professional and personal. So I can’t see that a single article can cover all of this adequately, without being too long or difficult to follow for many readers.

: My idea with the introductory article was to deal with the basics, especially for the non-technical section of the audience, so that the cloud-computing article itself could then be more technical without end-users complaining that they couldn’t understand it. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

::Introduction? Really? It is longer than this "main" article, and, it did not seem to be any easier to figure out than this. [[Special:Contributions/85.217.20.177|85.217.20.177]] ([[User talk:85.217.20.177|talk]]) 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

:::There's no problem that it's longer than the main article, since it's an "introduction to the topic", not "the introduction of the article". As Fcalculators points out, they have different audiences with different needs; the Introduction article should include a general description of the field, and the main article a detailed explanation of the primary technical concerns. "Introduction to..." articles are common for [[Introduction_to_genetics|several]] [[Introduction_to_evolution|high]] [[Introduction_to_entropy|profile]] [[Introduction_to_viruses|topics]] (we even [[Template:Introductory_article|have a template]] for it). As long as it doesn't try to teach "[[wp:NOTHOWTO|how to build]] your own cloud service" and keep itself with defining the basic terms, it should be fine. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

* '''Support merge''' I would support a merge, just so that a central high quality item can emerge. In terms of overall quality these two are actually better than many of the other ProjComputing articles out there. But it would still make sense to have a really nice item as a show case of how Wikipedia can actually achieve scholarly status. However, I did oppose merge of [[Cloud computing security]] into here. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

* '''Support merge'''. I don't seem to grasp the logic of an Encyclopedia holding a universe of articles '''plus''' another parallel universe of ''"Introduction To..."'' articles on the same subjects. It would be not only unnecessary, it would be simply ridiculous. --[[User:AVM|AVM]] ([[User talk:AVM|talk]]) 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

* '''Support merge BUT''' This article is already uncomfortably long, and merging the very valuable content from ''Introduction'' will push it beyond practical. Likely we will need to split off bits and pieces soon anyway, and some elements of ''Introduction'' might then rate their own, something like ''specialised language of cloud computing'', &c. [[User:Yamaplos|<font color="blue">Yama</font><font color="green">Plos</font>]] [[User talk:Yamaplos|<font color="maroon">talk</font>]] 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

* '''Support merge'''. I suspect that, once merged, users would benefit from seeing terms such as "Platform as a Service", "Software as a Service", etc, and "Public Cloud" and "Private Cloud" being the focus of the article. When I say focus, I mean these things should appear first and be prominent. A Wikipedia article isn't a treatise or a thesis on a topic. Words like 'metaphor', 'model' and 'heterogeneous', 'abstraction' and 'denote' obfuscate the topic. The tone of many Wikipedia articles seems to be more about the practical and less about the theoretical, especially with regard to an article like this. Both articles could use a lot of editing (removal of content) once merged. [[User:SunKing2|SunKing2]] ([[User talk:SunKing2|talk]]) 09:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to perform this merge. I've reviewed [[Introduction to cloud computing]] and finding that material there is already included here or is of dubious quality/reliablity. In short I'm not finding anything of value in [[Introduction to cloud computing]] to merge. I've attempted to contact the primary author [[user:Fcalculators]] but have received no response. Therefore I have [[WP:PROD]]ed [[Introduction to cloud computing]]. If anyone thinks it needs to be rescued and would like to take a crack at it, please follow the [[WP:PROD]] procedures to abort my proposed deletion. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My PROD was contested by [[user:Fcalculators]] who then promised to provide some justification for separate existence of the intro article but has not despite multiple prompts. So I've gone ahead and redirected the intro article here. If that needs to be reverted, please discuss it here first. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 03:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

: I can’t quite understand this move, given the recent events concerning the deletion banner.

: The banner was posted with a 7-day period for objections, which itself seems short, but, in any case, the deletion happened even well before this short period had elapsed – what was the rush?

: The instructions say that anyone can object to a deletion proposal simply by removing the banner, which I did. The instructions also say that once removed, the banner cannot be replaced, which must mean that the deletion can’t be performed. Therefore, I believe that it should be undone, unless I am misunderstanding something.

: People have been voting with their feet, and the article has had between 11000-20000 viewers per month, with some viewers making useful content changes and reasonable talk-page contributions on specific details. So it seems that many people value the content. There have been no talk-page claims concerning dubious quality or reliability, and, on the contrary, the article was rating quite highly for Trustworthiness, Objectivity etc.

: It was included in the Computing project – wouldn’t it be a good idea to see how it is rated as part of this project? [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you for joining the conversation here. As editors, we collaboratively decide how to organize information on the encyclopedia. There is a clear consensus above that we don't need or want two articles on this subject. I don't find your new arguments particularly persuasive. The intro article had 12,120 views in June. In comparison, cloud computing was viewed 433,043 times. I am one of the (self-appointed) assessors on the computing project. The intro article was never assessed but I would give it, at best, a C rating. The cloud computing article has not been reassessed since recent improvements but it is almost a B at this point. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have re-read the articles on merging, consensus and deletion, and, from this material, I believe that, for the following reasons, the deletion and re-direction of the introductory article have not been following documented processes:

• From the merge article, in row IV of the merge steps table, it says that “In … controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is ''normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion''”. I am not aware of anything abnormal about this particular merge case, so it seems that the consensus was not arrived at according to this process.

• In any case, I don’t believe that a consensus existed, because, in the consensus article, it states that, when reaching consensus through discussion, “The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that ''all recognize as a reasonable solution''”. I certainly don’t regard the outcome as a reasonable solution, and I don’t believe that even some of those who supported the merge would think so either, when they talk about “very valuable content” and “so that a central high quality item can emerge”.

• Also from the consensus article, under determining consensus, it says that ”no consensus normally results in the article … being kept”.

• There were only a very few contributors, with some for and some against, so not even a clear majority supported the merge. I believe we can include the comment on not merging the definitions in those against, even though it was placed at the top of the page, rather than in the discussion section. I believe the comment on “parallel universe” can be discounted because it is against introductory articles in general, even though they are allowed for in the guidelines, and there is the following quote from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, when discussing consensus: “Arguments that contradict policy … are frequently discounted”? More people contributed to the introductory article talk page and made edits than participated in this discussion.

• In the merge article, under reasons for merging, it says that “Merging should be ''avoided'' if …. The separate topics could be expanded into … standalone … articles.” Common sense says that this is the case here, and there can be two separate articles, one for beginners and one for a more technical audience, and, if this can go ahead, there will then not be the overlap that exists at present. Other contributors to this talk section agree with this approach, it is allowed for in the guidelines, and common sense says that it is appropriate for a top importance subject with a very wide audience, including large groups that have different needs.

• In the deletion banner, it says that “You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion ''for any reason''”, so I objected to deletion and removed the message. The banner also says that, “If … removed, it should ''not be replaced''”, which must mean that the deletion can’t subsequently be performed.

For the above reasons, I have reverted the re-direction edit. With the article visible, it may give an independent editor the opportunity to rate it as part of the computing project. If you have any concerns about the content, and if you think that some of it is of dubious quality or reliability, please can you detail your specific concerns on the talk page?

I agree with your comment above, that producing articles is a collaborative process, but I am not exactly sure of the point that you are making. I have been collaborating by contributing to these discussion pages for some time, and, at a point in the past when there was quite a bit of controversy about the content, I suggested that one way forward was to produce an introductory article. This suggestion was present for quite some time, and no one objected, so, since it was allowed for in the guidelines, I proceeded to write one.

I still don't believe that this main article is of very good quality, and I will provide some detailed criticisms shortly. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for the response. If I took any liberties with procedures, I apologize. I think I used them appropriately and they have had the desired effect of bringing you into the discussion when more polite requests for input had failed. I still don't see a good justification in what you've said for the existence of a separate intro article. Sure, they're ''allowed'' but that doesn't mean one is ''desired'' for [[Cloud computing]]. I have [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Cloud_computing_articles|requested]] that other editors weigh in on this (again). --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to cloud computing|nominated the fork for deletion]], please discuss the issue there. — [[User:Czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[User talk:Czarkoff|talk]]) 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Problems in first paragraph ==

*I don't understand why reference 1 is used twice in the same sentence. Can't we just cite it once at the end of the first sentence?

*Reference 1 doesn't really provide the same definition as given in the first sentence.

*Although I don't dispute the stated origin, the use of two [[WP:PRIMARY|two primary references]] here makes me suspect [[WP:OR|original research]]. We need to find a better reference for this. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

: Both references have amorphous symbols identified as clouds that represent networks and both mention the Internet, so there is no OR there. The first reference (patent 5,485,455) was cited because it was the earliest (Jan 1994) I could find in the patent files. The second reference (patent 6,069,890) was filed more than two years later, but was cited because it has more details in the diagrams. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 04:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::Please read [[WP:OR]]. Research for Wikipedia is done a bit differently than other research. We prefer [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]]. The patents are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] and while it is possible they '''are''' where the term "cloud computing" comes from, they don't actually '''say''' anything about the origin of the term. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:::U.S. Patent 6,069,890, the second source cited in this article, is a secondary source and refers to its primary source U.S. patent 5,790,548 Fig. 1 which is copied exactly as Fig. 1 in the secondary source as part of the "Background" section in which prior technology is described. Fig. 1 in described in both patents as "a simplified diagram of the Internet" and includes multiple cloud symbols. Patent 5,790,548 column 5 lines 56-57 refer to "the cloud indicated at 49 in Fig. 1" which is copied in secondary patent 6,069,890 for Fig. 1. Patent 6,069,890 Figures 4 and 8 include an amorphous symbol which is labled "INTERNET" and has a reference number 106 which is referenced as "cloud 106". The inventors listed in patent 6,069,890 are not the same as the inventors in patent 5,790,548.

:::U.S. Patent 5,485,455, the first source cited in this article, was cited solely to establish that the network symbol was already being called a "cloud" in January 1994. Primary sources can be cited as evidence of priority, just as the original U.S. Constitution can be cited to prove that it said what it was later reported to have said. Secondary sources are actually less reliable than primary sources in such instances, because of editorial bias or misinterpretation.

:::The two sources cited are not intended as sources for the expression "cloud computing" which would requires a third reference. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::::The refs are attached to the following statement in the article: "The name comes from the use of a cloud-shaped symbol". If these are not intended as sources for the expression it seems like they're misplaced. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::::These patents are very interesting but the second patent is not a [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]]. A reliable secondary source would be an newspaper or magazine article or a book that referred to the patents and drew conclusions about them. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 22:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::The second patent 5,790,548 was not the unedited writings of four engineers that was rubber stamped and printed by the US Patent Office. This patent was rewritten by patent lawyers working for the independent law firm of Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel and further edited by the US Patent Office examiner. The rewrite process provided by the lawyers was every bit as rigorous and critical as that provided by the editorial staff of a book publishing or newspaper or magazine publishing company. And their polished work was given further critical review by the patent examiner whose job is to reject ambigous, vague, or misleading text or drawings, mistatements of fact, and self-serving puffery. If the expression "cloud" as a metaphor for the Internet had been deemed too silly or confusing, one of the lawyers or the examiner would have required a different expression. Patents that were edited by law firm lawyers are reliable sources. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Patents are not sources for statements about who originated certain terminology and neither of these patents make any claims about originating the term. That could be a trademark issue but not patent issue. We need a source that states this is the origin or even "one of the earliest uses" of the term. It's not our role to [[WP:OR|do that research ourselves]]. I have removed the citations as unnecessary in the lead. If we have consensus here to use those sources to show the origin of the term they can be used in a terminology or etymology section. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 22:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that a reliable reference for origination of the "cloud" symbol would be a good addition to this article. But the references to the patents bear on a different issue, the fact that the term "cloud" was and is a generic symbol for the Internet or similar network, without providing the complex details of its structure, just as a picture of a car is a generic symbol that implies the complex internals (engine, ignition circuitry, etc), regardless of who first used the symbol. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 02:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::The statement where they were used for reference concerned a) the source of the term and b) the use of a cloud as an graphical abstraction of complex infrastructure. We agree that the referenced patents do not support (a) and I see no support for (b) either. They just say they use a cloud, not why they use it. There must be more recent sources that support (b) directly. You are clearly an excellent researcher and I'm sure you can locate what we need. However, we don't need references in the lead as long as we cover the statements later in the main body of the article. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)