Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Cloud computing. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Cloud computing. |
||
Line 471:
:::::::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)
== Reference 1 holds only definitions for IaaS, Paas and SaaS ==
Now there are now 10 types of cloud computing listed, but the reference mentions only 3. Needs improvement. [[User:Step0h|Step0h]] ([[User talk:Step0h|talk]]) 18:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:I agree that the reference given includes only the usual three services, and so it is inappropriate for the whole list, but this isn't the only issue. For example, the list isn't exhaustive, and, because it is only a simple list, some readers could get the incorrect impression that the items are mutually exclusive. Together with the inappropriate reference, this gives the appearance that the additions to the list are ill-considered. Also, why have such a list in this section at all, when there is a Service Models section? The items in the list should really be part of that section, with some of them included as part of the three main services.
:There are many other issues with this article, including further inappropriate references. For example, the analogy with electricity utilities is incorrectly supported by a reference to the NIST Definition, but the NIST material doesn't use these words or such an analogy at all.
:Besides the inappropriate references, some whole sections have no references, and some of the claims aren't supported by a reference, which gives the impression that they are personal opinions.
:Lack of references, or inappropriate references, is against one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia requirements - to be encyclopaedic, all material must be supported by an appropriate reference. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 02:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
== Patently awful article ==
For a top-importance subject with a very large and wide audience, this really is an inadequate article. Many criticisms of it can be found throughout the Talk Archives, even before the comments under Technical gibberish above. Some of these criticisms still apply, and there has been no substantial improvement in the article over a long period.
It contains too many inaccurate, contradictory, confusing, half-true, meaningless, vague or completely incorrect statements, as well as some disorganised, insubstantial or pointless sections. As stated in the Technical gibberish comments, there is too much jargon and irrelevant material, especially for end-users, who would make up a significant section of the audience. Also, with no references, some of the material appears to be only personal opinion.
It has been a C-rated article for a very long time - officially since January, which is itself too long, but it had really been at C level well before then. There have been several hundred thousand viewers per month during this period, and this amounts to millions in total. At least some of these viewers would not be impressed with the article, to say the least, but only a very few would take the trouble to voice their opinions. Worse still, many of these viewers would know no better than to take the material at face value, and so they are not being at all well served.
It is clear that many of the 1000s of piecemeal edits made over recent years have not really been an improvement. Sensible changes are often overwritten, and the article has never attained any sort of stability or sustained improvement. So it seems that a different approach is required, if coverage of this important topic is to be at least adequate. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||