Talk:e-Science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taylor[edit]

Please link the John Taylor on this page to the correct figure from the John Taylor disambiguation page, or create a new article for him, or unlink the name. Thank you! — Catherine\talk 14:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Another John Taylor for your collection :) -PdDemeter 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberinfrastructure[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we think that the cyberinfrastructure information on this page should be moved to the Cyberinfrastructure wiki page? This way we can limit the amount of cross-listed information on the same topic. Either this, or maybe since these are two terms reflecting similar/the same concepts, should these be folded together and redirected? — Stephaniebeth (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to Cyberinfrastructure Stephaniebeth (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge them? We are supposed to have articles based on topics not based on terminology. That is, if two different English-speaking countries have different terms for the same thing, (essentially trendy buzzwords to get funding) a unified article on the topic makes more sense that two of them. W Nowicki (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Buridan (talk) just removed the merge tag. Please do not do this, but discuss your reasoning so we can reach a consensus. Thanks. To mention precedent: there is one article on gasoline even though man English speakers refer to it as petrol (not separate articles). There is one article on mains electricity even though that term is not used in the US. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles are not based on words but ideas. W Nowicki (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little more investigation: I found notable quote from Tony Hey who ran the UK program that "It just happens that in the US they chose another name. Personally, I think e-Science is a much better name than cyberinfrastructure." Which is why I would merge into here instead of the other way 'round. On the other hand, a good explanation is that the "infrastructure" is the stuff, and e-Science is the work done on it. Still might result in one higher-quality article instead of two. W Nowicki (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tag was again removed without giving an explanation here. As per Wikipedia:Merging, please discuss here first. I think a relevant guideline is the one on Wikipedia:Content forking. One article per topic vs. two points of view on essentially the same idea. Another applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary where the specific petrol/gasoline example is given. I find more example of using cyberinfrastructure by the US NSF, but even other US sources use e-Science. But if there is an argument to keep them apart, and more than a stub would result for both, that would be fine too. W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry didn't see this discussion, still there is no need to merge this with cyberinfrastructure because cyberinfrastructure refers to things, and e-science refers to practices. different concepts, different things. --Buridan (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberinfrastructure studies do actually include in the conversation the social, organizational and political components interwoven with the computational components. The NSF Blue Ribbon 2003 "Atkins" report for example describes cyberinfrastructure as the enabling hardware, algorithms, communications, software, institutions and personnel that operate the computation, communication and storage, not simply technological configurations. Stephaniebeth (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I suppose they are not exactly synonyms like gasoline. However, the question remains if they are spearately notable enough to have two encyclopedic articles on them? A better example might be, say, electrical engineering and electrical engineer. One is a field of study, the other is a profession (people in that field). There is one single article for both. I do not have strong feelings so will go with consensus, although would be nice to have a third opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sure, they are different enough. the categories we are talking about are not like the two you mentioned at all. the relationship is closer to [science] and [technology] which are clearly different things on many levels. yet, even there many people put them together as one, but it is a marriage less of analytical validity than of history, here we don't have the history. --Buridan (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e-Research is yet another term for this. One point that might make them (e-Science and cyberinfrastructure) different is that cyberinfrastructure includes human experts (computational scientists), which e-Science may not.128.135.250.239 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they should be merged and merged into e-science. E-science is used in english speaking nations other than england and I believe cyberinfrastructrue is a USA term only. E-science is also used in the USA http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/eScience/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.152.160 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, eScience in the UK did not include high performance computing, while HPC has been a central element of cyberinfrastructure in the US. The most general term is probably eResearch, but this often doesn't include the needed infrastructure, but rather, focuses on the activity. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E-Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E-Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E-Science&oldid=1196100987"