Talk:Technocriticism

Philosophy: Ethics / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 11 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of no consensus. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Technocriticism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is way too technical

This isn't intended as a flame but as constructive criticism. I think this article is very opaquely written, I think the root cause is that the field of Science & Tech studies is hugely insular. It seems that your intended audience is one-another; surely as a critique of scientists, your intended audience should be scientists?! As a scientist attempting to gain some perspective through Science and Technology studies (which seems to be essentially a humanities discipline), I have found most texts to be very unclearly written, basically aimed at other members of the community. Widen your possible audience and you might widen your influence! --zrenneh 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It uses too much jargon and is very off-putting - very unencyclopedic. What is a "social prosthetic"? What the ****does the following sentence mean?

While technocultural theory and technoethical discourse are distinguishable from one another and irreducible to one another, technocriticism often analyzes associations, tensions, and interdependencies between them.

I deleted the sentence to which you objected. I don't think it is really that difficult to understand that two related analytic modes are definitively different but interestingly interdepenent, but if many people object to the sentence it may look clear to me because of bias or something. As for "social prosthetic," that is a misreading of the sentence which I have now tried to make clearer. The sentence describes an analytic perspective which focuses on the reality of artifacts as practices (personal and social) rather than objects. Both the words social and prosthetic refered to "practices." Hopefully that is clearer in the revised sentence. --Dale Carrico

We should just delete sentences like that if no-one can interpret them. ··gracefool |☺ 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean up some of this language. Wikipedia is supposed to be a generally useful resource and so it makes sense we would strive to ensure that the language is as accessible as is compatible with the subject matter. However, before you assume that *no-one* can interpret this entry, read the work of some of the scholars who are listed as exemplars of technocriticism. I doubt people who actually read and are interested in the work of Katherine Hayles, Donna Haraway, Mark Poster, Bruno Latour, et al. would have any trouble interpreting this entry in the least. --Dale Carrico

Thank you, Dr. Carrico. I've always done so clean up. I hope you approve. --Loremaster 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include this view, please

Well, I think that (sadly) most people in Western Europe and USA (and other higly-developped countries, too) are all becoming dependant on technology. And, as I said before, dependance is worse than independence. Someone should be free to chose. But, if you say to your pals: “I used to like computers, but, since I found the Internet, I got fed up with them…”, they will look at you as you are an idiot. That shouldn’t be like that! Thanks God, that in Eastern Europe people are still much more natural than Eastern Europeans. Well, don’t get me wrong, I like Eastern European people, but they are unable to ‘unplug’ from all that tech stuff. 213.240.234.212 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point of view that would need to be supported by a academic source. See the Wikipedia:NPOV policy for more details. --Loremaster 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Technocriticism. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]