Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/14 December 2005/Computer science

Request made by (please sign below):

— Dzonatas 06:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status: In mediation with Steven McCrary 17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

• Computer science
• Talk:Computer science
• Talk:Computer science/Archive 2
• User_talk:Dzonatas
• User_talk:Powo

Who's involved?

• User:Dzonatas
• User:Powo

What's going on?

We want to progress on the article, but the nature of edits have become technically challenged among each wikipedian. I've seen what should be verifiable and reputable source material being substituted for personal knowledge and, at times, personal attacks. For example, Powo claimed that computer science is rooted with mathematics, and, therefore, computer science is not a science, or that mathematics is a foundation of computer science and not a fundamental study in due course. Another example is the bounds for the body of knowledge that defines computer science, which lacks a definite consensus among published sources. Powo states that computer scientist know what is computer science, and the article should be written by computer scientist. At the same time, Powo suggests that I have less expertise then him because of Powo's stated credentials. We further need to settle on an opener for the article, but, more importantly, we really need article-body content.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to:

• avoid Powo's (and others) personal attacks by the use of a mediator.
• solve the matter over the definition. Use the basic foundation of computer science from published sources, like a thesis, which state the intention. This avoids modern dictionarys or encyclopedias that have no common consensus.
• settle the matter about the roots of computer science (similar to previous goal) as to how mathematics (and more?) fits into it.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Most of this shouldn't need to be discreet. Otherwise, use my e-mail.

Greetings one and all, I have read the pages Computer science, Talk:Computer science, Talk:Computer science/Archive 2, User_talk:Dzonatas, and User_talk:Powo. Very interesting discussions that are normally civil, but they occasionally chase meaningless diversions. Here are my initial comments, observations, and questions. I would like to hear from both sides on these initial issues. Please keep your comments brief, constructive, issue specific, and addressed to me. Thanks.

1. Expertise. (First a bit of scolding, sorry.) Wikipedians do recognize the expertise of both education and experience on its pages. Since Wikipedia does not (pre-)qualify its editors, it follows that a somewhat democratic approach (i.e., all parties have equal standing) is needed in conflict resolution. Even so, if User:Powo has the credentials claimed (and I have no reason to doubt it), then his opinions (as expertise) should be given its just weight. I state this carefully, since User:Dzonatas credentials should be given just weight as well. From a purely academic standpoint, a Ph.D. has prima fascia expertise. However, that is not to say that other credentials do not provide equivalent expertise, nor that a Ph.D.'s expertise is boundless. Further, a Ph.D. does not provide prima fascia expertise outside of academia, i.e., where expertise must be established as relevant. Therefore, it does little good to throw about your credentials on Wikipedia (whereas, outside of Wikipedia our credentials can be duly established).
2. Personal attacks. Although the discussion on the relevant pages is usually constructive, it has, at times, degraded into "pissy," personal attacks, or into defensive posturing. These attacks and posturing originate from both sides, so I will not take sides on this matter. Suffice it to say here that these antics are not necessary and should not be part of these pages. Nor is it profitable to degrade the opinions of others. Please refrain from all such activity, see [Trolling].
3. References. Much is made by User:Powo on the use of references, especially toward User:Dzonatas, a legitimate concern. I tend to agree that one of the references cited by Dzonatas are spurious (read: one of the references may have been a bit "shallow") , but not disingenuous. It is important to remember that not all sources are equal; some sources have higher authority than others, with peer-reviewed sources generally considered to be the highest authority. Although there should be enough expertise among the editors to write an introductory paragraph without having to refer to external sources, it appears that legitimate sources would help to resolve this dispute. (External sources provide a certain level of credence to an idea.) I suggest that external sources be provided from here on; then, if needed, citations will be made to those sources on the subject page.
4. Disagreements in Definition. (Now to the crux of the issue.) To their credit, both sides, currently represented by Powo and Dzonatas (and others), have made careful and legitimate contributions to the introductory paragraph. However, it seems that both definitions fail to adequately address the other, which is crucial to a resolution. And, both sides have made several attempts to appease the other, however these attempts are usually thwarted by a disguised, but nevertheless, subjective POV (which cannot be tolerated). As I see it now, here are the major differences:

   a. User:Powo's desire to provide a more "academic" definition (a POV that Powo readily admitted) that would include such ideas as:

   • having "roots in mathematical logic, linguistics and electrical engineering."
   • finding agreement that "the concept of computation is central to computer science, and the proposition to define computer science as the study of computations is not uncommon."
   • denoting that "the term computer science is often confusingly used to denominate anything related to computers."

   b. User:Dzonatas's desire to provide a more "practical" (practitioner-oriented) definition that would include such ideas as:

   • delineating hardware, and software (including OS and data).
   • incorporating the gist of the remainder of the article.

   In my humble opinion, both POVs are legitimate for the introduction, and therefore should be included. It does no good to argue about this or that definition as a personal preference. The fact that a phrase (computer science) has this meaning in one context, which is different from another context, only means the introduction for that phrase (computer science) should be a disambiguation of meanings, even if that meaning is not covered in the remainder of the article.

   So, does the above accurately represent the POV of each side? Please respond (succinctly) below.

5. Dzontas' requests:

   a. re: personal attacks (addressed above).

   b. re: definition (addressed above), can each side broaden the definition to incorporate the other?

   c. re: roots of computer science: let's get the references in for this. Based upon my limited understanding of CS, I think that Powo is correct here, but let's get some external expertise to weigh in on the matter.

Thank you for your volunteer effort as mediator. You have obviously spent a lot of time to understand the root issue.

A quick comment for now: My "practioner-oriented" view may have a basis from the sense I do heavily regard computer science as a science; even though, we don't find the typical lab-book of physical observations lain on the desktop of a computer scientist. After I noticed an edit, like previous attempts, that moved further away from my POV, I took the suggestions so far and expounded upon the observation of the edit. I stated that I noticed previous attempts because I feel I have let go a lot of my POV to find the neutral view, which may be noted by idle actions among us. The attempted edit moved further away from my POV because it focused less on the physical aspect of CS or at least less of the characteristics that do make CS a science.

Some want to say it is a "study of computation" or that it is about the "theory of computation," but CS is knowledge and, like science, it is knowledge that evolves, and knowledge evolves. CS evolved before it was a formal study of computation and it has evolved after after any of its theory. CS itself is not a experimental science even if experiments are done to add knowledge to its science. The "study of computation" is analoguous to study dance, where one must move and dance to be dancer and one must move and compute to be a computer. Dance is an art that involves a lot of different moves, and computation requires the simple movement to the "next instruction." That kind of art does not define CS, as CS has not evolved from the orchestrated performance of an entire system to only a "dance" step in computation.

To end this comment, I question the ACM's term for "computing" as defined: "computer science and engineering." It does not state "computing" is a union of computer science and engineering or if it is exclusive or some kind of intersection. From what I've read from the ACM, they have used "computing" and "computer science" in the same context to denote different aspects, which suggests "computing" is a not a union of the two.

Dear Steven, first of all, thank you very much for you time in understanding this dispute. You accurately summarize my position in three (bullet) points above, and user user:Dzonatas's point of view in two points. Your proposition to define CS upon theses (five) points is excellent, and I agree to follow it.

Greetings, thanks for the responses from each party. I now assume that the issue is under resolution by the page's editor. I will wait a few more day before closing the case, but assume it so. Happy New Year and Good edits, SteveMc 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a new case on these issues and more. Should we fully close this and consider it partially resolved since some of the issues weren't processed and may be dealt with in the new case? — Dzonatas 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]