Talk:Data
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It look difficult for me to understand A datum is a statement accepted at face value..
What do think about definition and explanations like this:
Data is ~evidence (or some another term) on the input of information system. Data is subject of data processing by information system. Data could contain usefull information and could not.
I think, it is good, when a definition uses other wikipedia terms. Not just plain English. Kenny sh 08:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hello. There are a couple of serious problems with the above definition. The main problem is that it says data has to do with "information systems", "data processing", and "information". Either it's assumed these terms have to do with computers, in which case this definition is much too narrow, or not, in which case it's needlessly vague. A secondary problem is that the definition can't be understood without looking up some other terms. The existing definition, which uses only ordinary English words, is terse, comprehensible, and yet quite general. The proposed new definition does not have these merits. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
A separate page for datum is needed. In geology/cartography/geography and surveying a datum is a reference surface. For instance, sea-level is often used as a datum below which depths (or above which heights) are measured.
Hello COMPATT, to address your comments about the distinction between data and information -- I agree that programs are a form of data, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the word "data" has a history of usage that goes back much farther than computer science. The distinction between data and information, which is made in the article, is that information is derived from an interpretation of data. Some data don't have any obvious interpretation, and so we might noodle over ancient inscriptions for a long time, but some other data have such an immediate interpretation, especially in a given cultural context, that the interpretation is held to be the same as the data -- for example if I look at a photograph, I might immediately see "a dog" instead of "a pattern of silver particles which suggests a dog". I think the interpretation aspect, and its dependence on context, might be emphasized in the article. Well, I've rambled on long enough! Have a great day, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello, as a comment on the edit that I just made. I put a new, short intro paragraph at the beginning, to hopefully get straight to the point. (The article was noodling around in etymology a little too much before getting to the punch line. Hopefully that's corrected now.) As the term "data" is rather general, I've attempted to give a general definition, and then immediately describe one of the most-used types of data (measurements & observations). I'm hoping that there is a right level of generality now. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
- I inserted most general and shortest functional definition of data (see function definition)
- about
[edit] Meaning of data and information
I changed it. In my opinion: - too much information noise (uncertainty of the author (?)) in this paragraph.
- As it is, the phone number is not actionable - you know it is a phone number, but it is of no use. This information becomes knowledge when you can act on this information, either to solve a problem (for example, to call Helen, whose phone number it is), or to gain insight into an issue (e.g. by noting that other phone numbers have the same exchange). People or computers can find patterns in and between data to perceive relationships between information, creating or enhancing knowledge. Since knowledge is prerequisite to wisdom, we always want more data and information. But, as modern societies verge on information overload, we especially need better ways to find patterns.
This in not about data, it is not necessary digresion – I removed.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge about DIKW.
I do not find (on the Web) any articles which confirm the interpretation of the DIKW model which were suggested.
--Adam M. Gadomski 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Adam, please read again Wikipedia:No original research. You are linking extensively to your own research. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. Also see Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles. You seem to write in a heavy duty academic prose style, which isn't really used here. Some of what you write might have been OK but I can't tell it apart. Sbwoodside 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Simon, your reply is a meta-response. Is it a style of "Space-invaders"? You copy the original research with not proper references - is it correct???
You (and only you) inserted DIKW in Wikipedia in a few articles.
Why do you do it?
- I see that your self-promotion on the Web is perfect, my congratulations, but I would like to see your sc.publications too - maybe this information could clear my doubts why "you are linking extensively" to and "update" this subject.
--Adam M. Gadomski 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Data WAS the plural of datum
The first line of this article needs to change. Datum WAS the plural of datum, but no one uses it this way. In fact, in surveying, datum and data are too completely different words. Datum is a coordinate system for locating a point on the earth, while surveyors use data to mean what everyone else does. The plural of survey datum is datums, since data has a completely different meaning.
English does not follow the rules of a dead language that it happened to borrow a word from. See the back-formation article for numerous examples. You'll note that no one ever complains that "asset" is incorrect usage.
- Well, Datum has its own article, but I guess you're right that for this article probably the first line could be rewritten because in this context I think most people just talk about data and rarely use "datum" (not enough to justify the first sentence position). The first sentence / intro should summarize the article :-) Sbwoodside 19:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, lots of people have been talking about changing the intro, why not be bold? WP:BOLD Sbwoodside 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccurate pronunciations
Pronounced "Day-Ta" (US) and "Dar-Tar" (AU & UK*)
Living in the UK, I've only ever heard it pronounced as the former, "Day-ta"; only from Americans have I heard the latter, "Dar-Tar".
