Talk:Computer literacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems just a little bit POV - "Computer literacy is just as important as literacy, the ability to read and write" is particularly notable. teucer 02:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, teucer. I have added the {{pov check}} template to the page. Maxistheman 1 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

I agree. There were a whole lot more POV´s. I removed the wrong POV and replaced it with my own.Zanaq 4 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

[edit] 1st world?

i dont see the relevance of 1st world in this subject or how computer literacy is more necesary in a 1st world vs 2nd or 3rd world. i cant speak for other countries, but i know first hand that americans are not very computer literate when compared to supposed 2nd and 3rd world countries like china or india.

[edit] Verifiability: lack of citations

This article deserves a bit more more work! I've added links to ECDL and Literacy to get a few more people noticing the problem. --Mereda 09:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levels of computer literacy

Perhaps this article should deal more with basic computer literacy (like how to perform a web search or create a document; note that I mean these to be criteria rather than someone needing to write a guide to that;)) rather than saying that to be computer literate, you must know what an algorithm is, and why computers can't create random numbers. Those are just 2 examples, and neither of them is necessary to be able to use a computer effectively to perform a task that might be required at a job which isn't computer-centric.

To me, this article seems like an attack on computer newbies (particularly the Aspects of Computer Literacy section). A user does not need to know everything there is to know to operate a computer, just like a car owner does not need to know how to change his brakes. Just something future editors should keep in mind...

24.68.65.244 06:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that the article should deal with the basics. Maybe if the introduction described literacy in general and then went to "functional literacy". That is an easy split made in many other forms of literacy discussions. Define the general and the basic form. The previous example of a car is a very good example of functional literacy. The term literacy seems to bend towards the "functional" variety, not the "knowledgable" variety that we tend to think of. This article is in the right direction I believe. Again, the idea of the car given previously is (I think) the perfect essence of (functional) literacy. Any article dealing with literacy should lead in that direction (even reading). Otherwise it quickly becomes way too open ended very fast. Syscore 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can be skilled driver without knowing anything about how to maintain nor build a car. (Note that the things listed under aspects of literacy mention nothing about building or fixing a computer.) However, there aren't a significant number of drivers who don't understand the basic laws of physics (even if they can't name them). There are a significant number of computer users who don't understand the basic laws of computing. It is good to know the limitations of the machine you are operating. Therefore, IMHO, limiting the discussion to just functional literacty is to constraining.

Also, it is worth mentioning, that in the case of the computer, every application will have it's own grocery list of things they consider functional literacy. For example, the list of media literacy topics. So, if you are to go that route, the list of literacy attributes is an ever growing list.

Don't let your own ignorances limit this discussion 206.148.164.240 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)