User talk:Mbeychok/Archived survey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Problem

You appear to have equated "members in a category" with members which are. I'm not only sure that there are many, many other members not in this category who are qualified engineers, but that it requires a particular kind of user, with particular preferences, to use such self-categorisation.

I don't think it is bad to apply these categories to yourself, but I have not sought to do so. There is no Category:Neuroscience Wikipedians but I know there to be dozens of them.

Of course, this doesn't detract from your starting point: articles about Engineering on Wikipedia tend to not be good. Sadly, I don't have the solution. --Oldak Quill 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OldakQuill: You are correct in that there may well be other qualified engineering Wikipedians ... but I had no way to find them if they didn't list themselves as such. None-the-less, as it turned out, only 7 of the 54 who did list themselves actually had more than 5 years of experience since obtaining their degrees. I am no statistician and my little survey probably isn't totally representative, but it strongly indicates to me that we have an serious lack of experienced engineers in Wikipedia. - mbeychok 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an electronics engineer with five years experience. Although I carefully selected far too many userboxes on my user page, including Template:User_electronic_engineer, I am not listed in Category:Engineer_Wikipedians. There are more than 20 users that have that userbox on their user page. Maybe we engineers just don't use categories as much? I've not found engineering articles to be particularly sub-standard, do you have some prime examples? But, maybe we need a working group for them. Perhaps an engineering collaboration of the week drive? I'd certainly support it.--verbatim 13:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an electronics engineer with six years of experience, an have recently completed a master's degree in EE. I did not really see the need to add too many userboxes to my user page. Perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, I support User:Talkie tim's collaboration suggestion. Count me in! --Zvika 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talkie Tim and Zvika: Thanks for your interest and your responses. Before embarking on any collaboration drive, I think it only fair that you should know what my thoughts are about the lack of experienced professionals. I think most of the problem involves some of the administrators who need a re-education concerning their role. I invite you to read my comments at User talk:Quiddity#I am asking for guidance, and especially my response starting with "Quddity, thanks for your response ... ". When you have read my comments, let me know what you think and we will know whether we are even in the same ballpark. - mbeychok 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, following Mbeychok's little survey, I am not sure what we really need is a COTW. Personally, I am only able to contribute a few hours a week to Wikipedia. A COTW would probably encourage large number of people to contribute a few hours each, which might result in many inaccurate articles written by well-meaning but ill-informed contributors. Perhaps it would be better to start some engineering-related WikiProjects, which might encourage a smaller number of experienced people to invest an ongoing effort in engineering articles. There are a few such projects already (see Portal:Engineering), but there is room for many more. I think there is a need for a WikiProject Electrical Engineering, for example; WikiProject Electronics is highly focused on electronic devices, while I am more interested in signal processing and information theory. --Zvika 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to Zvika's comments above, the assumption being made is that engineers want to write about engineering in their spare time. I'm an electronics/computer systems engineer 18 years work experience but don't necessarily want to spend my spare time writing about work. Enthusiastic contributers can contribute, as long as they use references (and by this I mean books and journals, not just google etc). My interest is Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan but I will add myself to the Engineer Category. If done properly writing for Wikipedia is hard and requires a lot of enthusiasm and research. Softgrow 12:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand not wishing to spend spare time writing about work. But I disagree that "Enthusiastic contributers can contribute, as long as they use references (and by this I mean books and journals, not just google etc)". It is my opinion, that no matter how enthusiastic or bright, unless one has actual real-world experience in a technical field, he or she would not know the correct books, journals, or other sources to use ... nor would he or she know what is important to include and what is not important to include. There must be some way to entice experienced engineers into becoming Wikipedians ... although I admit that I have no suggestions to offer in the respect. - mbeychok 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I had in my userboxen ((user Engineer)), and did not get listed in Category:Engineer. I've added ((user engineer)), and still don't get listed in Category:Engineer. (edited to prevent userboxes from showing) Argyriou 01:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Argyriou: Here is how to get your name listed in Category:Engineer Wikipedians:

• Go to your user page and click on the discussion tab at the top of the page
• Then click on edit this page at the top of the discussion page
• Enter this: [[Category:Engineer Wikipedians|Argyriou]] on the bottom of the edit page ... not in your userboxen.
• Return to your user page. At the bottom, where the categories are usually listed, you should see [[Category:Engineer Wikipedians|Argyriou]]. Click on it and you will be taken to that category where you will then see your user name listed.

mbeychok 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experienced engineers

The "experienced engineer" subset should not be judged on longevity alone. While it may be a good general guideline, I have known engineers with two years "on the job" that had more on the ball than some with 20 years experience. I'm sure you know of similar cases. A P.E. license provides some assurance in fields that use it, but then many fields do not have professional registration. That said, Wikipedia naturally attracts the younger people who are most comfortable with the software world. But there is only one generation still active that would rather put pen (or typewriter) to paper than to learn another information paradigm. Before long everyone will be internet savvy. Then we will have to mine the books for older perspective (but by then they will hopefully all be online). --Blainster 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blainster, thanks for your comments. For your information, I am 83 years old and have been using computers for over 25 years. My first desktop computer (by Hewlett Packard) preceded the Apple, the IBM PC, the Atari and the Radio Shack. The only "operating system" it had was Rocky Mountain Basic built into the computer ROM with only a few hooks where users could get in to write their own programs. DOS hadn't yet been developed by Bill Gates. My first word processor was one I wrote myself for that computer because there was no software available. I tell you all that history just to let you know that I am not one who "would rather put pen (or typewriter) to paper than to learn another information paradigm."

Take a look at my User:mbeychok page. I spent over 50 years designing refineries, natural gas plants, petrochemical plants and power plants worldwide and, in my position as an engineering manager with a very large engineering/construction company, I interviewed and/or hired quite literally hundreds of young graduate engineers. I firmly stand by my statement that it takes 5 years of real world experience to make an engineer. It is very rare indeed to find any exceptions to that statement.

I agree with you that Wikipedia attracts younger people. That is all too evident. I don't hold that against them ... I just wish that they would stop writing or editing the substantive content of technical articles about subjects in which they have no true experience or expertise. They are very welcome to edit the style or to "Wikify" technical articles, but don't change the substantive content unless they are 300 percent sure of what they are doing. - mbeychok 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment on the older generation was meant as no slight to you, and I apologize if it seemed so. It was meant as a comment on the workforce in general.

I do agree that five years is a good rule of thumb for engineer training. That is probably why most PE programs use it. I also agree that new engineer graduates need lots of training because of the failure of universities to provide adequate internship programs partnering with industry. But five years is an average, and the world, I hope you would agree, is not well modeled by averages. Among the many engineers you mentioned, I suspect you can think of a substantial minority (15–20%?) who were bright enough to be up to speed in a couple of years.

I saw from one of your publications that you worked with EPRI. I was very impressed with their research during the late 70s and early 80s when I worked in power plants. I might have gone to work for them if I had not been sidetracked into computers. --Blainster 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What's really disappointing is the number articles that don't even need an experienced engineer to work on them to make them mostly not hideous. I've encountered a couple of civil articles, transportation mostly, on very basic concepts where just paraphrasing a textbook or spending five minutes with the HCM, Green Book, or MUTCD made a world of difference. Same thing hits environmental engineering, I've noticed. The Literate Engineer 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)