Talk:Social shaping of technology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] sst or scot
-
-
- Borrowing from the research reference of'double hermeneutics' and in particular "constructs are constructed by interactive human behaviour" (Usher R, 1996), the proces of social shaping should also be considered within the framework of 'society-to- technology' as well as 'technology -to- society'. Sadeck O, 2001 stated:“Technological literacy is about the familiarity with the natural and constructed world and the interconnectedness of the practice and processes of Technology as a human activity. The relationship between Technology, Mathematics and Science, an understanding of the central concepts and principles of a range of disciplines, and people’s own perceptions of the world, shape our understanding of Technology. Technologically literate people show an understanding, that in choosing and making Technological solutions we use analytical and judgemental skills which are shaped by an acknowledgement of risk, appropriateness and knowledge of applications.” The specific influences that technology has on society is thus central to the concept of learning the "... result of selective reinforcement of an individual's response to events (stimuli) that occur in the environmentand" (in Murphy E, 1997: Constructivism\Contructivist Learning Theory.htm).
- Social determinism is that of the conception of learning and praxis[generally accepted by some through constructivism]. Von Glasersfeld (1995) argues that: "From the constructivist perspective, learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon. It requires self-regulation and the building of conceptual structures through reflection and abstraction" (p.14). Technology , it could be argued, has in recent years been more instrumental in shaping society in many ways.
-
[Osman Sadeck March 2006]
-
-
-
- the above are not canonical issues in sst and are far closer to the critiques of scot. they also are self-promotional and non-neutral in that manner, thus i cut them, the author posted them back. I reverted the article. --Buridan 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Merge
The content of this page is covered 100% on the Technology and society page. It is irrelevant that this particular theory "is a unique theoretical tradition in sts," it is completely redundant, and per Wikipedia policy, should be merged (see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. SteveMc 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- screech, smash, bang. nope, you just don't get to unilaterally merge articles. You may have put the content there, that is fine, but the topic as a searchable topic belongs separate. it is a separate theory in a very broad section of theories and people need to find it. It cannot be merged under 'technology and society' because it is not 'technology and society'. it is a theory in an academic field that deals with technology and society. until you have consensus that a merge should happen, do not do a merge. i do not think there will be consensus to merge this.--Buridan 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Buridan,
- I am not trying to move everything into the technology and society article! I am cleaning up one article that is obviously redundant, that is all. I did state the reason, but it should be obvious: the article is redundant. Sorry to be repetitive, but how else can I say it?
- Please let me be clear on this point: "Social shaping of technology" is part of Technology and society; yes it may stand alone eventually, but right now it is completely redundant with technology and society. Until someone expands the article, it should remain "redirect"ed to technology and society.
- By the way, I am not merely expanding Technology and society as an overflow of the technology page. I understand that STS is a well developed professional undertaking, with many subtopics. Nonetheless, this page is not ready to stand on its own, so why push it?
- Thanks, SteveMc 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Buridan,
-
-
- the social shaping of technology is not redundant... it is a topic unto itself and needs its separate wiki entry. it should not be merged contentwise into a larger entry because that does not make sense to at least one person who is in the field and uses the social shaping of technology. it is not obviously redundant to me. it is obviously a different thing. --Buridan 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that the content is redundant, not the topic. And it does make sense to at least one person who is in the field and uses the social shaping of technology. SteveMc 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- the content is only redundant because you went ahead and performed the merge without discussion, which isn't the way you are supposed to do it. propose the merge, discuss the merge, then perform the merge if you get majority or consensus. I suggest deleting the material from technology and society until this matter is resolved through consensus.--Buridan 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not need permission to copy content from one page to another. The "un-merge" is left standing, the two pages remain separate. If you want to expand this page, please do it. Otherwise, (and until this page is expanded) my merge proposal stands.SteveMc 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- the content is only redundant because you went ahead and performed the merge without discussion, which isn't the way you are supposed to do it. propose the merge, discuss the merge, then perform the merge if you get majority or consensus. I suggest deleting the material from technology and society until this matter is resolved through consensus.--Buridan 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that the content is redundant, not the topic. And it does make sense to at least one person who is in the field and uses the social shaping of technology. SteveMc 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- the social shaping of technology is not redundant... it is a topic unto itself and needs its separate wiki entry. it should not be merged contentwise into a larger entry because that does not make sense to at least one person who is in the field and uses the social shaping of technology. it is not obviously redundant to me. it is obviously a different thing. --Buridan 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- no one said you needed permission, you do need to discuss a merge or at least give it time before you merge it. the proposal can stand, but you've still not provided anything argument for the merge other than you want to do it. --Buridan 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The statement, "you've still not provided any...argument for the merge other than you want to do it" is simply not true! A careful read of the foregoing reveals that I clearly stated that the articles are redundant, and that you disagree. Yes, the reason they are redundant now is because I copied the information from this page to the "tech and soc" page. The reason for that is also clearly stated above, as well, "this page is not ready to stand on its own...." The reasons are clear, they are not whimsical. Disagree if you like, but it stands as it is! SteveMc 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- the sole reason that it is redundant is because you copied the info. that is thus a null point. this page stands very well on its own, it has before your page was created and it should continue to do so, because it is an independent theoretical school associated with STS and not part of any larger technology and society null category. It is unclear to me that 'technology and society' should have a page because there does not seem to be any single referent to it in the world... it seems to me to be a construct of several things that you decided to put together. which is why I said it needs to be rethought. --Buridan 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is not worthy of any further response, I have already responded to these points, plus it is insulting, it is trolling. I did not make this up, I did not arbitrarily decide to put these things together; the references are given on the page, and many others could be given as well. Check them out then return with an un-trolled response. Even more, make a considered suggestion, edit the page to match your view, or just stop the trolling. SteveMc 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was not trolling, it was just logical argument based on the facts. you created technology and society then proceeded to request merges and to merge content into it without discussion or consideration of other editors. that is fine, it is bold, but it does not work for this article, which as i've argued above is different from your presentation of technology and society in several significant ways. because of that, it cannot be merged. the null category argument is substantive, i am sorry you take offense, but that is how i see it. there is no 'technology and society', there is just a bunch of theories and perspectives that are better covered independently. --Buridan 11:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is not worthy of any further response, I have already responded to these points, plus it is insulting, it is trolling. I did not make this up, I did not arbitrarily decide to put these things together; the references are given on the page, and many others could be given as well. Check them out then return with an un-trolled response. Even more, make a considered suggestion, edit the page to match your view, or just stop the trolling. SteveMc 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- the sole reason that it is redundant is because you copied the info. that is thus a null point. this page stands very well on its own, it has before your page was created and it should continue to do so, because it is an independent theoretical school associated with STS and not part of any larger technology and society null category. It is unclear to me that 'technology and society' should have a page because there does not seem to be any single referent to it in the world... it seems to me to be a construct of several things that you decided to put together. which is why I said it needs to be rethought. --Buridan 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The statement, "you've still not provided any...argument for the merge other than you want to do it" is simply not true! A careful read of the foregoing reveals that I clearly stated that the articles are redundant, and that you disagree. Yes, the reason they are redundant now is because I copied the information from this page to the "tech and soc" page. The reason for that is also clearly stated above, as well, "this page is not ready to stand on its own...." The reasons are clear, they are not whimsical. Disagree if you like, but it stands as it is! SteveMc 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- no one said you needed permission, you do need to discuss a merge or at least give it time before you merge it. the proposal can stand, but you've still not provided anything argument for the merge other than you want to do it. --Buridan 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
