Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome at this archive of talk pages of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. This pages stores closed discussion, so pleace don't edit here. These discussion will be stored thematical and historical. For questions en remarks, contact Mdd.

Contents

The technical meaning of "system": a Suggestion

I arrived here because I'd like to make sure that the technical meaning of "system" in physics is represented in system, but I didn't want to tread on your toes as this article is obviously central to your wikiproject.

I would strongly emphasise the point above that the word system has multiple meanings; I am sure you don't want this project to discuss all of them. For instance, natural systems (solar system e.g.) do not have "objectives", although this is required by the definition in system. In physics "system" simply means the part of the universe currently under study: we make a notional cut between "system" and "environment" (i.e. the rest of the universe); a system is whatever we want to focus on at the time. It's parts don't even have to interact, although usually they would. Therefore, just about anything can be a physical system.

You people clearly have a much more restricted definition of system in mind, but it's not clear to me from the project description or the talk page what it is. Maybe the one current in systems theory? (I know nothing about that). If you incorporated an appropriate qualification in your category name you might get it re-instated and prevent it accumulating junk from people who understand system in a different sense. Meanwhile, I'm happy to create a disambiguation page for system with a link to system (physics) and one to your current article... but I don't know what to put in the bracket for you! Alternatively I can add a section to the existing article, but this would require a less specific lead paragraph. PaddyLeahy 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would want to keep a wide definition. I think the related descriptions in physical system and conceptual system are good — and simple:
a "system" is taken to mean "an interrelated, interworking set of objects"
This applies to physical and conceptual systems — it is just that the "objects" are different. — Jonathan Bowen 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, since there is a physical system page already, I'll work with that; but the definition given there doesn't reflect the free choice of the investigator to draw the system/environment cut wherever she likes (& also insists on the "inter<option>" bit which is not required in physics usage.) PaddyLeahy 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Paddy for bringing this to our attention. You say you know little about the systems theory, and that: in physics "system" simply means the part of the universe currently under study: we make a notional cut between "system" and "environment"..
What you hereby describe is in fact the systems approach in short... This procedure has become so normal in Science nowadays, that you don't associate it anymore with general systems theory movement, where this approach was (further) developed. About the exact origin I'm not so sure.
You think we have a restricted definition of system in mind, which isn't written in the project description. That's a good point. It maybe seems like it... but the point is that we or I want to keep an open mind towards what a system is. Who strange it may seem, but systems scientists have never accepted on restricted definition.
If you still feel you need an article about System (physics), you might also take a look at the article system (thermodynamics). Good luck - Mdd 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mdd. I have just done an edit on physical system which pushes it towards system (thermodynamics). You might feel that there is sufficient difference between a physical system and a system in physics that my edit should be reverted... in any case I'm quite skeptical about the discussion of system complexity in physical system. Meanwhile I went through the exercise of hitting a bunch of random articles. It seems to me that about 80-90% of articles on wikipedia describe systems in the most general sense (e.g. people are physical systems; organizations are social systems, works of art are conceptual systems etc), the obvious exceptions being lists. I guess this puts me with those who find "systems" in general a category to big to be useful. PaddyLeahy 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank for this feedback. You talking about different point, which I will take one a the time:
  • Your new opening of the article physical systems doesn't seem to be an improvement but more an other angle to look at it. The article before your change it , gave a more formal definition of what a physical system is. This kind of formal definition you find in for example Adaptive system, Closed system, Ecosystem and Economic system...
  • The opening you offered comes from a more empirical approach, because it tells more about how to picture the object in analysis...
  • I personaly like an article with a formal start, and more emprical notes in the first paragraph...
  • The text about system complexity seems rather questionable, indeed. It's hard for me to say more. This you can change yourselve or make contact with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.
  • About all the things called systems. We talked about it here above, see [1]. I think that this point should be made more clear in a System (disambiguation) article.
And last but not least. I doesn't strike me as someone who puts up with all those, who just assume, but as someone, who wants to find out for yourselve... Good luck - Mdd 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comment: PaddyLeahy proceded his discusion at the WikiProject Systems, see [2]


The article System (disambiguation)

The creation of such an article I talked about before, but I would like to discust this first. - Mdd 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I seems in the mean time this article is started by User:Stevertigo on 3 May 2007. I added the international links, and a link to the stub-article systems. I think there are more possibities with this article. See for example the German article de:System (Begriffsklärung). - Mdd 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


The article Physical system

Earlier discussion here, see [3] brought up the idea, that improvements could be made to this article. A talk about this started at the WikiProject Physics, see [4].

Without interfering them to much, we can further develope our own idea's about this right here? - Mdd 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


The article systems engineering

This discussion started here. The first two comments are a copy from that talk.

Towards the project maybe we can start by exchaning some ideas about the path and content to go on. I'm wondering a few things. Do you have a particulair example article in the Wikipedia, of how you would like the systems engineering article to become? And are you also a member of INCOSE? ... - Mdd 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


... In answer to your specific questions:
  1. I have no particular example article in mind. Most of the Wikipedia articles that I've looked at which cover professions seem to be poorly structured and rife with uncited opinion. The Science and Mathematics articles are probably about the best I've seen, and even they are somewhat flawed.
  2. I was a member of INCOSE for a number of years, but let my membership lapse about a year ago.
Regarding specific ideas for how to develop the systems engineering article, here are a few:
  1. One thing that I'm keen on doing is incorporating some information from Hitchins' writings. Unlike many writers of system engineering textbooks, Hitchins tends to be good about placing the ideas he presents within a historical context, and relating them to other developments in the systems field.
  2. In a similar vein, I feel that the systems engineering article should do more to establish the context of systems engineering relative to things like systems thinking and general systems theory. Some of that context-setting could probably take place in an expanded history section.
  3. The "Successes and failures" section can probably be condensed, and moved into the history section.
  4. The article (like INCOSE) seems to focus mostly on "big" systems engineering for government and military projects. It ignores interesting applications of SE concepts in areas like enterprise design, or earth-systems engineering. It also ignores systems engineering "in the small" - for example the systems engineering of a consumer electronic device.
  5. Some discussion of the tools and practices used by systems engineers might help readers gain a more concrete understanding of what it is that systems engineers do. I'm thinking here of things like functional flow block diagrams, state diagrams, interface diagrams, N2 charts, dynamic system simulations, etc.
Do you have any thoughts on these suggestions? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I would like to get this discussion on a more conceptual level, not thinking solutions, content to add or content to change, but fundamentals of an article, problems with the current state of the article and ideals to work for. Here are some of my first thoughts about this:

  1. Fundamentals are the target group(s) of the article. I think this should be from highschool students to experts. The Science- and Mathematics- article doesn't seem to address beginners?
  2. The picture of sytems engineering: it's boundaries, it's parts, it's relation and overlap with other field..., it's representatives. This picture can be put in a template or not?
  3. Establish the context of systems engineering relative to things like systems thinking and general systems theory... is a good concept. The concept general systems theory is hardly mentioned yet in the Wikipedia. More of this missing anchors should be identified.
  4. Such a missing anchors is a clear article about systems...
  5. There is a last thing I want to mention, that is the point of view to look at systems engineering. SE can be seen as a combination of tools, as a combination of sciences, or a combination of professions... depending on the way you look at it. A global encyclopedic article should combine those views. The current article has that, and that's something we should loose.

So these are the more conceptual suggestions I have. - Mdd 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the SE article should serve several, interlocking purposes:
  1. A terminal (or leaf-node) article for someone exploring the notion of systems within Wikipedia.
  2. A stand-alone article describing systems engineering, for someone looking simply to understand what SE is.
  3. A starting point (or root-node) article for someone interested in exploring more detailed information about specific aspects of systems engineering.
The first purpose implies a need for back-links up to more general articles (e.g. systems, systems thinking, etc.) and cross-links to related disciplines operating at a similar conceptual level (e.g. architecture, systems architecting(?), systems biology, software engineering(?) etc.). It also implies a need for (brief) discussions of the relationships between systems engineering and the topics of these other articles. These discussions could certainly be pitched at the level of a high school student.
The second purpose implies a need for a (relatively) self-contained description of the purpose, goals, past history, and current state of practice in systems engineering. The first three of these should be completely accessible to high-school students. The fourth element may only be partially accessible to high-school students, since it may get into detail that is relevant only to experts - although much of that kind of detail should probably be deferred to subsidiary articles. See next point...)
The third purpose implies a need for an overview of the various more-detailed subjects that are associated with SE, with pointers to more detailed articles. I'm thinking here of pointers to specifics such as Sysml, Dependency Structure Matrix, or functional requirements. It also suggests some kind of "further reading" list, and a few external links to other resources on systems engineering.
Have I missed a purpose? (Probably - hopefully someone else will point it out). Are there any obvious article "architectures" which arise from the points above? Several?
Note that to really address the first and third purposes it will probably be necessary to reach beyond the boundary of the SE article itself, and make edits to the "surrounding" articles such that they mesh with the evolving SE article.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Some random thoughts

If I may, I'd like to chip in with some thoughts on this article and how it might be improved. I've been a systems engineer for several years and a member of INCOSE.

  • Use the term systems engineering consistently. The s on system is very important.
  • The article could use some top-down structuring. In its current form, it kind of wanders around, and it's difficult to figure out what point it's really trying to make. I'm not suggesting a complete rewrite ... a restructuring of existing sub-articles should do the trick. Following a systems engineering approach should help:
    • identify the article's purpose (requirements analysis)
    • determine a structure (architecture design)
    • fill in the structure (detail design and implementation)
    • benchmark the results (validation and verification)
  • Use simpler language. Keep the sentences short. Reduce the number of dependent clauses (commas). And use simpler words. I have difficulty understanding some of the sections. Example: is the word dénouement (which I had to look up in a dictionary) appropriate in this context? The article should make it easy for the average person to understand what systems engineering is all about. For too long, the SE field has been somewhat elitist, and that is changing. This article should reflect that.
  • Make sure the facts are correct. The initial paragraph in the Overview section says that SE does not build tangible products, which could not be further from the truth. It is systems engineering that produces aircraft, color copiers, vending machines, etc. and these are all tangible. Yes, SE uses theory and abstract processes, but the result is always something tangible. It wouldn't be engineering if it didn't.
  • State more facts, not opinions. Avoid words like spectacularly successful, and make sure each statement can be backed up by a reputable source.
  • There is an abnormally high amount of discussion on closely related fields that perhaps could be reduced, or maybe the details moved to separate articles. This article is about Systems Engineering, yet SE seems to play a minor role compared to the others.

Overall, this is an interesting article on systems engineering, which is a topic close to my heart. I would love to see it improved, and will do what I can to assist in that endeavor. Truthanado 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To that list I would add:
  • Provide citations. Ideally inline citations using ref tags.
  • Where opinion is included (as it must be, since e.g. there is no "one true SE" that everyone agrees on), cite the opinions of specific, named, notable individuals.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Some more expert opinions

Before we proceed, I propose we take some time, say a week, to gather some more different perspectives and expert opinions on systems engineering and the current article. So I like to invite expert here to give their perceptions on this situation. - Mdd 09:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Home robots

We would improve section within home robots, relating the smart environment in home robotics (communications between robots in a domotic network, for coordinate action). --HybridBoy 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can be of any assistent, please be more specific in what you expect us to do for you. - Mdd 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


The article Physical system

Earlier discussion here, see [5] brought up the idea, that improvements could be made to this article. A talk about this started at the WikiProject Physics, see [6]. Without interfering them to much, we can further ty to develope some own idea's about this right here? - Mdd 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk at the WikiProject Physics is now archived, see [7] - Mdd 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Anarchism and Spontanious order

I don't mean to start an argument here, but since anarchism is in the scope of this project I will utter my question here. Does the template of anarchism belong on the page Spontaneous_order(along with the template of libertarianism)? I believe it does, since it is a key principe to libertarianism and anarchism. I have discussed this on the Talk page of the article but seem to be denied. It is suggested there that spontanious order is only a key principe to anarcho-capitatism. Could somebody with knowledge on this topic (preferably on both anarchism and libertarianism) supply some key references please? Also Proudhon one of the key thinkers of spontanious order is a self proclaimed anarchist. Please see the Talk:Spontaneous_order for the entire discussion. Teardrop onthefire 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Systems theory reference

The first part of the explanation of the Systems Theory were it says "systems theory as a technical and general academic area of study predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST), among others" the source reference would be:

  • Mark Davidson, UNCOMMON SENSE – The life and thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Father of General Systems Theory, J. P. Tarcher, 247p, 1983.

For a short but good review of this book, please refer to the author of the review is Peter Engel, source: Sciences; Mar/Apr84, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p60, 1/3p - Bdiner 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied this talk item to the Talk:Systems theory, and responded over there - Mdd 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Human systems Integration

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Human systems Integration, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this warning. I hope the next time it will come a bit earlier, because when I read this tonight the article is allready deleted and little can be done. - Mdd 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Info on Bandung Fe Institute

I had deleted a link on the Santa Fe entry to the Bandung Fe Institute (BFI) in Indonesia. Everyone should be made aware that this institution not a true institution in the usual sense, but is run by some amateur college drop outs. It lacks any credibility; one may verify this fact simply by visiting their website and reading any of their so-called "papers". An entry for Bandung Fe Institute was recently deleted from WP due to a Notability issue which I had raised in the former Talkpage there. A blog entry which discusses the Bandung Fe Institute as academic hacks can be found here.Erik incognito 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have copied this info to the Talk:Santa Fe Institute. Better to discust such things on the article talk page itselve. Good luck - Mdd 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spontanious order

The article Spontaneous_order has been tagged as in need of attention, and it is considered an important article. In the past there was a template on it making it a part of the libertarian series. Spontaneous order was indeed partly concieved by an libertarian, Friedrich Hayek. But also by an anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Also as stated in one of his interviews that can be found on the wikipage of Proudhon. Another famous quote was his "dialogue with a Philistine" in What is Property?:

So I added the anarchist template making it both a part of the libertarion series and of the anarchism series. The word, "Spontaneous order" is even in the template of anarchism under Theory and practice.

But every time I am denied, and the template is not permitted on the page. After this the libertarian template was also removed, making this article "serieless". Now I saw an anonymous user also trying to add the template but this ws quickly removed. I am getting demotivated since I feel I am talking to a wall here see my pleads on Talk:Spontaneous_order. According to me both templates belong on the article. Does anybody have the courage to meddle in the pickle? Teardrop onthefire 09:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've taken a look at the article again and realized that a libertarian or anarchism template can be experience as disturbing. Lot's of the articles we are working on are about fundamental concept, which can be applied in many sciences. If you tag it with one "applied" template, you force the article into a corner, were I personly wouldn't like it. It seems to me however that there is an easy workable solution: Put the article in multiple categories. Good luck - Mdd 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-organization -- origin of the concept

I have started a discussion on the origin of the concept of self-organization across the disciplines that use the concept. If others would weigh in with any high-level information about when the concept became explicit within your particular discipline or area of expertise, that would help us immensely. Thanks. N2e 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Scriptnetics

Scriptnetics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptnetics (2007-10-02 – 2007-10-07) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, I nominated this article - Mdd 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Fibernetics

Fibernetics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibernetics (2007-10-02 – 2007-10-07) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, I nominated this article - Mdd 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Control systems design using algeraic technique

I would like to add an article about designing controllers using algebraic methods as described in: Chen, Chi-Tsong 1999. Linear System Theory and Design, 3rd. ed., Oxford University Press. But I do not no how to start a new article. Would any body help me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qu control (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is choose a title. For example:
  • ... Control systems design, or
  • ... Control systems design using algebraic technique
Now here you have a red link. If you click on one then the editor tells you this item doesn't exist yet, and asks if you want to start this article. Click yes and you can start. Good luck - Mdd 12:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Blind Variation and Selective Retention

Blind Variation and Selective Retention (via WP:PROD)

(also listed in Category:Systems articles needing attention)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article Systems engineering

This discussion has been moved to the new WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative talkpage. On those pages all discussion around System Engineering are brough together. - Mdd 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of systems engineering books

A List of systems engineering books is being developed to get an overview of the more important books written on systems engineering, and it's historical development. If you have any information or other notable lists, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? - Mdd 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of systems engineering at universities

A List of systems engineering at universities is beeing developed to get a better impression of the State of the Art in SE education. If you have any information, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? -Mdd 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-organization vs. entropy needs attention

In the article Self-organization, the short section Self-organization vs. entropy is currently tagged with "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed" and "The quality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words", as well as multiple "citation needed" tags. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Ilya Prigogine needs expansion

Ilya Prigogine is still basically a stub. Can anyone add to this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some improvements. - Mdd (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Output budgeting

Copied from User talk:Mdd

You know about this sort of thing more than, I could you take a look at the talk page for the article, which someone tried to speedy-delete,--and, inexpert though I may be, I find it really hard to believe WP doesnt have an article on PPBS. DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


List of Systems Biology Research Groups moved

The former "List of Systems Biology Research Groups" is moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Biology Research Groups. Anybody can still add there information over there. -- Mdd (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)