On 1/25/07, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are large swaths of technical topics which
are not computer-geek
technical stuff which are covered extremely poorly, if at all.
Engineering materials, for example - aluminum, steel, composite
materials, others. I went through and it seemed like doubled the
structural and aerospace materials article count 2-3 months ago, and I
haven't even gotten started properly...
Yeah, that's true actually. On a slight sidetrack, I've also started
to notice that while we have many articles about individual products
in certain categories (cameras and phones, for example), in non-geeky
fields such articles are often quickly designated "spam". This may be
fair enough, if we think about sales volume, but I'm going to pay
closer attention and see if it's actually reasonable.
Structural design concepts that anyone in an
industry knows from
school and are common professional knowledge, and still have no WP
coverage.
In IT as well...our articles on stuff like data warehousing, business
intelligence, database design etc are pretty rudimentary and not very
well organised. Even someone sitting down with a first year textbook
and getting some basic, even coverage would be a great help. As
opposed to the very evident biases (often just caused by particular
interests of contributors) causing lopsided coverage atm.
I'll try and migrate the to-do onto my userpage or some such; I agree
that it would be useful.
I'd definitely second the data warehousing, business intelligence,
database design and architecture, etc. We have the academic theory
side of some of that, and product *cough* not-marketing, but not the
"how does this work in practice" level stuff in the middle.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com