User talk:Dzonatas/Ethics and MediaWiki

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I discovered that the ACM has a Code of Ethics for Software Engineers.

It's mostly about professional standards that would apply to almost any profession, but one section of their code relates to the software product itself...

Section 3 (of 8) reads as follows:

Moulton 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent inclusion. I would also note this clause:
"The Code is not simply for adjudicating the nature of questionable acts; it also has an important educational function. As this Code expresses the consensus of the profession on ethical issues, it is a means to educate both the public and aspiring professionals about the ethical obligations of all software engineers."
Dzonatas 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused paragraph[edit source]

This paragraph is in need of rewriting. WAS 4.250 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to paragraph above before I edited the resource page. I'll move it in if no objection. Dzonatas 08:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. WAS 4.250 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the pronoun "you" be replaced by a nominative such as "the software developer"? The phrase "the engineer's restart in the ..." doesn't sound right. Should that be "engineers" (plural) rather than "engineer's" (possessive)? —Moulton 20:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it to "engineers" on the resource page. As for the usage of "you," it is the reader, the sysop, or the aspiring sysop (the one taking the course, see Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Project_Timetable#2009). I thought about a section to describe roles, but that step may be too soon if it is really needed. Dzonatas 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what those two paragraphs are supposed to be saying but let me try to rewrite them so the sentences at least parse into something grammatical with meaningful semantics...

I dunno if that's what you want those two paragraphs to say, but at least the above demonstrates something that I would understand.

Moulton 02:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you swapped "software developer" out and replaced it with "operators" (or "system operators") in the first paragraph, then you will be closer to the intended perspective. Dzonatas 03:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fine. Go ahead and plug in whichever project roles belong in each instance, so that the cast of characters is properly sorted out. Then let's see if the semantics still make sense. —Moulton 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your feedback there, I can see how the concepts of the semantic web confuse the perspective. The semantic web is only of historical concern, as it has not been practical in whole. Engineers now use concepts of highly distributed models. I'm sure, given time, more details can be added here that will help understand this resource more. Dzonatas 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think I see where you are going with this. It appears it just needs to be fleshed out more. And by the looks of the red linked subsub-pages, it appears you are going to do just that. So keep up the good work! WAS 4.250 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]