Talk:Robot/Archive 10

Hidden sentence containing Robotics Institute of America

Hi all

I have hidden this sentence until discussion leads to a conclusion about its usage

My concern is that this sentence is attributed to the "Robotics Institute of America". I can find no such thing. Any searches simply lead back to a multitude of references which use the quote. Nowhere can I find the published material that is quoted itself, nor can I find the RIofA anywhere.

I am assuming that this is in fact the Robotics Insitute at Carnegie Mellon [1]

The Robotics Institute of America defines a robot as a "re-programmable multi-functional manipulator designed to move materials, parts, tools, or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks."<ref name="Lee 2005">{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=JDOfVxRC8x8C&pg=PA513&lpg=PA513|title=Axiomatic Design and Fabrication of Composite Structures|first=Dai Gil|last=Lee|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195178777|year=2005|accessdate=2007-10-22}}</ref>

There is also the possibility that this definition is from the RIA [2] - although this too may be from the original 1979 RIofA definition

industrial robot (noun) 1. an automatically controlled, reprogrammable multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications

Does anyone else feel that this is a dodgy quote ?
CAn someone find the RIofA ?
Can anyone find the original material ?

Until this is answered I suggest leavng any references to it out of the article

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article closely, but there was a disagreement when (I think) a sentence was added to the lead promoting the concept of a software robot (e.g. as in WP:Bots) – some discussion is above. Possibly all these waffly definitions are an attempt to state the obvious: this article is about robotic machines. The reference for the removed text (this) goes to a Google image of a page from a book which verifies what was in the article (including the "Robotics Institute of America"). I don't have a suggestion for how to fix the section because whereas I would be happy to write a definition (I would focus on a machine performing a task, with feedback from sensors to control the operation), but as you point out above, that would be WP:OR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 15 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please delete the following sentence: Haptic interfaces are also used in robot-aided rehabilitation. - statement is unreferenced, and Robot-aided rehabilitation page has been deleted. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Western fears robot development?

Taken from the article, I guess this is a generalization and should be deleted. "The general view in Asian cultures is that the more robots advance, the better, which is the opposite of the Western belief." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.170.88 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Macaldo (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rearranged sections and some material

Hi all

As part of a drive to clean up the Robotics Project articles I have tried to arrange the article into a more sensible order

• Etymology of the word
• History of robots
• definitions
• robots in use
• future developments
• social impact (inc. problems)
• timeline
• literature

The literature section could perhaps be included further up but I think that it is more a section similar to "in popular media" rather being to do with the history section - which already has most of the detail necessary about the origins of the word from the play and the uses by asimov and the three laws and so would only server to repeat this and clutter the start with indirectly related material/

There are still some problems needing sorting out such as more definitions which may be necessary but for now I think it is at a reasonable state of structure.

Anyone who would like to edit this and is interested in robotics is free to join the project - the more the merrier :¬)

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I will make a few edits as well. I feel that some of the previous structure and content should be included. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit bizzare to just adopt a "hey lets all move stuff around and back again" policy lol

The reasons for moving the social impact section was that the social impact would come after the history definitions and uses. That way the reader could read about the robots and so better understand the social impact rather than read the impact first.

Would you mind explaining your criteria for reverting the move of that section ?

I would have expected a bit of discussion rather than you just deciding to revert the order. It's not like you aren't an experienced editor and this was done as part of an initiative to get robotics project articles in shape ready for asessments - it is perhaps the main article of the Robotics project alongside Robotics 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. thanks for your reply. However, i feel that the history section is only tangentially and obliquely related to the description of modern robots. I feel it is better to put some of the conceptual issues towards the front of the entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also understand what you are saying but the article is not modern robots - it is robots. That would include all robots from the first conceptions and implementations surely ?

If I can take examples I would start with "A Country". Those articles tend to be written in the format of:

Etymology, History, Governance, Economy, Demographics, Education, Sports

and ones such as Literature:

Definitions, (History, Poetry, Prose, Essays, Other prose literature, Drama), Oral literature, Other narrative forms, Genres of literature, Literary techniques, Literary criticism, Legal status, Honors and awards

also Biology : Car : Aircraft : Skyscraper : Wheel :

My point here is that the history of a wide ranging subject is almost always included at the begining, then definitions and social stuff at the end These do not seem to have a "social effect" section, which I thought the wheel and the aircraft surely would ! lol Maybe the social impact is worked into their sectioms a different way... Hmm thats got me confused - SURELY the aircraft had a social impact ??? Flying to Benidorm instead of going to cornwall, getting on concorde at 10AM and arriving in New York at 8:30 AM etc (Ah I see Concode does indeed have an impact section but it is near the end)

I still think that the social impacts (of modern robots) is not needed so early on and should be

etymology or definitions first, history second, types of in chronological order, social impact (as you cannot really talknabout future social impacts), future devs, timline.

(Note I have moved social impact in this list compared to my first so your arguments it should not have been at the end have had some effect on me)

I appreciate this could go on for a while but am more than happy to work outsome sort of MoS for the Robotics project to try and get this sorted out as we have started to implement a clean-up of articles within the projects scope.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed links and references

Tomdo08 (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC), made this section for references and other links, which:

• are removed from the article
• are not worthy to be included in some "also" or "link" section
• still might have some interesting point which might be exploited for the article

Moved from article by Tomdo08 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC): <ref>Lewis, Leo; [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1620558.ece The robots are running riot! Quick, bring out the red tape]; TimesOnline; 2007-04-06; retrieved on 2007-01-02</ref></pre><ref>Lewis, Leo; [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1620558.ece The robots are running riot! Quick, bring out the red tape]; TimesOnline; 2007-04-06; retrieved on 2007-01-02</ref>

Moved from article by Tomdo08 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC): Japan is actually said to be the robotic capital of the world. <ref name="planettokyo.com">Biglione, Kirk; [http://www.planettokyo.com/news/index.cfm/fuseaction/story/ID/36/ The Secret To Japan's Robot Dominance]; Planet Tokyo; 2006-01-24; retrieved on 2007-01-02</ref></pre><ref name="planettokyo.com">Biglione, Kirk; [http://www.planettokyo.com/news/index.cfm/fuseaction/story/ID/36/ The Secret To Japan's Robot Dominance]; Planet Tokyo; 2006-01-24; retrieved on 2007-01-02</ref>

(edited to allow easier viewing :¬)

Infobox - Invented: 1206. Really?

Explanation of the date please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose a little more pleasant request could have been made but here we go :¬)

Edit was introduced by an editor here [3]

Date came from here Robot#History and the "main" Al-Jazari#Musical_robot_ban and Automaton#Automata_from_the_13th_to_19th_centuries

The date is the date of the published book Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices

Reason for "question" please ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Histroy: Devo vs Myth

It may be worth rearranging the "origins" and "history" sections into "mythological history" and the real "technological history". Myths about mechanical men are interesting background which deserves mention, but mixing it with the real technological development is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidd (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

wrong date of creation for asimo? I noticed that under the picture of the asimo robot at the top, the date of creation was 1206. I don't think this is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.139.183 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline: Eric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Timeline

I tried to follow the link of Eric at 1928 and couldn't find the correct Eric the Humanoid Robot. I'm guessing that the link should go directly to the page that has the info about 'this' Eric, or if there isn't a page, then perhaps it shouldn't be linked at all to the general 'Eric' page as that doesn't really have much to do with this subject. just a suggestion, cheers... --Gr8m8y (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Better definition

As a basis for a definition I propose an "autonomous machine". When it is remotely guided, it is a telerobot. Most industrial robot actually are automata and not robots. Macaldo (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Three laws of robotics

"Asimov also created the "Three Laws of Robotics" which are a recurring theme in his books." I believe they have been invented by Campbell and Asimov and not Asimov. They have been coined by Asimov actually. "Asimov attributes the Three Laws to John W. Campbell from a conversation that took place on 23 December 1940." in Three_Laws_of_Robotics Macaldo (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bogus sounding, overly complex etymology of "robota"

The Czech word robota is related to the verb "robit", which not only means "to work" but also simply "to do", as well as "to make". It has no connotations of slavery, drudegery, work owed to a master, or anything. Even if there are such etymological roots, they are not something that Czech speakers are aware of.

Examples:

 "Nevím co robit!" I don't know what to do!

 "Co robíš?" What are you doing?

 "Nerob to!" Don't do that! Stop it!

 Q: "Jak robí krava?" What kind of sound does a cow make? (Lit: how does a cow do?)
 A: "Mú" Moo.

 "Jak se robí znak 'peace'?"  How does one make the peace sign?

 "Jak se robí víno?"  How is wine made?

"Robota" is any kind of work, even high level career work that you enjoy. "Jdu do roboty." simply means "I'm going to work", and could be uttered by, say, the editor of a magazine or chief of staff of a hospital.

Wikidiots ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.122.42 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no need to be rude about it! Just because we are not native speakers of Czech ...

Thank you for your explanations, however we only report what secondary or tertiary sources say. COuld you possible give us some links to books or magazines where this is discussed in English ? Thanks - Oh, and that should probably be Wiki-idiots :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Czech roots

Robot comes from Czech, meaning "forced labour". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.68.112 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Date mismatch in section on da Vinci's robot

This page claims that "In Renaissance Italy, Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) sketched plans for a humanoid robot around 1495."

However, Leonardo's robot says "Leonardo's robot refers to a humanoid automaton designed by Leonardo da Vinci around the year 1464, when Leonardo was 12 years old."

Is there an explanation for the difference in the dates here (1464 vs 1495)? Are these not referring to the same robot? --scgtrp (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I will look into this - the statement should have a ref and so I will try and find one for whichever proves to be the correct date. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Hi

I have replaced the lead. The original was removed under the premise:

• "Sm8900 (talk|contribs) (89,183 bytes) (as per WP:LEAD) (undo)"

WP:LEAD says that articles with "More than 30,000 characters" can have a lead of "Three or four paragraphs". The Robot article has 40,533 characters and so I have reinserted the lead material.

There is also WP:SUMMARY to take into account. The lead can contain a summary of those articles included as "main" sub-pages of this one.

I have also set Miszabot to autoarchive the talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, but you sort of misunderstood my basis for the change. it wasn't the length that i was looking at. it was this part of the guideline.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

I feel that the materials on the origins for robots from past centuries does not pertain to the lead, but belongs in a section of the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless I was following WP:BRD, you seem to not be. You made a bold change, I reverted it, and posted here.

I have undone your edit again, and ask that you wait until the discussion is over before you decide to take any action again.

You feeling something does not make it correct. I would have waited for other editors to weigh in and see what they think should be done :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions about cutting down the lead in size, however moving them is probably not the correct thing to do as it is a summary of the other sections and repetition will occur.

I appreciate the point that the history should be perhaps less stated, but would rather cut down the number of words than move the whole thing. It may well be that many of the sections are much smaller now as material has been moved out to the "main" articles.

I see three options:

• Leave it as it is, as a summary of the Robot article.
• Cut down in size.
• Move to a separate section "Overview" or "Background" or similar.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it should be cut in size, or moved to "Overview" section. another option, in my opinion, is that the material on past centuries could be moved to a separate section. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a summary of the information found in the "History" section though. Why move the lead summary into the section it is summarising? I cannot see the point of that. We would then have to write another summary of it for the lead. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but I think that in an entry on a technological item, information about the ancient origins of the object from past centuries which have no real or practical relation to the object itself need to be in another section. there is no direct connection between the overall origins of machines and modern robots. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

to do a task? (Definitions/Defining characteristics)

I think tasks can't be done, only performed. Am I wrong?

Thus ... "It is an electric machine which has some ability to interact with physical objects and to be given electronic programming to do a specific task or to do a whole range of tasks or actions." ... should instead read: "... to perform a specific task or [to perform*] a whole range ..."

[* the text between brackets should be omitted.]

I wonder why I can't edit the article directly -- is editing now restricted to logged-in users?

- Iason 109.242.161.220 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)and Fyi yuo son of a bitach com your fucken nerves and get off this page

Images

Perhaps this image can be included; also make a link to the Willow Garage article; appearantly, the PR2 is the most sold (semi-humanoid) robot in the world. 91.182.103.120 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it may well need an article for the PR series, as I suspect that the PR1 and PR2 are both notable. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of material August 2011

Hi all

An editor has removed material which had a citation needed added in the last couple of days. I have reverted and they are edit warring at present over it. When I reverted I also ensured that their material, added today, was also included.

Please tell us why you think the material should be removed. Part of the process of WP:BRD is that someone makes a bold edit (you), someone reverts it (me) and then we discuss it to see if the change should have been made. At present you do not have consensus for that removal. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2011

This is weasel worded information. The citation was not dated previously and as not sourced information it could be removed.

Section below

As robotics and artificial intelligence develop further, some worry that skilled jobs may be threatened. In conventional economic theory this should merely cause an increase in the productivity of the involved industries, resulting in higher demand for other goods, and hence higher labour demand in these sectors, off-setting whatever negatives are caused. Conventional theory describes the past well but may not describe the future due to shifts in the parameter values that shape the context.

End quote

The above first sentence, some worry? Who is some?, (Weasel Wording). The rest reads as opinion only and is not cited. conventional theory describes the past well but may not describe the future due to shifts in the parameter values that shape context. Who wrote that? It means nothing, or does it mean something? It is not cited. Mostly it does not belong in an article without backup. Best to remove that whole section and not return it unless it is backed up with some citation source. Fidel Drumbo 02:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The most recent material you have added is a WP:COPYVIO from The Christian Science Monitor. I have removed it, as copyvio has to be removed immediately it is found. Your other material is also plagiarised/copvio from [4] and [5].

You will need to rewrite them so that they do not mirror the material in the references, simply changing one or two words out of 20 or thirty is not enough to re-insert. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first material you inserted so that it is not a copyvio. I would also point out that it was me that put those "citation needed" templates in the article, something I intended to address in the following week or so. It is not necessary to remove them immediately, nor indeed within a set time. Often they can be found many months after the "Citation needed" has been placed. The intent is to inform other editors and readers that the information needs a citation, not that it needs removing. The policy in WP:NOCITE states that: "remove the claim [the text preceding the "citation needed"] if no source is produced within a reasonable time." I would say that reasonable, though vague, is around a month. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see, you removed all the cited information I put in along with the citations themselves and removed other information without bothering to rewrite anything (except deleting who was quoted) and say it is copywrite vio, though the wording was changed and part of it was very short and 'quoted'. Also you left the uncited weasel worded information in. I will be taking this article off my watch list now. Bye. Fidel Drumbo 00:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found many edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have checked them, there was nothing intrinsically untoward.One dead link and an uncoirrected use of the word robot instead of automata. I have updated the cleanup page.

Please inform me of any other issues regarding robotics, either on my own talk page or on the robotics project talk page. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:TOPIO 3.0.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TOPIO 3.0.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TOPIO 3.0.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobbyist/prototyping uses

In the absence of an obviously suitable heading, I'm dumping a link to "Linux Robot with Omnidirectional Vision" here. Maybe this can be worked in somehow. The subject may even warrant a spinoff article in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Duct cleaning

Removed section on duct cleaning[6] since the section was unreferenced, read like an ad, and text and robot depicted just described another type of Telerobot. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word

In an article in the Czech journal Lidové noviny in 1933, he explained that he had originally wanted to call the creatures laboři ("workers", from Latin labor) or dělňasi (from Czech dělníci - "workers"). However, he did not like the word, and sought advice from his brother Josef, who suggested "roboti". The word robota means literally "corvée", "serf labor", and figuratively "drudgery" or "hard work" in Czech and also (more general) "work", "labor" in many Slavic languages (e.g.: Slovak, Polish, Macedonian, Ukrainian, archaic Czech). Traditionally the robota was the work period a serf (corvée) had to give for his lord, typically 6 months of the year. The origin of the word is the Old Church Slavonic rabota "servitude" ("work" in contemporary Bulgarian and Russian), which in turn comes from the Indo-European root *orbh-.[ref]Indo-European root *orbh-[/ref] Serfdom was outlawed in 1848 in Bohemia, so at the time Čapek wrote R.U.R., usage of the term robota had broadened to include various types of work, but the obsolete sense of "serfdom" would still have been known.[ref]Robot is cognate with the German word Arbeiter (worker). In the Kingdom of Hungary, the robot was a feudal service, similar to corvee which was rendered to local magnates by peasants every year. "The Dynasties recover power". Retrieved 2008-06-25.[/ref] It is not clear from which language Čapek took the radix "robot(a)". This question is not irrelevant, because its answer could help to reveal an original Čapek´s conception of robots. If from the modern Czech language, the notion of robot should be understood as an „automatic serf“ (it means a subordinated creature without own will). If from e.g. Slovak (Karel Čapek and his brother were frequent visitors of Slovakia which in this time was a part of Czechoslovakia, because their father MUDr. Antonín Čapek from 1916 worked as a physician in Trenčianske Teplice.[ref]Biography of Karel Čapek (in Czech)[/ref]), the word robot would simply mean a „worker“ which is a more universal and neutral notion. The aspect of pronunciation probably also played a role in Čapek's final decision: In non-Slavic languages it is easier to pronounce the word robot than dělňas or laboř.

• First, is there any reference at all for Čapek ever intending to call the creature "dělňas"? The Lidové Noviny article only mentions "laboři".
• The part about pronunciation is wrong: had Čapek settled for "laboři", the singular would have been "labor". (As in kurýr - kurýři [courier - couriers].) In fact, Čapek saw an opposite problem in his world: the name "labor" seemed too artificial to him.
• The whole question on whether Karel Čapek took the word from Czech or Slovak and the conclusions thereof are completely irrelevant, since the word "robot" was a spontaneous response from his brother Josef. It is completely unsourced, too (with the exception of a minor fact that Čapek's father worked in Slovakia), so I would classify it as original synthesis.
• It also contradicts itself. Initially the section says that in Czech "robota" means "feudal labor" and the more general meaning of "work" (unlike in other Slavic languages) is archaic. Then it goes to call the "serfdom" meaning obsolete. (The first part is correct. In modern Czech, "robota" normally refers to feudal labor; the more generic meaning is archaic, but not unknown. E.g. in a well-known folk song: "a ty boty do roboty" ("and those shoes to work", though the word was obviously also chosen for the sake of a rhyme).

I suggest removing the misguided sentence "Serfdom was outlawed in 1848 ..." (it also strays from the topic; so does the reference, as it's about the 1848 revolution and not about the word "robot") and the whole section starting with "It is not clear ..." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Am I right that the source of the incorrect claim is this blog entry, and that the analysis comes from the same person? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yet another follow-up: The word "robot" in the linked reference is probably a misspelling of Czech "robota". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • According to the Czech article cs:Robota, "robot" or "robath" was used in Austrian Empire, and it is indeed derived from Czech "robota". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Humanoid in appearance

An earlier version of the article said:

A robot is a mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human ...

I reworded this - for reasons of grammar, and because most robots are not humanoid in appearance - to:

... It may be humanoid in appearance, but many are not.

99.136.254.188 then changed it to:

...that can perform tasks automatically that is often humanoid in appearance

I've changed it again to

... It may – but need not – be humanoid in appearance.

because so far as I'm aware most robots as described in the article are not humanoid. I don't want to get into an edit war over it, but think it is worth stating in the lead that although robots can be humanoid they don't need to be, and most are not (admittedly we might need a cite for "most are not"). Does anybody have any thoughts on the matter, and/or alternative wording? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording is only so-so. Mainly because I come across (to me anyway) as an unusual for the first sentence of an article. I think it should be more definitive instead of arbitrary. Granted, it is not easy to describe what a robot is, and that is part of the problem. -PWC 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickCarbone (talk • contribs)

The purpose of an humanoid appearance, or humanoid behavior, is to facilitate interaction with humans. Just an observation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative robots

I introduced the term "collaborative robot" as the section heading of the information I added today about the introduction of Baxter, a cheap, safe, programmable robot designed to work with humans in industrial settings. The term is of my own invention, not based on use in any source; I simply could not find a commonly used alternative. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited Lead

I have BRD/truncated the article LEAD because large parts of it was an un-referenced stand alone essay that did not summarize the article. It also strayed into the first person (WP:TONE). The old lead is here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just replaced the lead. Rather than remove it, as you feel it does not usmmarise, i have WP:BRD'd it.

Feel free to say which parts you feel are not summarising or need refs and we can take it from there. I am away from home at the moment so it may take some time for me to reply, though I will be back on the 17th Chaosdruid (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it back[7] because none of it was encyclopedic, it was simply a series of unreferenced declarative sentences that did not not cover material in the remainder of the article. Anything that was worth saving was already saved. If you feel any of it could be encyclopedic feel free to fulfill WP:BURDEN via adding any material with a reliable source. BTW leads should be a concise overview of the article, not a summary essay on robots in general (WP:LEAD). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And I will be putting it back again, please follow WP:BRD - you boldly changed it, I reverted, now we discuss. It hs been there a long time without objection, and anything you feel should be done I am sure can be done. Please do not change it back until the discussion is finished.

"Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" Chaosdruid (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to open up discussion, the lead should be follow WP:LEAD, a concise overview of the article. The "old lead"[8] did very little of that, it just reads as an odd unreferenced first person essay on robots in society (with some obvious WP:TONE issues). As an article we have Overview, History, Etymology, Robots in society, Contemporary uses, Future development, Problems with implementing robots in society, Robots in popular culture. The article on a whole could use a massive cleanup before we even start to worry about expanding the lead. Looking into "Robots in society" section alone, we start there with some statistics, then go right into unreferenced claims "In Japan and South Korea, ideas of future robots have been mainly positive", "Western societies are more likely to be against, or even fear the development of robotics", "Obviously, these boundaries are not clear, but there is a significant difference between the two cultural viewpoints." There also seems to be topics that are simply "plugged" instead of explored via RS re: AAAI cites that just seem to be a news report and a Plug & Pray book plug. There is also allot of WP:WEASEL such as the word "some" used 9 times in that section alone. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the lead and, following WP:BRD, it should remain as is until discussion has completed. (the version prior to the bold editing)

There have been significant changes to the body of the article since that lead was written, and it may well be true that some of the points in the lead are no longer in the body. To progress, we need to sort out that which should remain as a summary, that which needs refs (as it is true but no longer a summary), and anything that needs to be removed (where the material is neither in the body, no ref can be found, or no longer true).

The "writing better articles" is an essay, not a guideline, and does not need to be addressed as much as MoS.

Tone - can you be more specific on how you see a tone issue?

Can you explain why you did not follow the recommendations in Wikipedia:Lead#Citations, which suggest adding individual cn tags, or tagging with a lead banner such as those in Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Introduction? I find it hard to understand why you should remove the whole thing rather than try to ref it yourself.

Cleanup - I agree there are some problem areas, they needed cleaning up much more than the lead did and yet you started with the lead. I suggest that cleaning up the repetitive use of "some" and especially the Robots in society section - I have tried for a couple of years to keep that section reliable, but the recent spate of edits in there have reduced it drastically.

One possible solution was to turn the majority of the lead into an overview, but that was problematic as the lead ended up being a repeat of the section and so it was left as is. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead under discussion - broken down into sentences

See Talk:Robot/Lead under discussion

I have started a sub-page so that the sentences can be looked at individually and assessed as either; summary (of material in body), ref needed (not summary), or removable (not summary and ref not found)

At present there are two refs in the lead. (which were there when you first removed it)

I suggest that this may take around a couple of weeks and expect that the lead will stand as is until the assessment has been made and consensus found for any changes. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I marked the edit BRD, the lead was so bad I did not follow my own assessment of the situation. I decided the real tack to take was "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", i.e knock the summary back to... well, a summary, short and sweet, of what could be verified. It is far better (and actually Wikipedia policy --> WP:UNSOURCED) to remove unverified material, and the material can always be added back per the same policy.

I noted the first reference in the lead was original research, a citation of one of the items that makes up the "we find" list. Those uses of "we" are the WP:TONE problems I noticed ("we" should not be used), that and the general pontificating about robots instead of describing robots (this is an Encyclopedia, it should describe, not express opinion about something).

I am going to turn this on its head. A couple of weeks could be taken to fulfill WP:BURDEN, it is not up to me to "ref it (myself)", the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I really cannot (and don't think) reference can be found for any of the declarative statements being made there (but I will see if I can add comment on it). Consensus does not need to be found for any changes. Material must be verifiable first before you can start looking for what to keep via consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Disputed tag since it was suggested, seems to be needed, and alerts other editors. Lead (and article) do not seem to follow reliable sources, for example in the section on AGV's there is no reliable source cited describing the existence or definition of AGV's in the section or the main article Automated guided vehicle for that matter. Just citing examples of this type or manufacturer's definitions is not reliable sourcing something (the former is actually WP:OR). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was a little busy with RL stuff today, and for most of tomorrow, but will start to tag the sentences on the subpage tomorrow at some point.

"first reference in the lead was OR"? I cannot really understand what you mean by that - the first ref is Miessner from 1916.

I would also hasten to add that it would be great if you helped, often editors prefer to pontificate and add tags etc. without contributing to the work, which would take less time if more helped. If I am the only person doing these updates it is going to take rather a long time and you will have to be patient. Much of the material which the lead summarised has been chopped about and it is true that the article is in a bit of a mess. I will be starting by looking at earlier versions, which were stable before the recent strange unreferenced material was added over the last year or so, and indeed had many refs which seem to have been lost over this time.

Also, it seems a little strange that a cn has been placed next to "A clockwork car is never considered to be a robot" - to me that is overzealous tagging. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Per "help", I did[9], starting from a basic encyclopedic framework is better IMHO. Wikipedia policy and guidelines give us this framework. Re: first reference, citing the existence Benjamin Miessner's via a primary source (his own work) and implying a conclusion that he is notable re:more practical applications, i.e. analyses, or synthetic claim about a primary source is considered original research (WP:PST. That is why I consider this lead "essay like", its a great deal of "original analysis" of the topic, fine for an essay, research paper, or book. Not fine for Wikipedia per WP:OR.

And once again, even if it is a primary source, it can still be used - even according to your latest link. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed organization

The lead states "Robots can be autonomous, semi-autonomous or remotely controlled."... is this true?.... it better be... its in the lead. We have [10][11][12][13] and we can probably pull up more to flesh out this basic definition, expand it, or contract it. This would be the article's basic structure, describing these 3 types in lead and sections Overview, History, Etymology, Robots in society, Contemporary uses, Future development, Problems with implementing robots in society, Robots in popular culture. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The overview is where that would go. The articles basic structure is:

• Overview
• History
• Etymology
• Modern types of robot
• Relationship to society
• Uses
• Future
• Social problems from their use
• In popular culture

Obviously the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, though it can introduce further info not in the body. I am open to some revamping of the article as so many changes have destroyed it over the last year, but just not on the live version. I would suggest moving the Relationship section to above Social problems, and even perhaps making the social problems a sub of Relationship.

The lead has changed somewhat (diff) from June 2011 [14] to now, it has been hacked about quite a lot and some of it is not relevant as the article has significantly changed.

As for Miessner, that one can go as far as I am concerned. I will amend the subpage Talk:Robot/Lead_under_discussion. I take it you are looking at that subpage? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the reference to Frankenstein removed. Frankenstein's monster is not a robot and the Frankenstein article does not mention robots. Mllyjn (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Frankenstein statement refers to Asimov and the "Frankenstein complex" [15], [16] and [17] Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't think it belongs in the article, especially not in the introduction. Bringing up Frankenstein confuses the issue of what a robot is. Also, it's not clear from the sources that either Asimov's or Shelley's writing has led to current attitudes towards robots, only that "Frankenstein complex" is a catchy way of explaining a wariness of consumers towards purchasing certain robots. This is different from "drives current practice in establishing what autonomy a robot should and should not be capable of"Mllyjn (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(De-indent) (per no opinion yet on Frankenstein)

• Per: Talk:Robot/Lead under discussion - There don't seem to have been any reliable sources added to that version (or indications what text/reliable sources in the article body is being summarized). Without that the lead is simply so much OR.

Problems beyond the lead:

• There are no reliable sources in the lead or the body of the article supporting the basic definition(s) of a robot.
• I see a general choppiness and redundancy to the article, although articles tend to get that way over time with piecemeal adds. There are redundant sections "Modern robots" and "Contemporary uses". There seems to be allot of trying to describe robots by application instead of by description of types autonomous, semi-autonomous and remotely controlled. This seems to lead to advert copy being added to the article re: "well, its another application". This could really be truncated down to an "Applications" section with some types of each described, or added sub types in a re-written "Overview" describing autonomous, semi-autonomous and remotely controlled robots and applications of each.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And once again, the lead does not need references if it summarises material in the body of the article which is referenced. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep missing the point that a)-large parts of the lead do not summarize the body of the article at all, and b) - there are practically no WP:RS in the body of the article for anything that is stated, lead or body. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And you keep missing the point that it is only your opinion that there are "no reliable sources" in the article. I really think you are just arguing for the sake of it. You cannot seriously be saying that out of the 153 refs, only 10 or so are reliable? As it seems you did not bother to join in on editing the subpage, you may not have seen that it was broken down into sentences - Mllyjn went over it, as I did, and "summary" was put next to those that were summaries, and delete next to those that should be deleted. I can only think that Mllyjn checked them all as I did - perhaps you just did not want to have to agree with our synopsis.

On the other hand I suppose you may be one of those who just likes to foist their opinions and get in the last word claiming that everything you think is "obviously a fact"; now, perhaps you would like to start listing ALL the refs you think are not reliable? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it is not only (my) opinion, and there is very long talk on it (scroll up, and down), or feel free to ignore it. Your choice. Its real simple, if you think a claim is verifiable, place the reference source next to it, its that easy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are satisfied - according to this articles introduction a pianola is a robot, as is a clock.

"A robot is a mechanical device that can perform tasks automatically."

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do think the lead and the article need significant improvement and more references. Discussing the existing lead could be a good way to go about making these changes. I am particularly unhappy with the last paragraph in the lead. Does the Frankenstein complex actually "drive current practice in establishing what autonomy a robot should and should not have?" It would be interesting if it does but can anyone give me an example? Mllyjn (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest changing the last paragraph of the introduction to the following:

"There are concerns about the increasing use of robots and their role in society. Robots are blamed for rising unemployment as they replace workers in some functions. The use of robots in military combat raises ethical concerns. The possibility of robot autonomy and potential repercussions has been addressed in fiction and may be realistic concern in the future."

This paragraph summarizes the text of the article more closely than the current paragraph. Mllyjn (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article does a poor job of explaining what a robot is. There's also something strange about the way fictional and real robots are discussed side by side. Mllyjn (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Chaosdruid's comments here and above, Leads are written from articles, they do not write articles. We are still at WP:BURDEN, if the lead has no references and does not summarize it has to go. I really have not looked into where that lead came from but that lead has nothing to do with the article or Wikipedia for that matter. It is someones unreferenced philosophy about robots, not a summary of an article describing robots. Wikipedia describes things, it does not publish philosophy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a few comments on Talk:Robot/Lead under discussion to explain why I think this introduction does a poor job of summarizing the article. I think large sections of it needs to be redone and there's not much I can do to constructively improve what's thereMllyjn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for your input Mllyin, though it seems others have gone ahead and changed without bothering to discuss first, and the article is now in a pretty bad state - it now resembles an overview/outline rather than an article. I am sure that it will get fixed over time. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The article does indeed do a poor job of explaining what a robot is, but largely because the authors are looking for a single definition. The word 'robot' is an example of what's known as a "Boundary object" - it has different meanings in different groups. To a researcher or science ficiton fan a robot would by definition be an autonomous physical machine but to a hobbyist it might be a remote-controlled vehicle like a "battlebot" that has very little in common with the former except minor visual similarities. To a gamer a robot might be autonomous but have no physical embodiment at all. Some would say it must be a metal machine, while others that it could be a biological machine like a human, still others that it could be a combination of metal and flesh (e.g. a cyborg). There are several collections of definitions of the word robot that you can find online, some of which contain hundreds of conflicting definitions. The word "robot" operates at the boundaries of culture and technology and that boundary also varies from Western culture to Eastern culture. You can find a more detailed explanation of this concept in the book Apocalyptic AI by researcher Robert M Geraci. I'd suggest that rather than trying to invent the perfect definition of robot, you explain the general ideas, offer some particular examples from different fields, and perhaps offer a few select definitions from well known authorities.Steevithak (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Steevithak, that's an interesting approach. I had not heard the term boundary object before. Can you point to an example example, on wikipedia or elsewhere, where a concept in defined by many definitions at once? Autonomous physical machines, battlebots, and cyborgs all have something in common. We need to pin that down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllyjn (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)