Talk:Software

Edit request

During the recent AfD, problems with the article's sourcing and content were brought up. I have resolved them with a new draft of the article and am pinging participants User:Praxidicae, User:EucalyptusTreeHugger, User:TartarTorte, and User:Aoidh in case any of you would be willing to implement the edit request.

User:Buidhe paid/Software should be copied into this article, above the categories. My version of the article also makes a clear differentiation between this article and computer program. It adds information about software development, software maintenance, quality and security, how software is executed on hardware, and the impact of software in the world.

Thanks! Buidhe paid (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reversion: the edit was implemented by AlphaBetaGamma (thanks) and then reverted without an explanation. As noted in policy, "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page." Hooman Mallahzadeh did not indicate any reason for reverting. Although there is some discussion below, I did tweak the definition of software in the draft based on a larger number of reliable sources, and also made edits to the workforce and impact sections based on the feedback. Buidhe paid (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

   Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Cpu

central processing unit or the brain 2001:4450:463E:B00:61B4:FEE9:BD89:FF0 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki99 summary

Summary of changes as a result of the Wiki99 project (before, after, diff):

• Complete rewrite from reliable sources
• Fixed unsourced content issues
• Add coverage of important subtopics such as software development, software maintenance, quality and security, how software is executed on hardware, and the impact of software in the world.
• Cover multiple definitions of software in use

Further possibilities for improvement:

• Consider some expansion for comprehensiveness
• Get the article to good article status

Buidhe paid (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe paid I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but this major re-write is less than high quality writing. The old article wasn't great, but I think this is a step in the wrong direction

For example: Software is defined narrowly as unambiguous instructions that can be transformed into a form executable on computer hardware, or more broadly including supporting concepts, tools and methods needed to make the computer system operational. Using narrowly defined in the first sentence is awkward and off-putting. I find the word 'unambiguous' to be extraneous. The word 'instructions' connotes declarative languages. The word 'transformed' connotes compiled. If I think real hard I guess what you've said not wrong, but it's off the mark IMO.

Start the reader out gently yet boldly; without qualifications. How about: "Software controls the behavior of computer hardware as configured by a programmer".

Remove the definition section. That's too scholastic and dry. The first sentence of a WP article is the definition of the term. No need for a definition section.

Building off of previous innovations in mathematics and technology, software was created reads like nonsense to me. Software _is_ technology (which is overly obvious). Software is related to mathematics rather loosely. Software was a grass roots innovation that transcends all existing tech. That's one amazing thing about it. And something that should be highlighted. It's not an offshoot of math.

software was created for the programmable digital computers that emerged in the late 1940s and was necessary to realize their usefulness. So awkward and not quite true. Software creation has little to do with the 1940s. In fact, it kinda predates 1940. Kinda predates and transcends digital computers.

The first software was tied closely to the underlying computer hardware. What are you trying to say? That originally there was little abstraction from the hardware? Yeah. "tied closely to the underlying computer hardware is overly non-technical.

the lower layers of the system have become more standardized really?

A host of earlier inventions were necessary for the creation of software, including mathematics—especially binary and decimal number systems, and zero—alphabets, writing, mechanical calculators, boolean algebra, transistors, integrated circuits, and plastic zero? alphabets? plastic? come on now. Plastic is not needed for software. You mean computers need plastic? Maybe, but if we're going go down that path, then software required the invention of the wheel too.

Stopping there. I think we should revert back to before this re-write. The new content has too many issues.

I told you already that I don't think your writing is high quality. I take no pride in saying that, but I wish you would not make sweeping changes until your writing skill improves. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, but most of your concerns do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

• For example, there is no rule against the creation of "definition" sections, which are quite common especially when a topic is difficult to define, or where there are multiple significantly different definitions found in reliable sources. Both are true for this topic.
• While my definition section and its summary in the lead could doubtless be improved, it is at least based on multiple reliable sources, while as far as I can tell your suggested definition of software is not found in any source.
• You're objecting to a lot of the content in the history section about how software was developed. The section is pretty well sourced in my version and I can confirm that the content you object to is verified in the cited sources. The section could be improved by incorporating other reliable sources that provide an overview of the origins of software, but it should not be changed because one Wikipedia editor disagrees with what the cited sources say.

Reverting would mean going back to a version that is largely unsourced and consequently whose material is mostly subject to removal under the verifiability policy.

You're welcome to your opinion about the quality of my writing but many other editors disagree, as you can tell by looking at my main user page. Buidhe paid (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

your concerns do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines Correct! I value quality writing. I think that folks that value rules over quality are misguided. I think that it is possible to satisfy rules while producing quality output.

You mention a rule about no definition section which I find interesting. Do you think everything must be rule-based? ... My point is that common style in WP is to define a term in the first sentence, _and_ that is what you did. Your definition section is mostly duplicate info. DRY.

I'm sure there are thousands of definitions of software out there. You picked only a few. The choice of sources is less than objective. In the end, what is in WP is not free of subjectivity no matter how many rules you follow.

WP is not just about quoting sources. A google search and AI search can do that. WP is about synthesizing prose that is consistent with sources while being easy to consume/understand.

As a strict rule follower, I think you struggle to understand what I'm getting at about quality.

I have no problem disagreeing with others about the quality of your work. I stand behind what I've said.

I think that condensing the _massive_ topic of 'software' into a WP article is a tall order. Clearly, you have the best of intensions. But, I think it's worse now than it was. ... I think you plan similar re-work on other articles. I am not looking forward to that. Stevebroshar (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's not sourced it is encyclopedically useless and therefore automatically less "quality" by Wikipedia standards than any content that is correctly sourced. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Quality writing is much more than sourcing. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct, but phrasing can be improved by other editors, bad sourcing can only be fixed by ripping out the entire thing and starting over again (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair-use of software definition

I made this edit to make the definition of software easy to understand. It was reverted with the explanation that it needed quotation marks b/c it is a sentence from a textbook. The use of a simple sentence in an educational environment is allowed under US copyright law under the Fair use doctrine. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard that interpretation on Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware, if it's an exact quote more than a few words it needs to be attributed to the source—otherwise it's plagiarism, if it may not be entirely clear where copyright violation begins. (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And if you just change a couple words so that it's not a direct quote, we call that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you want to use the exact quote fine, but use quotation marks so it's clear that the words are from the source and not a Wikipedia editor. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Picture in the lead

The image of credit cards in the lead is extremely confusing. Yes, modern smart cards have software inside. So does any modern toaster or washing machine. Unless a better picture is found, I suggest removing this random picture altogether. Dimawik (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this website has numerous programming language articles that have a suitable replacement. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Two weeks with no objections - making the change. --Dimawik (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

Change short description from:

Non-tangible executable component of a computer

to...

Prepared set of instructions a computer can execute

---

Rationale:

“Non-tangible” is ridiculous and not informative. (“abstract” would be better, but see further...)

“Component” could imply hardware, which is exactly incorrect

The word “prepared” could be omitted from my proposal, if desired

The word “fungible” (set) could be included in my proposal, if desired.

. 24.19.113.134 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Software Project Management Link?

One this page, there is text that mentions the word "project" and "project management". Does it not make better sense to reference the wiki page titled "software project management"? since it is in fact different from the general project management topic/disipline? Richlegge (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK it already does link to that page. Dimawik (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Low quality start

WRT the current first paragraph: "Software consists of computer programs that instruct the execution of a computer. Software can be defined broadly to include design documents, specifications, and testing suites." It's not wrong, but it's very lame IMO. The opening of an article should cover a topic in the broadest scope. But software is _much_ more than computer programs. And why define what a program is? A link is all you need. And "software can be defined broadly to include" is awkward. That sentence is not a definition. It is a list of stuff that the is definitely not software even though it's related and therefore does not belong so early in the article. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is sourced and is a paraphrase of its quotation. The second sentence is also sourced and references this book. However, there's no quotation. It's curious that the second sentence's popup says page 61, but the citation's description says pages 237-253. Nonetheless, I believe page 61 probably says something about software including design documents, specifications, and testing suites. If software is _much_ more than computer programs, then what sourced material do you have to further describe software? List it here for a discussion. Regarding And why define what a program is?: It seems you're referring to the second paragraph. I agree the second paragraph requires secondary research. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it, Software can be defined broadly to include ... testing suites." is a recursive definition. After all, testing suites are software. Timhowardriley (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding It's not wrong, but it's very lame IMO.: Please choose your words carefully. The word lame includes a meaning of "Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, dull, stupid, or uninteresting." Calling another editor's work these things is condescending. Perhaps you meant to say "substandard". Timhowardriley (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There's one more opinion that I have to get out of my system. In other edit comments, User:Stevebroshar used the acronym "KISS". The last letter represents the word "stupid". I find it offensive to call other editors this. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)