Talk:Silicon Alley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 2 November 2016

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City Start‑class Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggestions

Here are some suggestions as to how this article can grow:

who first coined the name, (not that it's not obvious)

a bit about 'the map' that used to be in the middle of silicon alley reporter

list of silicon alley companies (as a seperate wikipedia entry)

more information about publications, including alley cat news

the party scene

Theinfo 04:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eras vs. Years

I don't think the distinction between Web1.0 vs. Web2.0 has been clearly delineated here. Remember, only 53,651 people care about, or even know about Web2.0. Wikipedia is designed to be for a wider audience. Let's break this down by years instead of by eras.

Thanks, Alex Haislip

Map request

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!

The term is kind of a metaphor--I personally don't think that a map is appropriate, except for a photo of 'the map' of Silicon Alley from Silicon Alley Reporter. Theinfo 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biotech

content about biotech in NYC was added here. Silicon Alley is tech, like Silicon Valley is. There was nothing in the refs provided there that tied biotech to Silicon Alley; that was pure WP:SYN. Removed it, as well as mention from the lead. Silicon =/= living stuff; not biotech. there are some Health IT companies in Silicon Alley and part of the digital business scene in NYC. Health IT =/= biotech either. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Castncoot please provide a chunk of refs supporting your view that biotech is a meaningful part of Silicon Alley. Please note that we look at the preponderance of sources so cherry-picking will do you no good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol in Wikipedia is to add a citation-needed tag, rather than deletion of large amounts of longstanding material. And of course Silicon Valley includes biotech. Castncoot (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol is to remove WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the refs in the article

business insider - all tech. no biotech
NY Daily News - all tech; no biotech
CNN: "New York has made a lot of the digital age. The city hosts a thriving tech sector with 300,000 employees -- on par with Silicon Valley -- and city government is praised for its use of analytics in evaluating all manner of programs." all tech. no biotech
"Venture Investment - Regional Aggregate Data - probably includes some biotech. source is not about Silicon Alley so that is fine
NYT about ted cruz - this is ref and the content about it is bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
AP piece on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
NYT on climate change protests on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
NYC EDC plan for telecom - all about tech; nothing about biotech
wi-fi expansion in harlem - tech; not biotech
office space coworking - a tech thing. all tech, no mention of biotech (which need wetlabs, not desks for coworking). And on those go.

The content added about biotech says nothing about silicon alley. Refs for that

well, nothing for the first sentence. Unsourced.
Next two are about Cornell tech campus, which is engineering. Not biotech, no wetlabs. When I edited to remove biotech, i left this in, per this dif, as it has nothing to do with biotech and should not be in this paragraph
NYT ref no mention of biotech. all about tech

cornell chronicle - all about tech; no biotech
WSJ article on Alexandria Center. Nothing to do with tech or Silicon Alley. Funded by life science (not tech) VC; about the biotech (not tech) activities there. So there is only one ref that ~could~ support inclusion, and it doesn't.

This biotech stuff is 100% WP:OR as it stands; there are no refs in the article supporting the inclusion of biotech in the article now, and you have brought none. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Alley, like Silicon Valley, no longer applies to a small area with hard and fast boundaries, as also alluded to by an editor in the previous section on this talk page. It certainly applies to all of Manhattan (which includes Roosevelt Island)[1] and some parts of Brooklyn, at the very least. Castncoot (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More significantly, can I seriously ask you the following question and request you to answer it, which you have evaded thus far: what perplexes me more than anything else about this issue on this and other pages that we have incurred over the past 18 (give or take) hours or so, is - why are you grinding this axe here, rather than addressing the source which ultimately supports my argument - namely, the first line of the biotechnology article? Shouldn't you be waging your battle there? I'm simply editing according to the premise that that longstanding defining statement of that article has achieved consensus for. As long as that definition sticks, I don't understand your case. Biotechnology (biological technology) is and has always been merely one among other forms of technology. Castncoot (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why biotech =/= tech to you several times. The word "technology" being included in "biotechnology" means nothing. The fact that biotechnology is applied biology means nothing. The industries are completely different, as I have said many times. "tech industry" means IT/digital etc. It doesn't mean biotech. Silicon Valley is tech industry. So is Silicon Alley. "Silicon" signifies computer chips. Tech.

To the point. You don't have a single ref that connects biotech to Silicon Alley. The Biotech Now blurb is one thing; we don't know what Nathan actually said there as the podcast is gone, but you can bet it was along these lines. Please bring several refs, because the vast majority of the refs discussing Silicon Alley discuss tech, and say nothing about biotech. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that biotech belongs here. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More refs: NYC Tech Economy based on this report - digital

slate on the NYC tech boom - digitial, which is focused on the NYC Tech Meetup, which I have been to, and which is all about digital

Xconomy article on the NYC tech scene - all digital.

service provider for Silicon Alley - tech and digital

NYT article on death of Silicon Alley Magazine, which was "known for its unabashed boosterism of New York's new media entrepreneurs" ("new media" = "digital" ie tech)

NYC EDC report on the tech sector. Contrast with this, the life sciences sector report, which is completely different. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These references don't alter the fundamental definition of biotechnology. And please don't make up your own rules about refs as you go along. Statements on Wikipedia can be justified in two ways: WP:RS (which there in fact is), or WP:wikilinks to an established page whose statement(s) then support the point, in this case, the biotechnology page. So it is now your WP:BURDEN to disprove or disenfranchise that longstanding consensused statement on the biotechnology page, an issue which you have relentlessly evaded (despite my repeated referencing) over the 24 hours or so ago since our interaction began regarding this issue, which in no uncertain terms, in the title sentence, defines biotechnology as, '"any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)'. Once you are able to convince the numerous editors of that sentinel page of your unique interpretation of the term biotechnology, then please return to argue the fundamentally changed definition here. Castncoot (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 ::::[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/business/media-requiem-for-a-cheerleader-silicon-alley-magazine-is-dead.html NYT article] on death of Silicon Alley Magazine, which was "known for its unabashed boosterism of New York's new media entrepreneurs" ("new media" = "digital" ie tech)
 ::::[http://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Industries/Media_EmergTech/NYC_TechStats.pdf NYC EDC] report on the '''tech sector'''.  Contrast with [http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/nycs-growing-life-sciences-ecosystem this], the '''life sciences''' sector report, which is completely different.  [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
+::::::These references don't alter the fundamental definition of biotechnology. And please don't make up your own rules about refs as you go along. Statements on Wikipedia can be justified in two ways: [[WP:RS]] (which there in fact is), ''or'' [[WP:wikilinks]] to an established page whose statement(s) then support the point, in this case, the biotechnology page. So it is now ''your'' [[WP:BURDEN]] to disprove or disenfranchise that longstanding consensused statement on the [[biotechnology]] page, an issue which you have relentlessly evaded (despite my repeated referencing) over the 24 hours or so ago since our interaction began regarding this issue, which in no uncertain terms, in the title sentence, defines biotechnology as, '"any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)'. Once you are able to convince the numerous editors of that sentinel page of your unique interpretation of the term biotechnology, then please return to argue the fundamentally changed definition here. [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot|talk]]) 00:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)