TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Information -- a working definition? From:Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chriss -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:Milan DavidoviÄ <milan -dot- lists -at- gmail -dot- com> Date:Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Cool... Random thoughts
One assertion ignores what I understand of information theory, though... The paper asserts that information as a resource is "...not composed of mass and energy..." and so it can't be quantified as a resource. Well, the whole thrust of information theory is to indeed quantify it in terms that ultimately are mass and energy. Or at least that's how I understand it. But I'm easily baffled...
For information as a commodity, the paper talks about information phases -- "...creation (creation, generation and collection), processing (cognitive and algorithmic), storage, transportation, distribution, destruction, and seeking." So the paper lumps creation, generation, and collection together as the creation of information. Recursive, but who cares?
The paper divides information along another axis -- cultural, aesthetic, religious, etc. I think that hints at a good limiter for us... As tech writers, we're mainly dealing with technical and legal information. I bet that can help us narrow a working definition.
Information as a constitutive force in society -- Co-evolution??? Information actually changes the context of information; that is information changes society, and society generates more information, which further changes it. 15 years ago it made sense to describe how to click a radio button (perhaps). Now that level of description is just a waste of time. Dare we either drop, or at least redefine, the task-orientation mantra?
cud
________________________________
From: Milan DavidoviÄ <milan -dot- lists -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chriss -at- yahoo -dot- com>
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:08:37 PM
Subject: Re: Information -- a working definition?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Chris Despopoulos
<despopoulos_chriss -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote:
> It might be useful to actually try and define information..
Have there been past efforts to do so (within technical
communication), and if so what became of them?
This article from the journal Telecommunications Policy indicates the
challenges of defining information in another (though not necessarily
completely separate) domain, and may be of interest to our own: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/braman/www/bramanpdfs/003_defining.pdf
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish documentation,
manuals, and other information through multiple channels. Choose
authoring (and import) as well as virtually any output you may need. http://www.doctohelp.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
