Talk:Smart city

Revision 978244142

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if there are any specific concerns regarding revision 978244142, please mention them in this section, so the text can be modified to address these concerns.

Regarding the COVID-19 text: I removed this but note that I didn't add that text. I just placed that text (added by someone else) in a new headline and didn't notice hereby that it used a 2013 paper as a reference.

What's the promotional fluff you refer to ? If anything, I want to make it more obvious in the text that smart cities don't need as much tech as is depicted by tech companies (they tend to focus very much on electric cars, but really, there is a move to use a multitude of transport modes (including bicycles, electric light-weight transport (i.e. electric bicycles, electric kick scooters, electric skateboards and what not as well as walking, ...). The smart city tends to focus on having people use the most efficient and less CO2 emitting transport mode for each trip as well as making it possible to combine multiple modes of transport in a given trip in the most seamless way (i.e. walking and bus, train and bicycle, ...). It still needs a bit of more tweaking, but I already think the text starts to make that a bit more clear, and everything has a reliable source to back it up. User:Genetics4good

"I want to make it more obvious", "Smart mobility is also important to smart cities.", "Bicycle-sharing systems are also important to smart cities.". Other editors have pointed out that fluffy material in the form of WP:ADVOCACY or ADVICE is not encyclopedic. This is also not a place to WP:SOAP about " tech companies". Reliable sources in Wikipedia are secondary source, not the primary source policy papers and academic papers you are interpreting. Those sources are also advocacy on how to build Smart Cities, Wikipedia does not describe how to build things, it describes things that already exist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not promoting anything rather the exact opposite. As mentioned earlier, the article still puts too much focus on high-tech, whereas smart cities tend to make a lot of use of low-tech too (such as bicycles, even just walking). Electric cars are mentioned at least twice, and there is the general perception that electric cars are an essential part of smart cities. That is wrong and needs to be made clear. Whereas electric cars do have a role to play, it's a small role and it needs to be viewed in a shared mobility context.

As for reliable sources to be secondary source: other wikipedians seem to prefer academic papers and find them more reliable sources of information (because they're written by experts on the matter, not by news agencies and the like). Also, there is no clear definition on what a smart city is (as there are many definitions of it) and there is no organisation giving a certification for smart cities. So how can you be sure that the example cities listed in this article ("the so-called smart cities that already exist and which the article needs to describe) are truly "smart cities" ? I think the academic papers are better sources to describe the smart city.

Regardless, I'll make changes to the text and we'll keep working on it together.

User:Genetics4good

the article still puts too much focus on high-tech, whereas smart cities tend to make a lot of use of low-tech too (such as bicycles, even just walking) ... so, you need to cite secondary sources that state that explicitly. And you need to follow WP:TONE. If the sources are saying one thing and you think it should say something else, well, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

Wikipedia has clear policy on using primary sources. Since that is established policy it is what wikipedians prefer.

If there is no clear definition on what a smart city is then the article should state "there is no clear definition on what a smart city is" backed up by a reliable source that states "there is no clear definition on what a smart city is". We do not make up our own definition, no matter how well intentioned. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of smart cities

In Germany a test-city, the 'T-City' Friedrichshafen, exists. Also see de:T-City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.187.57.48 (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In Slovenia, the capitol Ljubljana has recently become the Green Capitol of Europe being an example of a city of the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.20.174 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In Singapore the IDA is leading the development of the first smart nation, but to be honest the city-state is of course a smart city. See: http://www.ida.gov.sg/Infocomm-Landscape/Smart-Nation-Vision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggi (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The list of flagship cases has been rearranged into alphabetical order for ease of reference, and Manchester's CityVerve project (launched earlier this year) has also been included — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillPritchard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems evident that the 'adoption' section of this list is expanding rapidly; it currently takes up ~40% of the word count of the page. I think the community would be better served by a separate List of Smart Cities page so that the concept and its implementations can stand on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelst (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Data Collection

This section reads like a CS student's term assignment to chart analogies to the OSI model, not sure how appropriate it is for this article or really what to do with it, maybe the entire section should be elided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelst (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Implementation of new literature

Hi all. My name is Theo and I'm a freelance Wikipedia editor and I am currently editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of the University of Virginia's Department of Data Science. This is one of the articles I have been asked to work on.

I have been researching this topic for about a month now and I am now writing up some of my research. I will be building on some of the existing sections of the article whilst also adding some new ones.

I am very open to all comments and please feel free to make changes/call me out on any changes you don't believe are faithful to the topic or the research.

I'm hoping to start properly editing the article soon! Theobrad (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Source

Removed this source: , but it's likely helpful in the article. Noting it on the talk page. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Some more pruned sentences that I feel bad about just deleting when the sources are helpful:

John M. Eger said that a smart community makes a conscious and agreed-upon decision to deploy technology as a catalyst to solving its social and business needs.

Technological propagation is not an end in itself, but a means to reinventing cities for a new economy and society. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

More formally, a smart city is: "An urban area that has securely integrated technology across the information ... and Internet of Things (IoT) sectors to better manage a city’s assets." Mrfoogles (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern processors have only become better, more affordable, and accessible to even wider populations. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A service oriented infrastructure is required to connect individuals and devices in a smart city. These include innovation services and communication infrastructure. Yovanof, G. S. & Hazapis, G. N. define a digital city as "a connected community that combines broadband communications infrastructure; a flexible, service-oriented computing infrastructure based on open industry standards; and, innovative services to meet the needs of governments and their employees, citizens and businesses." Mrfoogles (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

State of the article

Been editing this a lot and wanted to give a summary of the issues. First, a lot of it is either written like a scientific report (see Dimensions, Background), or written in list format (see Technologies used, Dimensions, Frameworks, etc). Second, the History section is a bit broken because the modern section is composed of a prose list of things that happened, plus two parts that I ripped from the previous section on Research and global interest because that section focused more on global interest than research, and put into History and By country. I think its better to have it formatted that way, but the History section (which was never really complete) is still not really working. I think maybe the Frameworks section, which may have been created by one editor (it references "these three dimensions" being important at the end, but does not cite a source for it?), should probably be merged into Methods, because that's what it mostly describes, plus maybe into History because the last segment describes the movement. The specific division into those frameworks I cannot find a citation for, and I think it's just an editors decision, so it doesn't need to be kept.

Dimensions is according to edit summaries sourced to a specific common classification among studies, but it reads like a scientific report and not an encyclopedia article, which should discuss classifications, rather than state a certain set is objectively correct. For example, "To guarantee the efficient coordination and equilibrium of smart city dimensions, cities ought to establish comprehensive and interconnected planning frameworks that address all dimensions concurrently." This reads like a report and not an article, which shouldn't be saying what cities ought to do. I think the main reformatting that should be done is Frameworks should be split and merged, and Dimensions probably needs to be rewritten. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for this feedback. This was the first real scientific article I did a lot of work on. With this in mind, I definitely agree that the tone needs to be much more Encyclopaedic. I will look through your others comments in more detail when I get the chance and try to explain what I was trying to achieve or make edits based on your recommendations.

Thank you again! Theobrad (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, tone is a bit off in my opinion but the sourcing is very good and I think that helps the article. Edited some things a bit. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Update (nobody needs to reply to this, just putting in the same thread): condensed Dimensions down to a discussion of policy implementation & interpretation (see Implementation), moved frameworks into the Implementation and Methods sections. The main broken part of the article is now the Methods section, because I added more list-format info to it and it is now very long. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also adding that (this isn't attributed to anyone, just how it happened) the article pretty much entirely focuses on the benefits and positive views of smart cities, and criticisms are relegated to 1 sentence in the lead and the Criticisms section. I feel like currently the article is not to the point where stuff like this needs to be focused on, but in an ideal world there would be more of the ideas from the Criticism section throughout the article to the extent that they're significant and reasonable views, per the due weight policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mrfoogles,

I think it might be helpful for you to look at my Sandbox. User:Theobrad/sandbox. This, I believe, was the sandbox I was writing most of the article in whilst I was researching the subject. Looking at this sandbox perhaps gives a better overview of the points I was trying to make. In this format it is still heavily academic, but I think the full academic debate which I capture in this sandbox showcases the inherent criticism of the concept of smart cities. I.e. when talking about top down vs bottom up, I believe there was a decent amount of discussion about why one versus the other would lead to undesirable outcomes of smart city development. It may prove not very helpful, but it's worth looking over. The reason why not all of the information on the sandbox was directly transfer onto the main article and then edited, was that the total word count would end up being over 10,000, which I was told would lead to the article being cut up. Theobrad (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

K, probably will look at that. Just so you know, I think whoever gave you the 10,000 number might have oversimplified a bit: I think the full guidelines are at Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline, which gives exceptions for when it's necessary for scope, so I think the article won't be definitely cut up, it's just not recommended unless necessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's good to know! Theobrad (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)