This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SebastianHelm (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 23 January 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:26, 23 January 2003 by SebastianHelm (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Question to anyone who reads this: do you think we should split the archaeological and digital definitions of "artifact"? I have no problem wih them being on the same page, but as a newbie, I don't know the rules for this. Discuss!
- It depends how much thre is to say on each. See wikipedia:Disambiguation. I would say the archaeological is by far the dominant, so that would stay here with a note & a link to Artifact (digital). -- Tarquin
Sounds good. Would this be a straightforward "see Artifact, digital" entry, or is there a special Misplaced Pages way of doing it? -- Storm
Are there just two meanings? See Newton for an example. -- Tarquin
suggested disambiguation titles
- Artifact -- this page, the archeology meaning
- Digital artifact
I think it should probably stay here until such time as there's enough for it to justify its own article; I think it's likely an article of its own would remain a tiny stub. - Khendon 17:56 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Storm
We could reconcile the two by saying something along the lines of "human or other (perceived) intelligent activity".
That would allow us to cut the following, which appears a bit garrulous to me (reminds me of Eisenhower's definition of an intellectual):
In a broader sense, it may be defined as anything created by any intelligent being, but at the moment our knowledge of intelligent beings consists of one example -- humanity. (Some ethologists, scientists who study animal behavior, may not agree with this assertion; nor would many UFO enthusiasts).</>
Sebastian 01:26 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)