Talk:Annotation

Reduce to a disambiguation page?
As the article has issues wrt. depth and verification, but points to external wiki pages for almost every aspect, is there any reason for not turning it into a disambiguation page? Chiarcos (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Strong Biased Definition
There is a strong biasing definition by defining an annotation as metadata, which is related to structured data on information systems. On engineering, annotations are both digital and over a hardcopy (paper).....

Code Walk
What is meant with code walk as said in the article? --Abdull (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I get an annotated view of a page here in wikipedia? Bjornen (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I am not aware of any, but I concur that it should be here. If for no other reason than to ask "Where did you get that?" offline, rather than asking publicly and embarrassing and intimidating a potential newbie. There's a bunch of different annotation softwares, wikipedia has a classic comparison of annotation software article even you can also try putting genuis.it/ in front of any website(requires having an account now adays). hypothes.is is another newer one although I have not interacted with it in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.190.160 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 132.160.49.90 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC) -

The section on Software Annotations only talks about Java Language annotations. I imagine that other languages also allow annotations, but am not sure... As it is, that section should be merged with the Java annotations page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Icaza (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That section appears to have been lifted verbatim from here. The bulk was added by 149.77.179.45, but it looks like even the summary points were lifted before that by 149.254.51.140.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blame
Whomever wrote the blurb about "blame" annotation being intended to blame or praise the authors has apparently never used the tool productively in a professional environment. The primary productive purpose for identifying the author is almost certainly to be able to contact the author or to look through other related posts to gain insight into what the author was thinking at the time the code was written. (The quality of these articles is horrid.) As an example, it would be occasionally useful for IN to incorporate a blame feature into its version control so we could at least contact the original author to collaborate with them offline if their article may need revising (or retracting), or citing a source, without having to wade through pages and pages of diffs to find where the text in question was added. The intent is not to affect their reputation, but the quality of the code. 132.160.49.90 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a "blame" function in Ingenpedia. You access it through "View history->Revision history search". I used it to find that the "Educational materials ... this year" was inserted by an editor in September 2006. BrotherE (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Ingenpedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba (Talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

splitup?
This whole article is so extremely heterogenous that it would require a substantial amount of annotation >:-) to highlight the distinctions between all the sections. And this would still leave the category confusion untouched. I strongly vote for separating the individual paragraphs leaving this lemma reserved to the original meaning. -- Kku (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-History" -> Documented History of Practise
Just testing out "sandbox" style before an actual edit attempt.

So going way back to speculation about annotation being related to possibly atoms and molecules and then Higher life forms sudden recognition or a practice before recognition of a documentation systemwhere as previous medium material is altered in someway - space, material, form - to create a new definition-

There's stuff like the knot tyers quelpeyanos or whatever

stuff like scratch in a rock or sand then adding a dye whether it be blood or shells fragments and resin in a scratched pitted mark,

maybe going into lingu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.190.160 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)