Follett's Wikipedia article - can we make it better? - The Mary Parker Follett Network2024-03-29T13:56:02Zhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A39869&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noStill here. Matthew Shapiro…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-12-17:3634948:Comment:642922020-12-17T06:11:33.541ZMichael Eugene Turnerhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MichaelEugeneTurner
<p>Still here.<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Matthew Shapiro said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A64231&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3634948Comment64231"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?</p>
<p>~ Matthew<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Mary Lang said:…</cite></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Still here.<br/> <br/> <cite>Matthew Shapiro said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A64231&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3634948Comment64231"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?</p>
<p>~ Matthew<br/> <br/> <cite>Mary Lang said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A64382&xg_source=activity#3634948Comment64382"><div>Hi Matthew- agreed on your perspective. I do not have a concrete plan in mind, but it occurred to me that between Michael's expertise on the Wikipedia platform, Margaret's pracademic perspective, your own Follet expertise and my willingness to help shape a positive outcome, we could at least get started. One idea is to simply begin with a list of say, Matthew's top five improvements we'd Iike to see, have Michael guide the implementation, asking along the way for whatever research and or writing assistance he might need from the community, and when/if we get through those top 5, we keep going and maybe pick the next 5, etc.<br/> <br/> That's as far as I've gotten :)<br/> <br/> Mary</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Mary - I think that's a good…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-12-13:3634948:Comment:642312020-12-13T06:59:47.712ZMatthew Shapirohttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MatthewShapiro
<p>Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?</p>
<p>~ Matthew<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Mary Lang said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A64382&xg_source=activity#3634948Comment64382"><div>Hi Matthew- agreed on your perspective. I do not have a concrete plan in mind, but it occurred to me that between Michael's…</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?</p>
<p>~ Matthew<br/> <br/> <cite>Mary Lang said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A64382&xg_source=activity#3634948Comment64382"><div>Hi Matthew- agreed on your perspective. I do not have a concrete plan in mind, but it occurred to me that between Michael's expertise on the Wikipedia platform, Margaret's pracademic perspective, your own Follet expertise and my willingness to help shape a positive outcome, we could at least get started. One idea is to simply begin with a list of say, Matthew's top five improvements we'd Iike to see, have Michael guide the implementation, asking along the way for whatever research and or writing assistance he might need from the community, and when/if we get through those top 5, we keep going and maybe pick the next 5, etc.<br/> <br/> That's as far as I've gotten :)<br/> <br/> Mary</div>
</blockquote> Hi Matthew- agreed on your pe…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-12-10:3634948:Comment:643822020-12-10T20:17:41.548ZMary Langhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MaryLang
Hi Matthew- agreed on your perspective. I do not have a concrete plan in mind, but it occurred to me that between Michael's expertise on the Wikipedia platform, Margaret's pracademic perspective, your own Follet expertise and my willingness to help shape a positive outcome, we could at least get started. One idea is to simply begin with a list of say, Matthew's top five improvements we'd Iike to see, have Michael guide the implementation, asking along the way for whatever research and or…
Hi Matthew- agreed on your perspective. I do not have a concrete plan in mind, but it occurred to me that between Michael's expertise on the Wikipedia platform, Margaret's pracademic perspective, your own Follet expertise and my willingness to help shape a positive outcome, we could at least get started. One idea is to simply begin with a list of say, Matthew's top five improvements we'd Iike to see, have Michael guide the implementation, asking along the way for whatever research and or writing assistance he might need from the community, and when/if we get through those top 5, we keep going and maybe pick the next 5, etc.<br />
<br />
That's as far as I've gotten :)<br />
<br />
Mary Mary - I'm not aware of any s…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-11-20:3634948:Comment:592472020-11-20T07:11:58.939ZMatthew Shapirohttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MatthewShapiro
<p>Mary - I'm not aware of any specific outcome from the discussion here. Looking at the Wikipedia article, I still think it needs a lot of work. Just one example: it now includes the frequently attributed yet never actually cited quote "Management is the art of getting things done through people". That shouldn't be there. Just one of many aspects of the article needing work. <br></br><br></br>One challenge to a wholesale re-do is the fact that Follett's insights and ideas have universal themes that…</p>
<p>Mary - I'm not aware of any specific outcome from the discussion here. Looking at the Wikipedia article, I still think it needs a lot of work. Just one example: it now includes the frequently attributed yet never actually cited quote "Management is the art of getting things done through people". That shouldn't be there. Just one of many aspects of the article needing work. <br/><br/>One challenge to a wholesale re-do is the fact that Follett's insights and ideas have universal themes that impact in so many areas, different people tend to emphasize different things. We could attempt to structure the article such that as complete as possible a picture is painted, perhaps in a way that remains somewhat stable even through incremental revisions.</p>
<p>In any event, I'd look forward to your thoughts on what to do!</p>
<p>- Matthew<br/> <br/> <cite>Mary Lang said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?xg_source=activity#3634948Comment57636"><div><p>Hi Michael and fellow Follett followers. Another pracademic chiming in here.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am wondering if the Wikepedia effort ever went anywhere. I've read through the thread to date, and cannot tell what ultimately happened.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I may be willing to help out if there is a useful (and relatively painfree :) way to do so.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> Hi Michael and fellow Follett…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-11-15:3634948:Comment:576362020-11-15T16:26:46.075ZMary Langhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MaryLang
<p>Hi Michael and fellow Follett followers. Another pracademic chiming in here.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am wondering if the Wikepedia effort ever went anywhere. I've read through the thread to date, and cannot tell what ultimately happened.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I may be willing to help out if there is a useful (and relatively painfree :) way to do so.</p>
<p>Hi Michael and fellow Follett followers. Another pracademic chiming in here.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am wondering if the Wikepedia effort ever went anywhere. I've read through the thread to date, and cannot tell what ultimately happened.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I may be willing to help out if there is a useful (and relatively painfree :) way to do so.</p> Wikipedia is a place that a l…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-05-04:3634948:Comment:398692020-05-04T15:44:26.890ZMatthew Shapirohttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MatthewShapiro
<p>Wikipedia is a place that a lot of people will be going to getting a basic introduction to Follett. Thus, it’s worth paying some attention to. Now, there is no single perspective on someone whose work is so multifaceted and widely applicable as is Follett's, and different people place different lenses on her ideas and impact, and draw different things from them. Some see her as a management pioneer; I see her as a pioneer in political theory. <br></br> <br></br> Now, I can see Margaret's point: no…</p>
<p>Wikipedia is a place that a lot of people will be going to getting a basic introduction to Follett. Thus, it’s worth paying some attention to. Now, there is no single perspective on someone whose work is so multifaceted and widely applicable as is Follett's, and different people place different lenses on her ideas and impact, and draw different things from them. Some see her as a management pioneer; I see her as a pioneer in political theory. <br/> <br/> Now, I can see Margaret's point: no matter how great an effort a particular individual or group might make to craft an article, the fact that anyone from outside of the dialogue (Wikipedia being a form of dialogue itself aside for the moment), there is a legitimate question of "why bother?" To that, I’d answer “because a lot of people use Wikipedia”.<br/> <br/> Michael is pointing out that the authorship process is itself a kind of community effort, too, and this is laudable. But that process is somewhat “porous” and has significant potential for the opposite of synergy and integration. While ideally fostering the best combination of contributions, the Wikipedia rules do allow for zero-sum types of results, mutual nullification, or a mish-mosh that fails to really capture diversity. <br/> <br/> I still think it’s worth continued exploration of how the Follett listing on Wikipedia can be steered toward the inclusivity-integration level of quality and away from the muddled mish-mosh, or exclusive, one-sided, etc. low-quality result.</p> Not to drag this out, or to m…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-04-30:3634948:Comment:400522020-04-30T10:46:04.891ZMichael Eugene Turnerhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MichaelEugeneTurner
<p>Not to drag this out, or to make too many assumptions, but in Dr. Stout's contribution to this thread, I hope I'm not reading too much between the lines when I say that, in her own model of organization<br></br><br></br><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12395640/Relational_Process_Ontology_A_Grounding_for_Global_Governance">https://www.academia.edu/12395640/Relational_Process_Ontology_A_Grounding_for_Global_Governance</a><br></br><br></br>she misperceives Wikipedia <em>process </em>as matching "Fragmented…</p>
<p>Not to drag this out, or to make too many assumptions, but in Dr. Stout's contribution to this thread, I hope I'm not reading too much between the lines when I say that, in her own model of organization<br/><br/><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12395640/Relational_Process_Ontology_A_Grounding_for_Global_Governance">https://www.academia.edu/12395640/Relational_Process_Ontology_A_Grounding_for_Global_Governance</a><br/><br/>she misperceives Wikipedia <em>process </em>as matching "Fragmented Governance" closely, when I can say from years of experience that it's a lot closer to the "Integrative Governance" described in that paper. Many who aspire to edit end up bolting, dismayed that there are actually, y'know, <em>rules</em>, and denouncing it as run by some cabal. Those who stick with it, however, eventually see how integrative it is, even if there are trollish exceptions who somehow narrowly avoid being banned. It's a matter of, well, may I say "Creative Experience"?<br/><br/>The crowning irony is perhaps that Jimbo Wales, who started Wikipedia (and who is undoubtedly a rude fellow but with great entrepreneurial strengths) believes Ayn Rand said it all, in philosophy and government -- which is pretty much a Fragmented Governance mindset. Fragmentation was an expression of Wales' ideals, but also the source of his initial doubts that the concept would fly. Wikipedia may stand as an existence proof that Integrative Governance is an emergent property of a combination of a high degree of freedom and protect-the-commons ethics, to which human beings may be naturally inclined. A believer in capitalism as "the Unknown Ideal" may have inadvertently handed us a starting point for a post-capitalist social order, while confessing that, despite styling himself as a "monarch" over the process, he has since become powerless over his own creation.</p> I've published often enough,…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-04-29:3634948:Comment:400512020-04-29T16:41:26.177ZMichael Eugene Turnerhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MichaelEugeneTurner
<p>I've published often enough, and formally enough, that some have assumed I am an academic. Well, if there's anything to it, I'm also a "pracademic" -- putting literal skin in the game, in places where "white American guy" spells "kidnapper bait for extremists still at large." If you think I'm rude, try filipinos! Perhaps Follett would faint! (More likely, plunge in feet first, very much in her element.)…<br></br><br></br></p>
<p>I've published often enough, and formally enough, that some have assumed I am an academic. Well, if there's anything to it, I'm also a "pracademic" -- putting literal skin in the game, in places where "white American guy" spells "kidnapper bait for extremists still at large." If you think I'm rude, try filipinos! Perhaps Follett would faint! (More likely, plunge in feet first, very much in her element.)<br/><br/><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2666784386671999&set=pb.100000213907801.-2207520000..&type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2666784386671999&set=pb...</a><br/> <br/> <cite>Michael Eugene Turner said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/comment/show?id=3634948%3AComment%3A39756&xn_out=json&firstPage=1&lastPage=1&xg_token=028b16c564a8dc80bf3d331b98812eaa&_=1588177495899#3634948Comment39756"><div><p>"<span>In my view it is not worth the effort because of the crowd sourcing."<br/><br/></span>Without context, I read that as "crowd sourcing is a waste of time." If that was true, Wikipedia would be a pile of trash articles, rather than the imperfect but useful resource it clearly is.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"<span>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers."<br/><br/></span>This is a problem mainly for articles on high-profile topics with a dash or two controversy on the topic. I think we can all agree that Follet isn't nearly high-profile enough, and there's much in her perspective that's no more controversial than your average Harvard Business Review article about collaboration. Indeed, if HBR grows out of Drucker as much as anybody, and Drucker was a fan of Follett, it seems unlikely that edit wars or semiliterate contributions would ever be a problem. You want a war zone? Try Paul Krugman's biography on Wikipedia! (Still nursing those wounds, but also got commendations for my efforts to balance it and correct it.)</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Hopefully, people will see the terrible writing on this entry and disregard it!"<br/><br/>In context, I read that as "disregard the Wikipedia article." The Wikipedian response is "will improve it." That context included you promoting your own encyclopedia article, so I doubt I read you wrong.<br/><br/>I'd love a perfect Follet bio on Wikipedia, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm glad you're a donor, and a user, but that doesn't make you an expert on what Wikipedia, as an ongoing process of never-reached perfection, actually is. If it's incredibly rude of me to say so, I have to wonder: what would Follett herself think of what I wrote in my response to you? <br/><br/>"<span>What the hard-shelled conservative always forgets is that what he really admires in the past is those very moments when men have strongly and </span><em>rudely</em><span> broken with tradition."<br/><br/>What's proposed here is change in how Mary Follet Parker's work is promoted. I'm already being accused of rudeness. If that's a necessary (if insufficient) condition, I also have strengths to bring to the project: I know a fair amount about how Wikipedia really works, what's flowing and roiling beneath a surface that few probe, and how change moves through its channels. Well, often enough, it moves rudely. That's inevitable, which is one reading of the word "necessary", after all. In a perfect world, "necessary" wouldn't have that connotation. Out of 500 members here, maybe there are a few who can stomach indelicate communications, and to dramatically improve an article, it only takes a few.</span></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Margaret Stout said:</cite></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A39955&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3634948Comment39955"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Michael, you misunderstand my brief reply above.</p>
<p>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers. Secondarily, the wikipedia procedures are phenomenally complex and time-consuming. If you are willing to take that on, best wishes!</p>
<p>I am a pracademic and fully community-engaged scholar in a second career that started at age 46. I often use wikipedia in the exact way you describe, and am a financial contributor to the organization. I am no "ivory tower" snob and throwing ugly assertions like that at people you don't know is (1) an enormous assumption and (2) incredibly rude and "un-Follettian."</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> "In my view it is not worth t…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-04-29:3634948:Comment:397562020-04-29T16:24:51.918ZMichael Eugene Turnerhttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MichaelEugeneTurner
<p>"<span>In my view it is not worth the effort because of the crowd sourcing."<br></br><br></br></span>Without context, I read that as "crowd sourcing is a waste of time." If that was true, Wikipedia would be a pile of trash articles, rather than the imperfect but useful resource it clearly is.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"<span>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as…</span></p>
<p>"<span>In my view it is not worth the effort because of the crowd sourcing."<br/><br/></span>Without context, I read that as "crowd sourcing is a waste of time." If that was true, Wikipedia would be a pile of trash articles, rather than the imperfect but useful resource it clearly is.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"<span>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers."<br/><br/></span>This is a problem mainly for articles on high-profile topics with a dash or two controversy on the topic. I think we can all agree that Follet isn't nearly high-profile enough, and there's much in her perspective that's no more controversial than your average Harvard Business Review article about collaboration. Indeed, if HBR grows out of Drucker as much as anybody, and Drucker was a fan of Follett, it seems unlikely that edit wars or semiliterate contributions would ever be a problem. You want a war zone? Try Paul Krugman's biography on Wikipedia! (Still nursing those wounds, but also got commendations for my efforts to balance it and correct it.)</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Hopefully, people will see the terrible writing on this entry and disregard it!"<br/><br/>In context, I read that as "disregard the Wikipedia article." The Wikipedian response is "will improve it." That context included you promoting your own encyclopedia article, so I doubt I read you wrong.<br/><br/>I'd love a perfect Follet bio on Wikipedia, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm glad you're a donor, and a user, but that doesn't make you an expert on what Wikipedia, as an ongoing process of never-reached perfection, actually is. If it's incredibly rude of me to say so, I have to wonder: what would Follett herself think of what I wrote in my response to you? <br/><br/>"<span>What the hard-shelled conservative always forgets is that what he really admires in the past is those very moments when men have strongly and </span><em>rudely</em><span> broken with tradition."<br/><br/>What's proposed here is change in how Mary Follet Parker's work is promoted. I'm already being accused of rudeness. If that's a necessary (if insufficient) condition, I also have strengths to bring to the project: I know a fair amount about how Wikipedia really works, what's flowing and roiling beneath a surface that few probe, and how change moves through its channels. Well, often enough, it moves rudely. That's inevitable, which is one reading of the word "necessary", after all. In a perfect world, "necessary" wouldn't have that connotation. Out of 500 members here, maybe there are a few who can stomach indelicate communications, and to dramatically improve an article, it only takes a few.</span></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Margaret Stout said:</cite></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote cite="http://mpfollett.ning.com/forum/topics/follett-s-wikipedia-article-can-we-make-it-better?commentId=3634948%3AComment%3A39955&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3634948Comment39955"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Michael, you misunderstand my brief reply above.</p>
<p>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers. Secondarily, the wikipedia procedures are phenomenally complex and time-consuming. If you are willing to take that on, best wishes!</p>
<p>I am a pracademic and fully community-engaged scholar in a second career that started at age 46. I often use wikipedia in the exact way you describe, and am a financial contributor to the organization. I am no "ivory tower" snob and throwing ugly assertions like that at people you don't know is (1) an enormous assumption and (2) incredibly rude and "un-Follettian."</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Michael, you misunderstand my…tag:mpfollett.ning.com,2020-04-29:3634948:Comment:399552020-04-29T15:25:25.530ZMargaret Stouthttp://mpfollett.ning.com/profile/MargaretStout
<p>Michael, you misunderstand my brief reply above.</p>
<p>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers. Secondarily, the wikipedia procedures are phenomenally complex and time-consuming. If you are willing to take that on, best wishes!</p>
<p>I am a pracademic and fully community-engaged scholar in a second career that started at age 46. I often…</p>
<p>Michael, you misunderstand my brief reply above.</p>
<p>Because of the amount of time and effort it takes to manage a wiki entry and protect it against poor or even wrong contributions and editing, I do not believe it is worth the effort as volunteers. Secondarily, the wikipedia procedures are phenomenally complex and time-consuming. If you are willing to take that on, best wishes!</p>
<p>I am a pracademic and fully community-engaged scholar in a second career that started at age 46. I often use wikipedia in the exact way you describe, and am a financial contributor to the organization. I am no "ivory tower" snob and throwing ugly assertions like that at people you don't know is (1) an enormous assumption and (2) incredibly rude and "un-Follettian."</p>