The Mary Parker Follett Network

Unity, not uniformity, must be our aim. - MPF

Follett's Wikipedia article - can we make it better?

I recently visited the Wikipedia article on Follett - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Parker_Follett - and I'm not sure that it really captures the essence and full dimensionality of Follett. I also think the writing quality could be significantly improved. (I was also amazed to see a second photo of Follett there, which I didn't know existed!).

In case you're not familiar with Wikipedia, anyone can get a Wikipedia account and edit the text of an article. I think there's a way to "lock in" one particular version, but I'm not sure how that works. In any event, it might be worded a certain way one week, then someone who thinks they are improving it can edit large amounts of text. You can look into the editing history right there on the site, although it's not the easiest process to trace every change.

I think that wordsmithing an article that reflects the consensus of, say, the 500+ members of this group would be very difficult. But perhaps we can find a way to agree on what the article should emphasize (and there is no limit to how much detail can be added to round out the picture), that could guide some major edits. Then we can focus on things like style, grammar and flow.

What do you think? Take a look at the article and comment here!

Best regards,

Matthew

Views: 242

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

That's as far as I've gotten :)

Mary

Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?

~ Matthew

Mary Lang said:

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.

That's as far as I've gotten :)

Mary

Still here.

Matthew Shapiro said:

Mary - I think that's a good proposal. Hmm...five things...I will need to make a list. Michael, are you still there?

~ Matthew

Mary Lang said:

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.

That's as far as I've gotten :)

Mary

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by Matthew Shapiro.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service