Talk:The Principles of Scientific Management/Archives/2013

Re: Section Criticism

Problem #1 Mycoskie is misrepresented. What the author says on page 127 is that:

Not all employers ruled like this, and not all employees felt alienated and dehumanized by the companies they worked for. But it’s safe to say that, in general, the word “trust” was not baked into the operating DNA of business leadership during this period.

That is quite different from:

Two key fundamentals, "workers are inherently lazy and do not enjoy their jobs"[1] became the "DNA" of business leadership during the Industrial Revolution

This misrepresantation amounts to a failure of logic and a disregard for the explicit excpetion stated by the author. To state that A is not an attribute of thing T is not equivalent to a statement that T possesses the opposite of A. The statement The stove is not hot does not imply The stove is cold (the stove could be warm). Furthermore, Mycoskie explicitly states that "Not all employers ruled like this" -- so he himself has ruled out universality.

Problem #2 Misunderstanding or disregard for WP:RELY and in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Mycoskie is not an authority on industrial psychology or human resources management so his incidental commentary does not meet the criteria for WP:RELY. The Principles of Scientific Management has been criticised by subject matter experts -- in a substantive manner -- and those criticisms have appeared in peer-reviewed literature.

So, in sum, this section is based on a misrepresentation of a non-significant source. For these reasons I am deleting it. It is better not to include something than to include something that is wrong. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudony, exactly what part of WP:RELY are you using for your opinion? If you have a better suggestion for the text from Mycoskie, offer it. But to say, "non-significant source", where is that in WP:RELY? You are also suggesting, through citing P:SCHOLARSHIP that ONLY academic papers from authors with area of expertise YOU deem relevant, are acceptable. Where is this in WP:RELY specifically? Mycoskie is the founder of a large, successful, global company suggesting a new model for business, that he used, documented in his WP article. Mycoskie offers modern criticism of this book giving context to it's prevalence in modern management. The heading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is important: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." SCHOLARLY is just one example under the text that suggests MOST reliable, not the ONLY reliable. Show us where in WP:RELY your opinion about Mycoskie is supported or offer a better edit in a spirit of collaboration. Eturk001 (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't be evasive, I'm not an idiot. You put words into Mycoskie's mouth. That is sufficient grounds for removing your edit and I don't require any further justification but I will indulge you. Regarding WP:RELY, read WP:SCHOLARSHIP again without your magic "I know for I told me so" goggles and then have a look at some other articles on academic matters. Mycoskie is not an authority on HR, industrial psychology nor the history of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, what he wrote is just an incidental comment not a substantive critique. Trying to represent this comment:

Not all employers ruled like this, and not all employees felt alienated and dehumanized by the companies they worked for. But it’s safe to say that, in general, the word “trust” was not baked into the operating DNA of business leadership during this period.

as a substantive criticism of The Principles of Scientific Management is either ignorance, folly or mendacity (or some combination of those). Since you want specific justification in terms of WP:RELY:

* The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.

* Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

Taylor's document is on a scholarly subject so any criticism should come from the same kind of source. Just because Tom Elardi owns a casino it doesn't mean that he is in any way citable on probability theory or that some incidental comment Elardi may make about probability deserves a place in the article Probability theory. Also, a broad-sweeping generalisation about the effect of a document, the Industrial Revolution and the history of HRM must meet the standard of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and an incidental comment from a non-expert certainly fails in that regard. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I understand the concern better now. Eturk001 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)