Talk:Decision-making: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2013; 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:55, 21 January 2021

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Engineering Top‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alinamartell579 (article contribs).

Wikipedia article chart

i dont understand why there should be a chart on creating an article in wikipedia in an article about decision making — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck1609 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on – sock puppetry?

I notice an abundance of single-purpose accounts that have each been making a small number of edits to this article. In the cases when multiple edits have been made by the same account, they were typically all within about one hour of each other – as if someone created an account and then abandoned it after a single brief edit session. This may indicate sock puppetry to promote some particular agenda or point of view. There has also been some ordinary vandalism, but that's not what I'm talking about. Many of the edits of these apparently different users seem to be similar and possibly cooperative. Many of them are related to the idea of using "tacit knowledge" or "gut feelings" in decision-making. The edits don't seem to be outright vandalism, and might even be intended as constructive. This doesn't appear to be related to the declared Spring 2018 course assignment. Here are some examples:

Ansku193 made one edit of this article and no other edits (13 November 2018).
Ernokajander made two edits of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
Ebaguet made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
JariKuu18 made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
AtteYM made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
Sultsus made two edits of this article and no other edits (2 November 2018).
Benfshr made one edit of this article and no other edits (29 October 2018).
Goh km made one edit of this article and no other edits (20 October 2018).
Nagendra103 made one edit of this article and no other edits (30 August 2018).
Ramo 2266 made one edit of this article and no other edits (12 April 2017).
Mdiane24 made nine edits of this article and no other edits (20 March 2017).
Mosesbasseyibiang made one edit of this article and no other edits (29 November 2016).
TomMcNamee made one edit of this article and no other edits (21 June 2015).

Aside from these most obvious examples, there are a number of other accounts and IP addresses that have edited this article and relatively few others. Until this edit of July 2015 (by Biogeographist, which is not an SPA account, and indeed seems like a very helpful triple-barnstar editor), there was no mention of "tacit knowledge" in the article – only "tacit assumptions".

—BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's peculiar alright. Usually one would expect something like this for promotion or pushing of contentious content, which doesn't seem to be the case here. In fact, what with the innocuous character of these edits, the approach strikes me as distinct overkill :p I do get a class project vibe though - maybe everyone has been told to "as homework, make one edit to this article" - pretty useless way to go about it... Does the recent turn towards tacit etcetera strike you as undue? Can't quite tell myself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watch this article, and I had noticed the sudden flurry of edits. I had been waiting for the activity to subside before surveying the damage, which I haven't yet surveyed, so I can't yet provide any hypotheses about what happened but I agree it is unusual. I remember thinking that it looked like students. Thanks to BarrelProof for the notification. Biogeographist (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of sections

User:Flagrant hysterical curious recently changed the order of sections in this article without explanation, and it doesn't seem to me that the new organization is any more rational than the previous organization, but the previous organization didn't have an obvious rationale either. This article still faces the issues mentioned years ago at Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2012 § This article is a jumble. Can anyone propose a better organization of this article? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Overall the article is well written, but I feel that extinction of instinct isn't extremely relevant to the topic as it is a branch off of decision making but not a direct link to it.Jkb131 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:33, 23 August 2020 edit ClueBot III (talk \| contribs) Bots 1,372,366 edits m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2017. (BOT) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:55, 21 January 2021 edit undo Jkb131 (talk \| contribs) 21 edits mNo edit summary Next edit →
Line 39:		Line 39:

	[[User:Flagrant hysterical curious]] recently {{Diff\|\|prev\|909061930\|changed the order of sections}} in this article without explanation, and it doesn't seem to me that the new organization is any more rational than the previous organization, but the previous organization didn't have an obvious rationale either. This article still faces the issues mentioned years ago at {{slink\|Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2012#This article is a jumble}}. Can anyone propose a better organization of this article? Thanks, [[User:Biogeographist\|Biogeographist]] ([[User talk:Biogeographist\|talk]]) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)		[[User:Flagrant hysterical curious]] recently {{Diff\|\|prev\|909061930\|changed the order of sections}} in this article without explanation, and it doesn't seem to me that the new organization is any more rational than the previous organization, but the previous organization didn't have an obvious rationale either. This article still faces the issues mentioned years ago at {{slink\|Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2012#This article is a jumble}}. Can anyone propose a better organization of this article? Thanks, [[User:Biogeographist\|Biogeographist]] ([[User talk:Biogeographist\|talk]]) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
			Overall the article is well written, but I feel that extinction of instinct isn't extremely relevant to the topic as it is a branch off of decision making but not a direct link to it.[[User:Jkb131\|Jkb131]] ([[User talk:Jkb131\|talk]]) 01:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)