Talk:Getting Things Done

Link to author's lecture

I've tried to add this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7vUdKTlhk But the automatic bot did not allowed it. Should it be added ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_Things_Done&diff=189326401&oldid=189326379

listing for deletion

This was listed for speedy deletion as promotional. As reviewing administrator I declined the deletion, since there was a core of reasonable content. But the overlong summary of the method was in fact promotional--it is not appropriate encyclopedic content. I removed it all, except for the software section. I think a one or two paragraph summary would be appropriate, but I leave it to someone else to write it. I point out though, that I have no special rights as administrator over the content of the article--all that I did relating to that role was to decline to delete it. DGG (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I got impatient and removed too much. I've restored the full version, and then made a more careful cut at what seems a reasonable level of detail, and some other edits. In particular, I removed the excessive repetition of the name of the author and the name of the method--its that sort of thing that makes an article appear promotional. Please see WP:BRD--sometimes an article needs a bold move to get revision started -- again, in making the edit I was not acting as an administrator, as administrators have no special control over content, and can be reverted just like anyone else. We don't get angry at it--well, at least almost all of us don't get angry at it. DGG (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GTD Software Section Suggestions

The GTD software section has been both a separate article and a target for all kinds of spam. I think it would be useful to have some guidelines for what belongs. My suggestion would be including only internal links in this section and restricting them to software that has a WP article. I've edited the section to internal links only; but, some of them have red links. (A couple of them were not red; but, did not lead to software articles - I've italicized and not linked these.) ChemGardener (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This section shouldn't have ANY links to specific software, internal or not. The current list of software (7 titles at present) should be removed because it is original research in every sense. The "original research"ness of this can't be fixed, it just is. Once you remove the list, the rest of the section is actually pretty good, though it certainly needs more sources. JCrenshaw (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think we might well remove the section, leaving only a general statement--or,even better, combine the other articles into here with a brief statement for each. . There is really nothing particularly distinctive about them except their co-branding and the use of the terminology. To-do lists are not Allen's invention,. DGG (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What happened to this article?

This article recently received heavy deletions. IMO it needs to be restored. It used to be solid reference material (a clear description and summary of the GTD system, measures of its influence and adoption rate, independent external research, etc.). Now it is confusing and lacks substance, making it fairly useless.

Imagine the same kind of changes being made to this SCRUM article, and I think you'll see the point.

See here for my discussion with the admin who deleted it. He declined to restore it himself, but his page indicated that he does not consider reverts to be wheel warring.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that "speedy deletion" editing was unwarranted in this situation (except for some external spam links at the bottom of the old article) and doesn't serve Wikipedia's purposes. The original article was sourced (authoritative, primary sources, not for other topics as asserted); it was not promotional; it was written by hundreds of independent authors over a period of years; it described a system that became influential over a decade. I'm not affiliated with David Allen, I'm an independent GTD SME and past contributor to this article and talk page.

However, I'm only one guy and may be missing the big picture, so I'm opening a discussion. What do you think? Kcren (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the discussions, reverts related to this article. I am not aware of many of Wikipedia's policies, but I am losing much confidence in Wikipedia. I am quite stunned to see the fact the much of the methodology section is removed from this article. Such is life. - Hardduck (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the censored content. Please, help to fight censors. Wikipedia has the tools to block these vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.13 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The censorer (User:Tnxman307) says that the censored text is promotional material and removes the content. How can we block this user for deleting such useful content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.13 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with tnxman's actions. What he removed was promotional in nature and was not a neutral representation of the subject. ThemFromSpace 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality question was already discussed at length in this archived NPOV dispute discussion. Conclusion: WP:NPOV concerns were not upheld; there were no notable sources of criticism, so the most neutral approach is to describe the system. Kcren (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality is often dependent upon context." (—Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) Kcren (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there was some promotional content on the older versions, but the methodology that was listed was very useful. By deleting this content we all know less. We can get the basic summary of information from the online book sellers, people come to Wikipedia for the details, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumrooster (talk • contribs) 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing all the information from and article and replacing it with bits of information-free blah blah does not really help anyone. A detailed description of a books contents in the article about that book is not advertisement. If someone is concerned about the wording of an article, he should rephrase, not delete a text on which dozens have worked many hours. --84.178.113.123 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Restore the summary of methodology section.

We need to define "promotional" carefully in this context. Cui bono? Who benefits? To someone who doesn't understand GTD, those deletions seem to remove salesy content for David Allen. However, that conclusion stems from a limited understanding of the subject. Explaining what the GTD system is doesn't send people running to David Allen's store. GTD is an idea, a system, a philosophy, and it isn't patented, so the better people understand it, the less they may need to buy a book, not more. People need to understand what a subject really is, not just a bunch of things about it that fail to define it, which is all we're left with right now in this article. Otherwise, we'd need to delete all mentions and pictures of the latest car models in the Ford Motor Company listing as "promotional." Kcren (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to explain the system. It's quite another to have 11 kb of detail explaining every single facet of the system. If people wanted that, they would buy the book. Wikipedia is summary, not a supplementary reading guide. TNXMan 11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Kcren to comment, based on my previous work on the article. I consider the current version a good compromise. I thank Tnxman for his patient work with it, which was more careful than my own earlier work. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All note: Important discussion with DGG about this here. His assessment was based on a mistaken classification (book instead of method). The article is about a methodology, not a book. See the disambiguation and first two paragraphs. Tnxman made the same mistake, follow the links above to see his original comments.

Therefore, I believe this methodology article should be restored. However, the book banner on the side is promotional and confusing and should be removed, or the article will be zapped again IMO. The book is only one source re: that method, notable third-party sources are more appropriate, we should all continue to add those.

The methodology is highly notable. The article should exist. Google it: tens of thousands of blogs, mainstream magazine articles, newspaper articles, and scientific publications discuss it.

Important comments from DGG (admin) re: your rights vs. admins who edit content:

"... the appropriate non-admin actions when an admin is making content changes is to treat them like just another editor of similar experience--to assume the comments or edits are in good faith, intended to improve the article--and that they might actually be doing that. But if you disagree, anything anybody says here can be challenged. If an admin or any other editor should try to be overbearing, the first step is to wait a day or so in order to decide calmly if the issue is worth the contention, and then continue the discussion. The response will be either conciliatory or defensive or aggressive. If it is defensive, ask for opinions at a suitable noticeboard--see the list of them at the top of WP:ANB. I would normally reserve AN/I for matters which can not be otherwise handled, and which are important enough to be worth wide attention, with the understanding that once something reaches there, it gets so much attention that it can very quickly escalate. If at all unsure whether it is worth proceeding that far , after asking for an opinion from another editor, on or off wiki. And before getting too involved in a dispute, it is wise to observe the dynamics of Wikipedia disputes. It is sometimes worthwhile to examine the course of prior disputes with the same editor.' — DGG (as you can read here until it is archived)

Your options as a regular editor: Therefore, if you're a non-admin and want to restore the article, any/all of the following are appropriate:

• Discussing with people above who supported the deletion, including any admins,
• Restoring the article (keeping in mind these guidelines),
• Posting your reasons here,
• Coming back often to see how the discussion is going, and even
• Using Twinkle to closely monitor edits on the page (CAUTION: read the warning at the top of that page; learn the appropriate Wikipedia policies first).

I was willing to prosecute this but not willing to revert/restore alone. Kcren (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Timewarp a couple of years ago, this article was a beautiful and concise article on the complete methodology of GTD, from the processes to interesting facets like the tickler file. It even had a picture of the tickler file. What happened to it? It was what inspired me to learn more about GTD and an article I often showed others. I would dearly love to see that, one of my first and favorite wikipedia articles, retuned. A Friendly Nerd (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A agree with what Kcren, A Friendly Nerd and others pro-restoration have said here. I also went to this arctile to get good information on GTD (the methodology, not the book) and also sent friends to it. I was sadened today when I went here during a telephone call and couldn't cite parts from the article and had to tell the person I was talking to that alot of the article had been deleted from wikipedia. Which feels bad, ofcourse. So I would also like to see restoration. Scrdcow (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article used to be good documentation of a common method, but now it is useless. This is misguided vandalism, and I intend to restore the article as soon as I have the time. I am really shocked that someone would rationalize hacking up a useful article this way because of fear that there is a profitable product related. Should we also wear dirty clothes because washing machines are for sale? Honestly, this makes no sense whatsoever. -- M0llusk (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Last Version containing useful information on the GTD method circa 04:32, 12 July 2009, all versions after that have all useful information removed. Perhaps current GTD article should be GTD(Book) and a new article GTD(Method) be added with all useful information on the GTD process/method be placed with minimal reference to the actual book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.119.15 (talk)

I agree. The previous version of the article was far more useful, and it's a great loss to Wikipedia's users to have articles as severely censored like this. Is it possible that somebody working for the David Allen Company is responsible for the censorship?Deluno (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to David Allen's role as a minister in a religious group

I have removed a sentence in the intro presenting David Allen as a minister in a religious cult / group / whatever. I was unaware of this, but I hardly think this is relevant to the system he has come up with. The way this was written, the assumption was that this was somehow relevant to the content of the book.

Furthermore, I find it misleading to present the author as a minister, and not as a productivity consultant (and a successful one at that), which is in fact the capacity under which he wrote the book. I have read the book, and it has no references to anything religious in it. In fact, the first time I heard about David Allen's links to this religion is just now, when I visited wikipedia to see if GTD was in it to show to a friend.

The overwhelming impression that the inclusion of that sentence gave, left as it was, is that GTD is somehow religious preaching material or whatnot, which couldn't be further from the truth. I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association. (Especially when the article on David Allen himself only makes a light fleeting comment regarding his religious role). Tpapastylianou (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I agree that it may seem difficult to find a connection between the religious activities of the author on his book on time management, but it actually is central to the system, and important for readers to know. The aim of the GTD system is to achieve what Allen calls "mind like water", by entering all things on one's mind into the system (either as projects/tasks, or as reference material). The aim is to attain mental clarity conducive to religious experiences promoted by David Allen's religion. He refers to this in discussions on podcasts available at "GTD Connect", and in his later book, Making it all Work. This is important for readers to know because it shapes the GTD system. For example, it results in the rule to clear everything from one's mind, rather than just what needs to be dealt with, and totally dismisses (or is unaware of) the role of prospective memory.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE COMMENT: "I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association."

It is not Wikipedia's role to censor material for the purpose of promoting a book or system, or to avoid losing adherents to a book/system. Deluno (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Add a section on history or background

The GTD book doesn't cite sources of the system, and doesn't even have a References or Bibliography section. Although this is common in the genre, it is in effect plagarism (which for example wouldn't be tolerated without "citation needed" notes in Wikipedia articles). It clearly draws ideas (such as its procedure for "processing stuff") heavily from other time management books which were popular and influential before it was published, including for example The Organized Executive by Stephanie Winston. The ideas of other time management books which GTD apparently draws heavily upon should be at least mentioned or compared in the Wikipedia article. Such a sub-section may be titled "Background" or "History". Deluno (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)