Talk:Management cybernetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Robotics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Management cybernetics is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Cybernetics.

Removing notability marker[edit]

No action has been taken on notability re: this article over a long period of time. "Cybernetics and management" by S. Beer has 766 citations as of today on Google Scholar, although the original article is regrettably buried behind a pay-wall. I will be bold and remove the notability marker on this page. Tommy.rousse (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The notability of Management cybernetics[edit]

"Management cybernetics" has a google-rate of 22.100, with hundreds of real links. It seems to be more then just an idea, but developed into a scientific paradigm, to which multiple scientists contributed. - Mdd 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by reference to independent sources about the topic. The references do not seem to be in good shape, and it's hard to tell whether any of the three citations are reliable or independent. Can you point out the citations to sources that establish notability? At least a couple of the cited sources appear to be too close to Stafford Beer to be considered independent. Dicklyon 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right that Notability is eventually established by good references. But as I stated on the Talk:Conversation Theory, the notability should be examened by examaning the field and not the references.

Now before I examen the field I try to get an idea what I'm looking for. From what I know:

  • Systems sciences is a zone of noumerous different fields: It reaches from chaos theory, complex systems, control theory, cybernetices, dynamical systems, general systems theory, mathematical systems theory etc. to all kinds of applications in the natural and social sciences.
  • In more fields you can find multiple competing paradigm.
  • In the field of systems science applications to business contexts you can find management science, operations research and systems engineering. And I think we can add Management cybernetics to this list.

So what I am expeting is to find sort of the same (business & systems) subjects in an cybernetic coat.

The subject tells me about the What? To establish the notability I further have serie of question: Who, when, where, who more? when more? where more? what more? - Mdd 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You should really be writing the article from sources, and citing them; notability will be evident when you've done so. I recommend starting with these books. Dicklyon 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has already been written (and not by me. I'm only try to improve it). And this subject "Management cybernetics" is notable because it has a google-rate of 22.100, with hundreds of real links. One thing still missing are the correct links (beside the point that this article could evolve into an featured article). I placed a reference needed tag, this should be enough. - Mdd 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I renewed the "Further reading" and "External link" section of the article. It now gives an overview that "Management cybernetics" is subject of scientific reflection and publications for over 30 years. This is notable enough for me. - Mdd 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to do it, but why don't we just leave the tag until someone else gets around to it. Just need to make some citations to multiple independent reliable sources on the subject. If you've done so, just point them out here. Dicklyon 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Illegal use of tags. To encourage editors to add sources you use a reference tag and that is already there. You apparrently don't trust me. You should take a better look at the 5000 edits I made in the past 5 months in this field constructing the WikiProject Systems, the Systems science Portal and improving more then 100 articles.

I have been eliminating this kind of tags on top of articles for the past 6 weeks probably in over 50 articles. It is for any editor so easy just to put it there if there is any doubt. I think that tags on top should omly be there for a very good reason. And often there is... You can't imagine in what state certain article are... for example these just in one peace copied from an onther site. Editors who place that tags there to stimulate other editors, are forgetting that Wikipedia is also for people to read. I think that tags on top of the article really spoil the reading. There has to be a balance between the needs of the editors, the critiques (like you) and the readers.

I just read the Notability guidelines and there I read:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

What I don't understand in your action is that these guidelines speak of reliable sources and not reliable in the article references. I added these reliable sources as further reading and external links. What more can you possibly want? - Mdd 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

sections 3, 4, and 5, have no references at all. Recognizing that you wrote them, on what did you base the information? That's what we mean by sourcing at WP. By notability I think we mean, can you show that this is anything more than Cybernetics, as taught to people who will go into management? that it's a discipline, not a textbook title.DGG (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is turing into one big mistake.

  • I didn't write this article, I am trying to improve it
  • I established the notability by adding notable literature and links
  • Dicklyon however keeps suggesting this subject is not notable, because this article is badly referenced
  • In my opinion in that case one uses a reference-tag or an expert-needed tag.

Now I understand that DickLyon just has another perception on the rules. He uses a notable tag as an article is badly written and unreferenced. He is not prepared (or able) to talk about the subject itselve. So let it be.

I'm developing a whole new article from scratch and then these problems will end. - Mdd 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Right; I'm not commenting on the subject so much as on the article. As long as the evidence of notability is not propertly cited, the presumption of notability is not obvious; the tag calls for people who are into the topic to improve the article, by citing the required evidence of notability, so that the article will not be seen as a potential candidate for deletion due to not having that required evidence of notability. It's nobody's job in particular, but the tag should stay to remind editors that it still needs to be done. Dicklyon 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How to establish notability[edit]

I think you have an extraordinary way of looking Wikipedia article development. There is:

  • The notability of the subject
  • The quality of the article that is representing the subject

Now I understand that you also see:

  • The notability of the articles that is representing the subject
  • And to encourage people to improve the article you question it's notablity

It's nice to know that some editors think this way. - Mdd 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at your interpretation. There's no "notability of the article". There's the notability of the subject, as established by references in the article. Read WP:NOTE again. Dicklyon 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will show you: First I read WP:NOTE:

General notability guideline

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The next thing I do is try to find out if those reliable sources exist. I did that and found the following:

Further reading
  • Stafford Beer (1972), Brain of the Firm: A Development in Management Cybernetics, Herder and Herder.
  • Stafford Beer (1994), Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics, 568 pages.
  • R. Espejo, M. Schwaninger (1993), Organisational Fitness: Corporate Effectiveness Through Management Cybernetics.
  • R. Kay (2003), "Management Cybernetics: A New Institutional Framework for Coastal Management", in: Coastal Management, Volume 31, Number 3, July-August 2003 , pp. 213-227(15).
  • Markus Koerner & Markus Schwaninger (2004), "City Planning- "Dissolving" Urban Problems. Insights from an Application of Management Cybernetics", in Kybernetes Vol 33, issue 3 no 4, p. 557-576.
  • A. Leonard (2002), "Stafford Beer: The Father of Management Cybernetics", in: Cybernetics & Human Knowing, Volume 9, Numbers 3-4, 2002 , pp. 133-136(4).
  • E. Peschke (1979), Management Cybernetics: An Application to the Development of a Conceptual Model of the Software Acquisition Management Discipline..
  • Gerhard Plenert (1995), "Management cybernetics: total quality management", in: Journal: Kybernetes, Vol. 24 Issue: 1 Page: 55 - 59
  • Wolfgang Winter, Manuela Thurm (2005), "Second-order cybernetics! In systemic management thinking?", in: Kybernetes, Vol 34 Issue: 3/4 Pp. 419-426.
External links

These more then 10 sources are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So the subject is notable....!!! As far as I know this is the way to establish the notability of a subject- Mdd 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources by Stafford Beer and the Cwarel Isaf Institute are very clearly NOT independent, since Stafford Beer coined the subject term and founded that institute. I haven't examined the others yet, but it would be useful if you'd prune the list to a few that you think are sufficiently independent to serve as evidence of notability, and point those out. Dicklyon 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this down to tell you how I think one should establish notability: A process I gone through more then 200 time with the creation of every new article I wrote on the Dutch and English Wikipedia.

I wrote this to tell you that you can't judge notability from the state of the reference inside an article... - Mdd 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the state of the references in the article is exactly what is needed to decide whether notability has been satisfactorily established. Look at what the tag says: "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject" (third party means not by you and not by the subject of the article). A less good way, but workable, is for you to present your sources here, so I can review them and add them to the article. If you've already done it, just be nice and point them out. Why all the whining? Dicklyon 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of your other articles look like they have sufficient independent references, so no problem. Others, like Kenneth D. Bailey (sociologist) have only references to books, articles, and websites by or affiliated with the subject, and no ref at all to the independent sources needed to establish notability. Don't be surprised if someone notices and tags it. All you have to do to fix it is add some refs to independent sources about him (assuming those can be found). Same here. The tag is not a claim that the subject is not notable, just a reminder that it's not yet been established by references in the article. Dicklyon 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you Google "Bailey K.D." I find 759 direct listed hits of probably to at least 50 or 100 (independent) articles that refer to the work of Bailey. Only because I didn't mention them, you are going to tag that article? I would say that your on a witch hunt. Not interested in the subject itselve but blinded by Wiki burocratics.

Did I say I would tag it? No. But if I had come upon for some reason on my own, not directed by your comment above, then yes I would have given it a notability tag. It's good that google will make it easy for you to find the cite the required evidence of notability. Why not go ahead and do so? Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder: Do you real thing that the subject Management cybernetics is not notable for Wikipedia? Don't get me wrong, in the mean time I kind of understand your perception: Because the article is badly written and unrefferenced you question it's notability? But do you know anything about the subject itselve? Does it even interest you? - Mdd 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject. I just happened to find the article and noticed that it does not contain the required evidence of notability (like so many wikipedia articles that I tag!). Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two kinds of tags here[edit]

I just don't understand what you are doing. There are two kinds of tags:

  • The first:
  • The second:

The notability of this article is established by a listing of independent sources in the further reading and external links, so no first tag is needed. This article however doesn't contain inside references, so it needs a second tag. Right or wrong? - Mdd 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, the refimprove tag is redundant when there's a notability tag. Dicklyon 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

O? Now this article lists enough sources (in the further reading the external links) to confirm notability. They are only not adress in the best way:

... The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject...

They are adress in an other way. Technically this should be enough. So why isn't it. - Mdd 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Above you started evaluating these current links. But you stopped. Was it because you didn't like the outcome? - Mdd 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was because you wouldn't cooperate and tell me which ones you think are independent enough to serve as evidence of notability. Dicklyon 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was under the impression that any one could judge the sources by himselve? You were also right to tag the article in the first place, because it needed some work. We have been thinking and talking about this for some time now, and I almost have the new article ready.

I still think a notability tag shouldn't have been kept in place, because that gives the impression that the notability of the subject Management cybernetics is at stake. After the google search this became quite clear to me. I would have just tagged the article with a reference needed tag, and a Wikiproject Systems Attention needed note. - Mdd 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Copied from the User talk:Mdd/Management cybernetics page:

In general, we may notice, every human activity and technological process may potentially be the domain of cybernetics, therefore it is valid in the case of "management" too. Also in this sense, in my opinion, the notability of "Management cybernetics" is evident.

-- Fedelis 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in the Wikipedia notability is far from evident if someone senses it. Anybody merely gets some time to prove it. - Mdd 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New version[edit]

References 1 , 2, 3, and 4, are not usable reliable sources. See WP:RS they have been removed. Please find better sources or remove the material they support. DGG (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I will take a look at it. - Mdd 11:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok your are right. I will try to find better sources for the first four references. This shouldn't be that hard but will take some time. I however removed the [citation needed] in the following text:
...a systematic exposition of the science of cybernetics, and had drawn attention to the relevance to various orthodox fields. Some biologists have been quick to realise the value of cybernetics to them. Some engineers too, were well aware of the importance of the subject to engineering, and to automation in particular. The social sciences were conscious of their need for a formal framework of a cybernetic kind. The distinguished antropologist Margaret Mead was a member of the American pioneer group,[citation needed] and Simons essays in this area were notable. Economists, too, had seizes a similiar point. But the exposition of Beer's Cybernetics and management was the first directed to the relevance of cybernetics to industrial management.
All of this text is a slightly refraised version of part of Stafford Beer's (1959), Cybernetics and Management, Chapter 1 ORIENTATION, p.3-4. In that case I presume a reference isn't necesary. However, I also wondered about the Beer's remark: Margaret Mead was a member of the American pioneer group. I wondered what that American pioneer group would be. Now I googled the term and there seems to be a lot of American pioneer groups. So I refraised the sentence, eliminated that term. to avoid this confusion. I will just be bold and presume that this is all right with you. If not please let me know. - Mdd 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The "pioneer group" would mean the contributors to the Josiah Macey conferences, though developments in UK around the Ratio Club and participants at the early proceedings on computing machines at the National Physical Laboratory should be included thence the Namur conference series at Namur in Europe. A book has been written on the US development The Cybernetics Group --Nick Green 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I would say that the "American pioneer group" could be the Macy conferences. Margaret Mead is listed as one of the participants. The Ratio Club and Namur conferences (Stafford Beer mentioned it in his speech "...2500 people came out of nowhere, calling themselve Cyberneticians" (?)) where in Europe.
Maybe we should put the sentence back Margaret Mead was a member of the American pioneer group with a reference to the Macy conferences. That hyperlink is not yet there in the history section. - Mdd 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Variety in Management cybernetics and Organizational cybernetics[edit]

When Michael C. Jackson (2000) stated that management cybernetics makes little use of the more complex, observer-dependent notion of variety... one has to realize ... that Jackson makes a big difference between management and organizational cybernetics. According to Jackson the variety concept mainly emerged in organizational cybernetics. That is why I try to refrase the sentence, that:

... Stafford Beer (1985) confirms variety as fundamental to matching resources to requirement and the measurement of performance...

I hope I cleared this for everyone, not that familiar with this subject..!?. - Mdd 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles into this article[edit]

By starting this article last year April 2008 I might have unintentionally copy-pasted various parts of Wikipedia articles here without proper attribution in violation of copyright. New insides have brought this to my intention, so I tagged the article with a copy-paste-template tag. During further investigation please leave the tag on top of the article.

Also possible other copyright infringements could have occurred then and ever since. A check could or should be made here. I and/or others will try to solve this problem as soon as possible. Your welcome to participate.

Some further notes:

  • This article started as User:Mdd/Management cybernetics Sept 20, 2007, which has been developed in my own userspace first
  • Sept 23, 2007 it was implemented here, see here.
  • This implementation was not well cited, but it was the work I have done in the first place.
  • Ever since beside some rewriting, see here, no mayor changes occurred ever since (Just for the record: there are 52 intermediate revisions not shown there)

And extra check should be on the attribution of the User:Mdd/Management cybernetics article design.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You call what you are pointing to here "rewriting"? Rewriting by whom? Not by you. The text you pasted there can be found verbatim here:
You must not claim to have written or rewritten material that you have not.
You must stop thinking the only problem you have here is copying stuff back and forth from other Wikipedia articles; that is one form that your copyright violations take. You need to address the plagiarism of material taken from other sources. You can't just dump other people's text into a Wikepedia article as if it were your personal Google notebook or something. Bacrito (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
and by the way, instead of just directing people to "see here" etc, why don't you remove the offending material yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talkcontribs) 06:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The last straw. I just removed yet another steal from Beer. It can be found here:,+in+management+cybernetics,+invariably+determined+outside+the+system+(as+with+a+first-order+feedback+arrangement).+Then,+if+the+operations+are+to+succeed+in+bringing+about+the+goal,+they+must,+because+of+inevitable+disturbance,+be+regulated+in+some+way.+This+regulation+is+effected+by+management.&source=bl&ots=kzyLxGoncQ&sig=1BTA9i18ZynRG6dIjfrToxJs0M8&hl=en&ei=seHOSvbeLNCV8Aat0dSABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Kind of pointless do this piece by piece, no? I'm reverting the page to it's earliest state, and if that contains violations, tomorrow I will insist that someone delete it. This is just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talkcontribs) 07:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
rolled back to just before MDD made an appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talkcontribs) 07:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Bacrito, I guess you are right here restoring the old version of this article for know. Some remarks. First of all I have sort of made an agreement with MRG to first start identifying possible copyvios in my work, see here. So I started yesterday-evening, about two edit hours ago. And I started with determening, what I called
I considered this to be one of them, but it is also, an example of what I have called
  • Several overview article like Management cybernetics, have copied and pasted from various sources: They are (all) referenced, but... etc
So I did already determined those problems here, but I wasn't focusing on them yet... and I forgot. I took it one step at the time, and was focussing on step one. My mistake. And this is simply step two. Now I will get back on this... once I get to step two. You allready determined some of the possible lack of quotation marks, and I thank you for that.
Second of all. Your warning that you are going to propose to delete this article tomorrow, if the initial article is a copyvio too. Now as I can recall that was never the problem. It was the other way around: a lack of secondary sources, a lack of of notability, and the presents of original work. In the previous talk-items you can read all about it.
This was one of those examples I reverted to in my Commitment that made me decide to use more quotes. This might have been extensive here. We are talking about Sept 2007... two years ago. In a time I wasn't that skilled yet, and I even have admitted I am still not that skilled, not even being a professional writer yet.
Now You are free to put this article up for deletion tomorrow. I am afraid I have been urged and made arrangements to first determine possible copyvios in my work. This is my priority right now. I will get back on this after I finished this first step. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Solving the possible copyright infringements here[edit]

There is a kind of agreement made on my talkpage to solve the alleged copyright for now by detecting them with a template.

I like to discuss how to solve these alleged problems later on but focus on detecting more of these possible infringements.

If you or members of the WikiProject Copyright don't want to except this agreement that is fine with me, and I will stop reverting, what seems to Bacrito acting here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed I made an error of judgement. And I reverting the change Bacrito made to soon. I had to take an other action or two, before I return it again. I will return here later on and respond. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have explained this error of judgement and some more in the comment in the previous talkitem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits made since Sept 2007[edit]

One or two other things. I hope I have addressed to most of your concerns. About the edits made ever since and not detecting the people who made those edits: If you go through the his history yourself since 23 September 2007 you will find I have made a sever amount of the edits since then myself... including the one "mayor" edit, see here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim to have written or rewritten material[edit]

As to your concern: "You must not claim to have written or rewritten material that you have not". some more. I think it is fair to say I am the mayor contributor of the current article, with a lot of assistance of other editor, even Dicklyon criticizing the old article on the talkpage. That is the whole idea of Wikipedia that we work on it together. There is one thing I still don't understand about this plagiarism and copyright problems here. My name is not on the article.

So where is my claim that I have written or rewritten material all material..?? If I save my edits made here... there is a message below it:

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Any text that you did not write yourself (apart from brief citations) must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you use it.

Did I write the text myself apart from a brief citation.... Now at the moment I can say, yes I did compose the whole article, I did write most of the text, but there could be parts which are not to be considered "brief citations". There are two or maybe three possible things here: The text is not brief, the text is not well (enough) cited, or the text should have been partially rewritten, because there was no need to use a citation that long.

It is true I missed adding citation marks, and I might have left rewriting the text. But a citation to long...!? In Holland I have had (long) discussions how long a citation can be. We took a closer look to the letter of the law, which doesn't state any exact amount of words. So I even went on contacting some publishers and asked for their opinion. Their sort of use the rule, they don't have one because that could be considered a cartel-arrangement, that a citation in a book should not cover more that 3/4 of a page in a for example 300 page book. And this is the criterion I have been using ever since, and I guess I still do (with one exception... that you should cite the whole essence of a book, which I believe is hardly possible). So with all this knowledge this article is written...!?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)