Talk:Getting Things Done

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Link to author's lecture[edit]

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

Restrictions on types of links in Software Implementations section[edit]

Why the restriction to internal wiki links? I added a link to an implementation that does not have a Wikipedia article, but is reasonably well know and respected. Perhaps more importantly, it is designed specifically for GTD, while many others on the list are note (Remember the Milk, Evernote, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeparis (talkcontribs) 17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If the software is notable I recommend you write the article first to establish that notability, then add it to the list after acceptance. The reason for the high bar is that this article is a honey pot for no end of GTD wannabes trying to promote their stuff. BTW, Evernote is specifically listed as "GTD enabled" by David Allen. hth. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
While I understand and don't disagree with SageGreenRider's concern (i.e., "this article is a honey pot for no end of GTD wannabes trying to promote their stuff"), I must point out that having a dedicated Wikipedia article is not a prerequisite for establishing that a GTD system is sufficiently notable to include in this article, as SageGreenRider suggests and wants to require (i.e., "If the software is notable I recommend you write the article first to establish that notability, then add it to the list after acceptance"). Rather, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, a GTD system that lacks a dedicated Wikipedia article may nonetheless be sufficiently notable and appropriate for inclusion in this article. If that is the case, as established by the references provided, then reverting the inclusion of said system would constitute inappropriate and overzealous censorship, and - some might say - inadvertent vandalism, despite its having been enacted in good faith. Froid (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... several points here... If you believe B-folders by JointLogic is notable then why not WP:WRITEITFIRST? I agree that a blue link isn't the only way of establishing B-folders by JointLogic as worthy. A reference relating it to GTD in an independent source would do it. Your comment about my contributions as "inadvertent vandalism, despite its having been enacted in good faith" is self-contradictory, see WP:NOT VANDALISM. Removing spam is not the same as censorship. As for your editing I'd says that masking an irrelevant blue link ("Password manager") with the name of commercial software ("B-folders by JointLogic") with [[Password manager|B-folders by JointLogic]] here is less than helpful to say the least. SageGreenRider talk 00:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Glancing at the list, it's not clear that each entry is even verified at this point. It might be better removing the section completely if there are no independent, reliable sources demonstrating that it's encyclopedic in some manner. Minimally, the inclusion criteria needs to clearer, every entry verified, and we need to be sure that the list remains maintainable. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe the simplest thing is to delete the list and to write "There is a list of tools on David Allen's "tools" page. There are many other claimants, too many to mention here." Thoughts? Talk to SageGreenRider 18:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What's encyclopedic about that though? If there are secondary sources that mention there are a great number of tools, or something similar, we should follow those sources. (I haven't looked at the article and sources in detail yet). --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think the article needs a major re-write but it's not clear to me how to approach it. On the issue of secondary sources, I seem to recall there are a great many articles of the kind "Five Great Tools to Use in GTD" but I don't remember if they are just bloggers or more reliable sources. Talk to SageGreenRider 03:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked around the listings of featured articles and good articles to try to find a model for this one. The closest I found was Requiem for a Species which has a simple Lede/Themes/Reception/end matter structure. Maybe that is a good model? Talk to SageGreenRider 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
An additional complication is that I just noticed there is a second edition, claimed to be a complete re-write. So we should cover the 2001 and 2015 editions somehow. Talk to SageGreenRider 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Following the examples of related GA articles is always good in my opinion. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
OK Boldly, I did complete rewrite. I still need to add some page numbers for each part of the "Themes" section but basically the source is the book itself. Feel free to edit or even completely revert if not worthy. Talk to SageGreenRider 16:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Asterisk for software on GTD webpage[edit]

I added an asterisk for software that is both notable (i.e. having an article on Wikipedia) and mentioned on in the gtd webpage http://gettingthingsdone.com/common-tools-software/ namely OmniFocus and Evernote (4th and 5th in the list manager list) and eProductivity for Lotus Notes and NetCentrics GTD Outlook Add-In and (#1 and #2 on the List Manager Add-ons list). Please discuss here what you think about this addition. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

SageGreenRider, it makes sense to add an asterisk to software tools that are both notable and mentioned on the GTD webpage; however, I think there ought to be an additional denotation for software tools designated on the GTD webpage as "GTD Enabled." This is a designation given by the David Allen Company to software solutions that Mr. Allen was personally involved in testing and approving (source: excerpt from an interview with David Allen). Nathan.Paul.ICA (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Maybe one asterisk for a mention and two for "GTD Enabled" designation? SageGreenRider (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Software section removed[edit]

I've removed it, given editors are ignoring the edit warning and apparently unconcerned with grammar. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For the best, I think. — fox 01:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I went back to the page history and the section looked ify (are those sites really tailored for GTD?). It would be nice if there was a section with software/apps, though. I came here via a link claiming the info was on this page. Danski14(talk) 20:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Page notice[edit]

What is the purpose of the "page notice" (Warning) at the top of the editing page? There are a host of reasons why this possibly has well intentions, but there are more as to why it shouldn't be used, and this needs attention. Otr500 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, Some editor in 2017 thought the article was written like an advertisement. if you and I think it does not, and others agree. it can be removed. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Philoserf Thanks for the reply. I have not looked at the article in depth and it seems you may be referring to the "advertisement" tag on the main page. My comments are concerning a template on the editing page. I performed a cursory glance at the article because of the tag, deciding to clicked on the edit button to remove puff wording, but was confronted with a "warning" IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING that seems it can be interpreted to be a warning of intimidation (See : WP:BITE).
I am sure it was directed to slow or stop vandalism or spam, but my concern is that it is against many community supported reasons NOT to be on the page. It redirected my attention because I took exception to the tag being there and decided I did not need to edit the article. See the opening paragraph at: Wikipedia:Harassment that includes: Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. If a page needs protecting there are many tools provided to facilitate this without some warning that looks (even if not the intent) to show some form of ownership. There needs to be a balance with the purpose: Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.—Larry Sanger. As encyclopedia anyone can edit: You do ... Yes, anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. (See: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia). The warning (banner of harassment) seems to exhibit possessiveness rather than an attempt to create a better article (thus encyclopedia), by possible restricting collaboration. That is my concern regardless of the intent of the warning. Otr500 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Otr500, Ah. The edit notice. See Wikipedia:Editnotice. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I went to "See" the page but the first step it gave was to discuss the issue on this page which I have started. As I stated, I do not have an issue with the page notice but the wording of the subject title. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Article concerns[edit]

I saw that several editors, and those leaving comments, used the system or were fans. There is apparently a "GTD community". I was using a form of this system over 40 years ago. I made it through high school by taking notes and prioritizing. I hardly ever took books home and maintained a B average. Imagine if I had studied as well?.
I do have some concerns. The article is supposedly about a management system "based on a book by the same name". A small amount of constructive consideration will lead to a conclusion that there may be no difference if not clearly shown. This means that the entire article should rely heavily on secondary sources or it could seem to be an advertisement or promotional. It seems I read somewhere that "Wikipedia" may not be supportive (I will have to look) of a "Criticism" section, and I saw where an editor removed an NPOV tag reportedly because there was no criticism. Think about it? If a subject, or system, receives any media attention it would almost be impossible for there to be no criticism no matter how good it was. I don't think I am a fan of "not" having a criticism section but would have to explore it more. I do know that when there is "nothing but praise of good" on a subject it can be bad editing or a notability red flag as it is non-neutral. The absence of criticism is one thing. An article can still show to need a WP:NPOV tag (a non-negotiable policy) because of seemingly biaed writing when words to watch are used. Otr500 (talk)

Example[edit]

In the Perspective section it states, "By developing and using the trusted system that deals with day-to-day inputs, an individual can free up mental space to begin moving up to the next level."'', that is tagged as needing a source. There are clearly "words to watch" (using the trusted system) **Red flag alert** in the sentence, and identified as puffery because it is subjective so generally not acceptable. There have been 1,668 revisions involving 907 editors since 2005 and yet it is in the article. Otr500 (talk)

Criticism[edit]

Involved editors (a good thing) have to be careful because Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and "fans" have to be aware that even a notable subject can be subjected to AFD (or a repeated listing) if the article cannot be written to conform to policies and guidelines. WP:What Wikipedia is not has become a strong policy and at a point, at the very least, an article may have to be considered for cutting back (TNT tipping point argument) to stub-class as a starting point to create something acceptable.
In just a few clicks I found criticism with things like "WHY I DON’T USE GETTING THINGS DONE" and I am not attempting to suggest some "trashing of the book, the system, or the person but if the article is about a book it inherently should have a "review" section and will just as inherently include negative aspects. Forbes has referred to the book as the "Entrepreneur's Bible". If a majority of reviews are positive then we (Wikipedia editors) strive for neutrality through "balance": Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. If there is only a small amount of negativity we include it: This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. -- Otr500 (talk)

My take[edit]

Does the article have issues? Sure it does. The world does not need to be presented with a Wikipedia view that the "system" (from the book) is the best thing since toilet paper, just present facts fairly and with balance. That should not be an insurmountable and unobtainable goal, possibly with the exceptions of someone that is a paid editor or such a big fan that any controversy is not acceptable. It is my opinion that a designation for that type of editing is WP:NOTHERE. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)