Talk:Scrum (software development)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).


Yup, uppercase "High" fixed parsing by assisted script. Widefox; talk 02:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where's the criticism?[edit]

Why doesn't this article approach any of the criticism of the methodology?

Ex: the (somewhat common) criticism that this methodology is usually unintentionally analyzed as infallible: When a scrum project succeeds it is usually regarded a a proof of scrum's success; When a scrum project fails the failure is usually attributed to the people or to only an incomplete implementation of scrum (cherry-picked tips and bits) or to a too-strict implementation of scrum (blindly following scrum without adapting to circumstances).

Two points.
1. We are strongly discouraged from including separate criticism sections, as this is more likely to lead to a polarisation of views and is not encyclopedic. It is far better to distribute alternate views for balance in the right context. For example, if there is a criticism on retrospectives, this is best included in the section on retrospectives. There is some of this, but if you want to add the one you included above, and can provide references, then please go ahead and add it in an appropriate spot.
2. There is also a section on the limitations of Scrum.

18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjcmorris (talkcontribs) 18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to merge the criticism into the article. There are several guidelines that suggest not having one. It should be as well-sourced to reliable sources as the rest of the content in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of the name is not a "Key Idea"[edit]

This rather lawyerly aside probably should be kept, but should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)