User talk:Majorfun

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


Hello, Majorfun, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Hi Bernie, I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but I think it's important that you be more cautious in your future edits. Wikipedia has a Conflict of Interest guideline that suggests that promoting your own interests can lead to your account getting blocked. I understand that you are probably more knowledgeable about your own work than any other person and so it's natural that you would wish to set the record straight for issues that you think are mis-represented or poorly represented, but edits like this aren't acceptable. The way to correct properly-sourced information in an article is by presenting sufficiently strong contrary sources, not by simply changing the text of the article. Because your edits all seem to relate to you and your work, I think it would really be the best move to suggest these changes on the articles' talk pages rather than making the edit yourself. Please read through the Conflict of Interest guideline if for no other reason than to know how far you're allowed to go and to defend yourself if you get caught editing articles on yourself or your own work. I'm not interested in turning you in and getting you blocked or driving you away, but you have to be aware of the restrictions that come with Conflicted editing. Please be more cautious in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I saw your note and certainly there is truth to your claims regarding Alien Garden. The sources show that you were the creator and that Lanier was the programmer. The problem I see with the edit I linked above is that you removed the line saying that Moondust "is generally considered the first real art game". This claim was properly sourced to the Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information website and should not have been removed unless reliable contradictory sources were presented. The references near Alien Garden are already problematic since the Gamasutra source describes you as the creator and the Edge source describes Lanier as the creator. But the important point is that the Edge piece demonstrates that Alien Garden was the first piece self-described as an "art game" whereas according to the Stanford piece, Moondust is "generally considered the first real art game". Removing this claim is clearly somewhat self-promoting and in my view it steps over the line regarding Conflict of Interest. If you think the claim should be removed then please post about it on the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you mean this talk page. I guess I object to the word "real" - Alien Garden is as much an art game, and as real, if a game can be real, as Moondust.

Sorry I should have been clearer. Each article has a talk page that is reserved for discussion regarding the content of that article. So if you wanted to make potentially Conflicted edits at Alien Garden then you'd post at Talk:Alien Garden by clicking the "edit" tab at the top of that page. This should bring you to this page. Then you'd add your comment at the bottom. You should do this before making edits on any subject for which you are personally invested. Regarding your concern about the word "real", I think that's a good point and I've removed the word. Sorry for all the confusion. I know this place is kind of maze-like when you are a new editor. If you need any further help you can also post at my talk page by clicking this link and adding your comment to the bottom. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


After exploring the avenues available to me for getting something written about the Coworking Institute and my related work, the only one that seems open to me is to add these details of my past to the page that is written about me. I've updated this article on Deep Fun - - so at least the information is somehow accessible. But given your observation that I can't edit my own page, this last chance seems as blocked as all the others. It is an important and relevant part of my work. There are two books I've written about it. And many citings of my influence during the early days of computer-supported cooperative work. Please advise!

Bernard De Koven 16:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

16:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A Playful Path[edit]


my new book is now available - - review here - - to avoid conflict of interest, I was hoping you'd add it

OK I added it Bernie. Thanks for the tip. I didn't link the review because I'm not sure if it would pass Wikipedia's Reliable Source standards, but I linked the website since it's a first-party reference. -Thibbs (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks and appreciations

Bernard De Koven 15:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

playday on the parkway[edit]


the only reference I was able to find was this -,7633479 - it briefly mentions the event but does not mention my role in it.

and yes, I'll keep my conceptual mits off this from now on.

I've added that reference as well. And please feel free to bring anything up on the talk page if you think the article needs to be changed. If I don't respond then you can follow up on the issue at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. -Thibbs (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


this announcement from Epyx - - describes Ricochet as the first abstract action strategy game for the home computer. I was not able to find another game in this category published by anyone earlier than that.

I've added the source. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
OK I've added this one as well. It's perhaps not as strong a source because it's not a third-party source, but we can use it as a "self-published source" as long as it's not being used to bolster promotional claims and I don't think it is here. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

--Bernard De Koven 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)--01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Bernard De Koven

Someone posted a video of my Ricochet game. Was hoping you could add the URL in a footnote or whatever - I don't seem to be able to give you the youtube URL, but you can find it in this post

Thanks, Thibbs

This may sound ridiculous, I know, but Wikipedia generally frowns on linking to YouTube videos hosting copyrighted content because it is regarded as a form of contributory copyright infringement and Wikipedia sees this as a legal liability. If you are the copyright holder then I guess you could try to upload the video at the WikiMedia Commons for free use everywhere, but I'm not sure how to go about this as I've never uploaded a video before. For now I've simply added the link you posted to the article, though. -Thibbs (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


In the Wikipedia article on Coworking, there is no mention of my name. I am generally credited with having coined the term. You can find such mentions here - - -

18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a look back through the article histories and this is what I see:
  • The origin of the term "coworking" was first brought up in October 2007 in this thread on the article's talk page by BradNeuberg. Noting that he had a conflict of interest he requested that editors credit him with developing the concept. Your name was proposed by Raines as a possible contender for first use of the term, but Neuberg contended that your usage of the term was different from the usage shown in the article. In other words it seems Neuberg believes that the two of you coined the same word for different concepts but that his concept is that which the Wikipedia article covers. Although he offered several sources as evidence, nothing was done until July 2009.
  • In this edit by Cazort, Neuberg was credited with coining the term and a New York Times source was offered as reference. The New York Times article states: "...Neuberg took action. He created a word - coworking, eliminating the hyphen...". This source is generally considered to be a high quality (i.e. reliable) source on Wikipedia.
  • In November 2009, Cybernie made this edit crediting you with coining the term. Although the new source provided made no claim about who coined the term, it was dated prior to the date Neuberg claimed as his first use of the term.
  • In December 2009, User:BradNeuberg requested that the credit be restored to him in this thread again reiterating his claim that the two terms referred to different concepts. Nobody acted on this request until February 2014.
  • In February 2014 Neuberg made another requested that someone address his concerns and then he made this edit restoring credit to himself. This claim was discussed in some depth by Ronz and Shepazu, but I'm unclear on whether any conclusion was ever reached regarding the propriety of crediting Neuberg.
  • In July 2014, Lloydde removed a claim regarding your having coined the term "coworking" from the Bernie De Koven article in this edit. At the time of its removal the claim was sourced by a contemporary LA Times article which listed the website and by Vanguardia which states: "El término CoWorking fue inventado por Bernie DeKoven en 1999...."
So basically this appears to be a situation with three questions: (1) Whether Neuberg's term indeed means something different from De Koven's, (2a) If they mean something different then does the Wikipedia article on "coworking" match Neuberg's definition or De Koven's, and (2b) If they really mean the same thing then which of the reliable sources do we trust?
The proper place for this discussion to take place is at Talk:Coworking. If nobody responds there, then you could try posting at WP:RS/N, and as a last resort if you would like an uninvolved outside opinion, then you could post to WP:3O. I hope that helps. Let me know if you would like help posting your question to the appropriate board. -Thibbs (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


here's what I wrote on the Coworking sandbox - (I haven't yet had a response)

Hi, all. This is Bernie DeKoven. I do not at all contest that Brad's use of the term "coworking" to describe the idea of a shared, and hopefully communal office space is original to him. I do want to make clear, however, that I did use the term "coworking" - actually earlier than 1999, but as far as the wayback machine is able to document, 1999 - - which is a good enough date to establish my prior use - to describe what I called "working together as equals." It seems to me that this is very much in the same spirit as Brad's use of the term. And it is also true that I linked the use to computers. Here's a bit more of the history of my use of the term: I had developed a methodology I called "technography" for facilitating meetings. It was based on using a single computer (at that time, computers were hard to come by and never found in meeting rooms) with a big projector to help document and organize collaborative work, especially brainstorming and strategic planning meetings. I've written about that extensively, first in 1986 in a publication called "Power Meetings." Later in 1990 is a book called "Connected Executives". Here's an article from the LA Times - - describing a bit more about my use - and an article by Michael Schrage which shows me using the domain - - I established the CoWorking Institute in which Gerrit later joined me in the capacity of archivist to help document other applications of technology to support collaborative work. When I discovered that Brad had started using that term, I was delighted, and supported him totally in his efforts to apply it to his concept, granting him the use and - Gerrit and I decided to keep I feel that conceptually, we are working towards the same ends, which is why I feel so good about his use of the word. On the other hand, I do believe that, though he may not have known about my prior use of the term, that reference to me, not as the originator of his use of the term, but as the originator of the term itself, is both merited and of value to all parties.

any suggestions for next steps - I don't want to elevate this unnecessarily, but need help in understanding whether the connection between my use and Brad's is valid and should be made public

02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)~

If nobody responds then yeah it sounds like it wouldn't be unreasonable to go forward via another route. I think the best method would be to file a Request for Comment (RfC). The article will then be flagged as needing input and a bot will notify volunteers that there is an issue that requires outside comments. Sometimes it takes a bit of time. Let me know if you'd like me to help you start an RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have another thought here about how to resolve this problem with Coworking. Perhaps we could solicit the creation of a different page, called, perhaps, the "Coworking Institute" wherein the initial efforts of of Coworking as I had described it when I coined the phrase.

Bernard De Koven 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

15:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)~

That's certainly a possibility. To do so will require locating and citing reliable sources. The bare minimum needed to safeguard a Wikipedia article from deletion is described at WP:GNG. In essence we need to be able to show significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Journals with ISSNs, published books, coverage by notable (third party) authors, etc. can all be considered reliable. We'd need a bare minimum of 2 of these sources that cover the "Coworking Institute" in depth in order to have an argument against the article getting deleted as trivial and non-encyclopedic. Obviously the more reliable sources the better. If you can gather the sources, then the next step would to be to request an article (and simultaneously present your sources). You can do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles. For conflict of interest ideas it would be better not to write the article yourself. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a search on the Internet hoping I could find some sources. I did find these links mentioning the Coworking Institute by name | Welcome to The CoWorking Institute (this link is current, the only domain we kept) | elearnspace › Coworking Institute | Daily News from the Coworking Institute - live streaming video powered by Livestream | - Welcome to The CoWorking Institute | The CoWorking Institute .. | Better Meetings | It's A Match | McGee's Musings | Michael Schrage on Collaboration | Related Work

do you think this is sufficient?

thanks, as always, for the prompt response

01:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two uses of reliable sources. The first is to establish notability (a threshold matter which determines which topics are encyclopedic and which are not). The second is to provide authority for claims within the articles. By providing authority for an article's claims from specific kinds of reliable sources, notability is established and the two uses may thus overlap. The specific qualities of a reliable source that enable it to confer notability are these:
1 - It must be reliable - It must have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2 - It must be independent of the subject
3 - It must cover the topic in depth
In addition we need "multiple" of these notability-conferring sources (so a bare minimum of 2).
Because "notability" is a threshold matter, I've examined all 11 sources you've provided to see if they can establish notability.
1 - Reliability - All sources are potentially reliable, but sources #2, #7, and #8 appear to be personal websites and/or blogs which would fall afoul of WP:BLOGS unless it can be shown that George Siemens, Jim McGee, and Tom Atlee are "established expert[s] on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field ha[ve] previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I am not sure of the reliability of #9 either.
2 - Independence - All sources are likely to be independent except for sources #1, #3, and #5. Source #10 is also likely to be viewed with suspicion since it is a biography website whose subjects are allowed to write their own biographies. It's worth noting that these sources may not be entirely unusable, however. Primary sources are unable to demonstrate notability, but may possibly be used with caution as self-published sources.
3 - Significant "in-depth" coverage - Many of the sources fail to cover the topic (i.e. The CoWorking Institute) in significant detail. To be covered "in-depth" a topic should be the subject of at least 1 paragraph (3 to 5 sentences) of writing, but generally they should be covered by several paragraphs if not by the entire article. A single sentence or two is generally not able to demonstrate that a topic is notable by Wikipedia's standards. In particular, I have concerns about the depth of coverage from sources #2, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11.
An ideal sources would be one that is independent and has an editorial staff (e.g. like #6 and #11), and that covers the topic in more than one or two sentences. Wikipedia editors generally prefer to use standard academic aourcing: academic journal articles, newspapers, books, etc. to establish notability. Anyway these are just by best guesses at how the eleven sources would be received. There are others whose standards may be lower and others whose standards are higher. When you have gathered enough sources to establish notability then you could present them at Wikipedia:Requested articles and ask for the article to be created. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This is very useful, and much appreciated. I'm afraid, if more is needed, this particular cause is lost. There is ample material on the earlier manifestations of my work in this area - my two books, reviews, references to another term I used: "technography", the Institute for Better Meetings (which became the Coworking Institute) and the little software app we made The Meeting Meter - all part of the same initiative. But the use of the Coworking Institute per se is only documented in those links I was able to find. Recommendations welcome.

15:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)~

There are different schools of though regarding how to handle topics in cases where "notability" is lacking, but my preference is usually to "merge" the material into an existing and closely-related topic. In this case the closest topic might be Bernie DeKoven. I'd offer to do it for you, but I'm concerned that my edits could be considered "involved" by this point. I could get in trouble as a WP:MEATPUPPET if it looks like I'm making edits for you. Making public requests for others to work on material where you have a conflict of interest is usually the best move. You can do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Also to quote from the conflict of interest guideline:

You may use the article talk pages (visit the article in question—then click the 'talk' button at the top of the page) to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits (see WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things). You should provide full disclosure of your connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other edit, and other editors may decline to act on them.

If you'd like help making a request then I could offer advice on that topic. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit from fighting Brad at Coworking over this. And I appreciate your offer and your wisdom in bowing out. But I like your idea about adding it to my page. I've asked Hugh McNally to help with this - he helped set up that entry. I did find more on the Wayback Machine - like this - from May 2000 and forward. Any other people you think I might ask for help?

Bernard De Koven 02:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of any specific editors who would be good to contact, but...
Hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the request edit template, and I'm afraid it is far beyond my meager understanding. I edit my wordpress blogs pretty well. But that's about it. Nor am I certain how extensive of a story I should request be added. It is a chapter of my life, and relevant to my overall exploration in applying what I learned about the nature of play and games. I've blogged about what I call "the coworking connection" here - - I want to endorse my support of Brad's work with coworking, establish my primacy in using the term, make the connection between my vision and Brad's work clear, and my efforts to make work a more collaborative enterprise. Bernard De Koven 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) the Wayback Machine led me to a slightly earlier use of coworking - - 29 April 1999 01:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the request edit template is a bit confusing for beginners. I would recommend visiting Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. You can pose your questions there and uninvolved third parties will be able to answer your questions. The teahouse is supposed to be welcoming to new editors so they will surely give you good advice and will help if they can. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The New Games Book[edit]

this entry claims that "The New Games movement was initiated by Pat Farrington. The first "New Games Tournament" was spearheaded by Pat Farrington."

Sources such as and the video and clearly place Stewart Brand in the role of both initiator and "spearhead" (whatever that means). As far as I know, she was most definitely involved in New Games in the early days, did much to introduce cooperative games to the repertoire, was instrumental in organizing subsequent events and bringing New Games to Australia, but as far as I or my old New Games friends remember, she was neither the initiator nor the spearhead. Perhaps there are better words to describe her role. But this entry is absurd without attributing the event to its conceptualizer Stewart Brand.

I don't want to be involved personally in making corrections to the description. Could you please flag this page and direct someone's attention to it?

Bernard De Koven 15:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the problematic line as needing sources and I left a note at the article talk page. Thanks for bringing it up. -Thibbs (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Majorfun. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

The Coworking Institute[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I would like to find someone interested in creating this page, or in adding it to my Bernard DeKoven page. I still can't figure out how to do it myself.

Given your obvious conflict of interest that multiple other editors have commented on, I would strongly advise you not to write about yourself or your institute. You can ask uninvolved editors to write an article about the institute at an appropriate sub-page of WP:Requested articles, probably Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. However, none of the reliable third-party sources I checked covered the Institute in any detail, and it appears it simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Huon (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


The CoWorking Institute ( is an undertaking of Bernard DeKoven, and of newsmaster and archivist Gerrit Visser. DeKoven developed one of the first effective uses of computer technology to facilitate collaborative work in the mid 1980s

The Coworking Insitute is dedicated to the exploration of technologies, tools, techniques, social processes, best practices, and whatever it is that brings people together to work effectively and productively as equals.

Based on his experience in the design of environments that were conducive to the development of collaborative play (through his work with groups and individuals at the Games Preserve, a retreat center he established for the study of adult play, his publication of The Well-Played Game, and his affiliation with The New Games Foundation) DeKoven, in 1985, began to explore the use of a projected computer with outline software as a tool to facilitate brainstorming, planning, and collaborative writing. He described this process in his publications: Power Meetings, and Connected Executives.


Connected Executives - - describing a bit more about my use - article by Michael Schrage - | elearnspace › Coworking Institute | Better Meetings | It's A Match | McGee's Musings |

Michael Schrage on Collaboration |

Related Work - 29 April 1999 use of Coworking in title - technography, coworking - 2000 | elearnspace › Coworking Institute (mentioned) | Better Meetings | It's A Match - in the It’s a Tip section | McGee's Musings  - 2002 reference to Coworking and Technography | mention of Coworking 1995

Michael Schrage on Collaboration |

Related Work - 2001 reference to coworking review of Connected Executives - mention in INC magazine - Power Meetings in LA Times - a personal account - - in 1998 description of 1991 presentation to Stanford HCI group -!bottomup.html - 2001 article by Bernie re technography - use of technography to facilitate conference at Apple - mentions clients Apple, Time-Warner, Sun (they let him use a Mac!), EDS, AT&T and American Express. - Tom Peters reviews Connected Executives Better Meetings - Schrage, Fulop, DeKoven (explaining technography)

Bernard De Koven

Bernie, you're an academic with an expertise in an area that is not particularly well covered on Wikipedia. I have tried to help you because I value your input, but I am concerned that you've become overly reliant on my assistance. I've previously made suggestions regarding where to go and how to ask for assistance from neutral third parties, but these have either proved to be too complicated for you or haven't resulted in the assistance you were interested in. I think it's important for you to be aware that posting to your own talk page is not usually an effective way to ask for help. The only people who even notice such a request are those who have added your talk page to their watchlist (as I have). I am not certain, but I suspect that I may be the only editor who has added your talk page to their watchlist. I sense that you are growing frustrated with the pace here and I sympathize, but as I told you before I am concerned that I have been put in the position of a proxy. If I carry out all of your wishes whenever you make them then the situation is no better than if you were making the edits yourself and this is a violation of our Conflict of Interest policies. If you need assistance then you will have to get it from different members of the community as a whole and not just from those who have wacthlisted your talk page.
So with that in mind I will give you the most basic step by step explanation for requesting help from a member of the community. Please review this list of instructions before you post.
  1. Write up your question in a draft form somewhere.
  2. Come up with a subject line that summarizes your question (similar to the subject line of an email)
  3. Edit your talk page (click here)
  4. Scroll to the bottom and create a new subsection by typing this: ==Subject line==
    (Note: Remember to use "==" on both sides of the title and replace the phrase "Subject line" with the Subject line you came up with in step 2. Then hit enter.)
  5. On the next line directly below, type the following: {{Help me}}
    (Note: Remember to include "{{" at the start and "}}" at the end. Then hit enter again.)
  6. On the next line directly below, paste or re-type the draft of the question you came up with in step 1.
  7. Sign your question by typing this: ~~~~
    (Note: Make sure you are using four "~" characters. Type your signature at the end of your question.)
  8. Click the "Save page" button at the bottom of the screen.
  9. Wait for someone to show up to help you. It usually doesn't take very long. Then read the response and try to understand what the person is saying before proceeding.
  10. If you need further clarification or you have another question then start again at step 1.
Try not to over-use this 10-step technique because some editors might find it tiresome if it is used too persistently. But this is the most basic way to get help from a neutral editor who has volunteered to give assistance. If you feel motivated you might also give the Wikipedia Teahouse another try. That is pretty much the best resource Wikipedia offers for new editors. I hope you find this helpful. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)