Talk:Bullshit job

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merger with Bullshit Jobs

CLOSED

Reject the merging of these article(s) as per NO CONSENSUS. There are a comparable number of arguments made on both sides of the issue, making it a close call; the "Opposes", however, make the better case in this close debate. ~~The phrase clearly predates the book, and the book has little influence on the origin or popular use of the phrase.~~ The phrase and book are two different things/concepts, and as such deserve separate articles. Size, in this case, does not matter, as both articles are open to expansion through normal editing.

The suggested title change is another issue, beyond the purview of this discussion. Non-Administrative closure – GenQuest ^"scribble" 09:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Reviewed and altered by me. Statement struck. Closed without prejudice. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose merger into Bullshit Jobs.

The article is way too short, is unlikely to be expanded any time soon, and would be easier to navigate and find both the book and the concept in one page (for the book). --Balag12 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too short... for what? I started this article because the concept has been taken up by others after Graeber (e.g. Fogh Jensen & Nørmar, Pseudowork) so it has become an independently notable concept. – Joe (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources for expansion (aside from Graeber's work): [1][2][3][4][5][6]. – Joe (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the term "bullshit job" seems like a concept on the rise; an independent article will enjoy more universality in the long run, especially given that other academics have used the term in their works and added nuances to it.

On the basis that it's developed thoroughly soon, I'd argue this stand-alone page serves Graeber's idea better— I think it's likely to be built upon and relevant. FireFlyingly (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Based on the sourcing, I think it would be sufficient to cover the above sources in the context of Bullshit Jobs § Legacy, to split out summary style when the section becomes disproportionately large for the article. czar 07:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joe Roe this idea is likely to be expanded in the coming years or possibly sooner. While the concept is currently small, in the future it will possibly cause confusion when looking for info on "bullshit jobs" the concept and "bullshit jobs" the book. FlorusIX (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The sources brought up by Joe Roe paradoxically demonstrate that the concept of the bullshit jobs has no separate notability from the book, since most of them explicitly refer to the book and cite Graeber. The argument that the concept will be developped or expanded upon soon^[when?] is WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can perfectly update our encyclopedia when it's actually the case. JBchrch talk 18:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? So will we be merging Category:Marxism back into Das Kapital because all the sources refer back to it? The independent sources on this concept exist now and are linked above, no fortune-telling needed. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more recent publications that could be used to expand the article (now): [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is exactly what I am saying; I shall now open a merge discussion there, and perhaps one day we can finally merge it all to Ancient Greek philosophy^[Joke]. On a more serious note, the controlling guideline is WP:PAGEDECIDE. Your sources all refer back explicitly to Graeber and to the book. Some of them are merely secondary literature on the book itself. They don't seem to treat bullshit jobs as a separate concept that has taken a life of its own. I take it as evidence that what is notable is the book, not the concept itself. As a result, the criteria of PAGEDECIDE favor presenting the concept in the context of the book. The closest example I can think of is The Antitrust Paradox. JBchrch talk 20:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one is about the book and one is about the concept. If the concept article is lacking that is a different issue in itself. I would also support a rename to Pseudowork as it would be a more encyclopaedic title. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of following the path of least resistance and the origin of the idea of bullshit jobs we jump to a more recent authors publishing and then call the whole idea Pseudowork??? Regardless of what you believe is "encyclopedic" there is a position in which the wiki should follow the information and not the other way around. The idea of bullshit jobs is more of a basis upon which the idea of Pseudowork proceeds upon and not the other way around. Bullshit jobs should stay as title as it allows for the trail of information to be fully followed instead of purposely cutting off the previous "unencyclopedic" name just for that reason alone. FlorusIX (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A book and its subject are not the same thing. And the book is not the first about this – other books include Parkinson's Law and The Dilbert Principle. People have been joking about sinecures and such for centuries. I started a page about another such topic which I illustrated by reference to Gilbert and Sullivan, (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 20:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idem dito. The Pseudowork title may indeed serve the article better, but I think this concept should first have its in-depth article. FireFlyingly (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that people have always joked about it, but a more detailed analysis is relatively new, since there has been an increase in how individuals believe their occupations are "bullshit" or in some way pointless. This idea is likely to grow and if the book page is merged into the more all-encompassing page I believe that it will both allow for easier understanding of the concept as well as allow the article to grow. FlorusIX (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with FireFlyingly. This is Wikipedia. Based on an encyclopedia, these two entries would not be separate. They would be conjoined under a header -> subheader organization. There is the origin of pseudo work, and branches off that main "trunk". It makes more sense to conjoin these even beyond looking at length. Warm Yellow Sunflower (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Topics in Ethics Calling Bullshit

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abby713, Daniellebishop21, Lukesuppa, Maxhouck, Nubster32 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MUreedyt.

— Assignment last updated by MUreedyt (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Topics in Ethics C Calling Bullshit

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pinguea17, Ethan Neidig, JamarisSalinas (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pinguea17, Sydkay4and.

— Assignment last updated by Okigbov (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]