Talk:Co-option

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

untitled

Is Cooptation really related to Co-option at all? The former redirects here but I'm only familiar with its usage as in "the small minority's leadership was coopted by the government". (A cursory google search seems to confirm that this is the more predominant usage.) Should we move this latter definition to cooptation and leave a disambig note on each page to clarify that co-optation is sometimes spelled cooptation, or are the subjects closer related than this article currently seems to suggest? — Your server has been MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 06:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation would be best. Be bold--MWAK 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution POV

The dogmatic statement that fish evolved into reptiles, etc, is definitely POV. Mdotley 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is science. Should science be the sole ruler to decide what is NPOV regarding factual statements? Yes. Besides, the statement isn't dogmatic as it reflects empirical data.--MWAK 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... Science is testable, observable, and repeatable. Evolution may be popular among scientists, but it's not science. I'm happy to accept your modification. Mdotley 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The Biology portion needs to be split off into it's own stub, I think. Otherwise, this really isn't a {{politics-stub}} any more. Mdotley 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{politics-stub}}, since it isn't really an accurate description of this anymore. Mdotley 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Do we really need to ask for citations for a logical statement?

...a co-option may be thought unsuitable as the newly elected member will not necessarily represent the interests of the group represented by the vacating member.(citation needed)

CarlosPatiño (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence: Applications in Co-Opting

I am surprised there isn't a section on co-opting from a intelligence pov as it relates to complexity discourse.Twobells (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooption

Cooption redirecs here, but cooption without hypnation is a word that should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation too. I don't know what to do about this, I don't have an account. I'm just a kid. Cooption is a pretty awesome word though: cOOption! 143.167.172.109 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Cleanup

Prior text was stating that an arcane sense was the main one, although it in fact is unrelated to the well known sense. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Considering above comments about this essentially being a dictionary article, I tagged a few issues, created a DAB Co-option (disambiguation), decided there's two similar/related/same? organisational meanings so left those two as the article, moved all others to see also pending another editor coming along and agreeing and possibly removing see also (they are now covered by the DAB). As for this article, it needs to be decided if there are still two meanings left, or one. I put the stub back - please do not remove stubs without expanding. Widefox (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation required

There do appear to be two meanings, even in the political sense:

to add members to an elected or appointed body at the discretion of members of the body (this is the sense which anyone who has ever sat on a committee will know)
to subsume and assimilate a weaker group.

I've edited it to mean (1) primarily, since meaning (2) is an informal process which doesn't deserve much more than a dictionary definition. It could be disambiguated, but I don't have the skills or the knowledge to do so. I've edited the definitions on the existing disambiguation page, but clearly a new page would be needed for one or other meaning.

Otherwise:

We should not use "co-option" for one and "co-optation" for the other. This would be tantamount to writing our own definitions. Co-optation is (I believe) an American variant cf. transport/transportation.

I am deeply unhappy with using Selznick's study of TVA as a model. On this showing TVA seems to have been a corrupt and unaccountable body which would clandestinely sell its influence to interested parties. The synopsis below may of course be inaccurate. I've removed it here, less some laudatory adjectives.

[begins] In his study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Philip Selznick defined co-option as “absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence”. He defined two ideal types: formal and informal. Formal co-option is publicly acknowledged, and done for two reasons: when legitimacy of organization or leadership is questioned by the governed or to create reliable channels for managerial communication and direction. Formal co-option generally does not involve sharing power with the co-opted, but instead shares the responsibility for power. Selznick defined informal co-option as a response to specific individuals or groups who command necessary resources which therefore resulted in the co-opted party receiving real influence. Public acknowledgment would undermine legitimacy of authority, so the organization may refrain from explicitly recognizing this informal relationship. [ends]

It is not clear that Selznick's conclusions necessarily apply outside the TVA and similar organisations. In practice, co-option is used for other reasons than to ward off threats, and co-opted members may well share in power. Selznick's "informal co-option" arguably describes a corrupt process of clandestine influence-buying.

Chrismorey (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I suggest we split this article into two: one about organizations which fill their own vacancies (call it Co-optation (election)) and one about the political manoeuver (call it Co-optation (politics)), though obviously the latter comes from the former.

As for co-optation vs. co-option, (a) the OED's principal entry is under co-optation; (b) Google ngrams finds that co-optation (or cooptation) has been more frequent except from 1920-1965 or so,[1] and for the past couple of decades, over twice as frequent. Restricting to British English alone, co-optation is more common than co-option, though by a smaller margin than in US English.[2] --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

term "in Silicon Valley"

According to Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel from 2009 to 2017,^[1]

definition of co-optation (that now redirects here): brutal competition, but at the same time, necessary cooperation.

References

^ Apple, Google and a Deal That Controls the Internet The New York Times, 2020

Global POV?

This article may be written from a US point of view.

In the UK co-option is a neutral term to describe the appointing a person to a committee without an election, in circumstances where an election is the usual means of appointment.

This is common in membership organisations, where those co-opted often have special skills that can't be found among the members eligible for election.

OnceATeacher (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Apple, Google and a Deal That Controls the Internet The New York Times, 2020

[1]