Talk:Design by committee

54

Is the 54 an inside joke that I'm not getting? The text even spells out 48+5. (To the uninitiated: ATM had 53-byte cells. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.190.72 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2006-2007

I really wish there were examples/citations for the statement "design by committee can produce excellent and satisfactory results".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.180.77 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 November 2006

Why "Java for Windows"? Are there any in Windows-specific details in any of the long names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.85.59.62 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 November 2006

The name of Java seems relatively logical to me. Does anyone actually think its reasonable to use this dubious example of "naming by committee" in an article that doesn't actually mention "naming by committee" anywhere else? Jibjibjib 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with first comment. This last sentence sounds like a Fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.166.248 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 15 April 2007

Naming

What would be the problem by using a committee for designing if there would be a unifying vision, and that vision would be known to the comittee members, and accepted by them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.36.216.66 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bytes

"Computer and network systems typically work in 32-byte and 64-byte sizes." I'm sorry? Did you mean "bits"? What else in that paragraph is factually inaccurate? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I've removed the statement. Rp (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Attributions

The attribution of this term to Jim Rorie seems wrong (considering the attributions at the end). Can anybody provide proof for any of these? Rp (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an attribution that predates the currently named person's first recorded usage. 1952, Proceedings Regular Meeting, Ohio Valley Transportation Advisory Board, Pacific Northwest Advisory Board, pg. 24: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee, so we hope that this committee will—and I think it will—function appropriately." Youtryandyoutry (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Content

Wikipedia's content generation is one of the best design-by-committee success stories. Why isn't it included in this article? Todd Bezenek (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably because a reliable published source that covered that hasn't been cited, or because such a source doesn't exist. Also, calling Wikipedia one of the "best" is a non-neutral opinion, and there are plenty of contrary views about Wikipedia that would point to its committee aspect as a big failure, as "too many cooks spoil the broth". BilCat (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It there a consensus on this? Perhaps a section discussing Wikipedia as a design-by-committee project?

I have looked all over an I can't find anything on Wikipedia anywhere about this. Todd Bezenek (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A consensus on what? That a reliable source would be required? Certainly, per WP:RS. BilCat (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on what to say about Wikipedia in the design-by-committee entry. Please excuse my not being clear. It would probably be easy to start a section with a single reference. Do you remember where you saw a reference criticising Wikipedia for being design-for-committee? I'd rather use something positive, but if it is hard to find something positive, a section with a negative reference would be a start. What do you think? Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok. The only thing I could find was this, and it seems I misspoke. Not really enough to add to this article yet, but it might be a start to other sources. BilCat (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. My experience with Wikipedia has been an educational one. A lot of the same issues I see in the tech industry happen at Wikipedia with respect to the data. The move toward passive-aggressive behavior is exasperating and reminds me of what I've seen when dealing with the employees of tech contracting companies overseas. You, however seem very civilized. I'm going to leave it alone, since the only thing that could be done is to map comments about design-by-committee issues to Wikipedia. Without someone making a direct connection, it is a lost cause trying to make something happen.

Cheers! Todd Bezenek (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)