Talk:Don Tapscott

Untitled

Mr. Tapscott is a well known commentator and media theorist and has written ten books, several of which have been best sellers.

Not sure what else to add here, but would be curious to hear suggestions of others.

According to Wikipedia guidelines...

What Wikipedia is not

Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Minor characters may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project

Tapscott certainly qualifies here..."don tapscott" has more than 50,000 google entries

Disputed

There's a lot of questionable statements in this article. In particular, this one stands out as both verifiable and highly unlikely:

Tapscott was the first to use the term Paradigm shift with respect to business, and also popularized the terms the Digital Economy, Dis/Reintermediation, the Net Generation, the Digital Divide, the Extended Enterprise, the Business Web and Digital Capital.

I'd love to see a citation for this. I find it incredibly unlikely this guy was the first to use the term "paradigm shift" (which was coined by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s) to apply to business. Would love to see a citation supporting both this and the idea that he was the one who came up with the idea of the "digital divide". --Fastfission 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note: applications of the term "paradigm shift" to economics and business were done as early as 1970, as far as I can tell. For example, the application of Kuhn's work to economics was written about in Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., "Economics and a New Social Science Threshold" Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4. (Apr., 1970), pp. 353-364. An explicit application of it to the business realm can be found in Everett M. Rogers, "New Product Adoption and Diffusion" The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 4. (Mar., 1976), pp. 290-301. Now I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr. Tapscott's first publications date from the mid-1980s, and his paradigm shift book was not written until 1992. I'm not sure when Mr. Tapscott is supposed to have coined the term "digital divide" but the earliest reference to it I've found so far is Gary Andrew Poole, "A New Gulf in American Education, the Digital Divide", New York Times (January 29, 1996), p. D3. --Fastfission 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted this article to the version of May 7th, It would seem that someone from 24.235.107.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made some questionable edits to this article. I think this version is much more unbiased. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tapscott's Image

I had previously uploaded the BW promo shot of Mr. Tapscott but recently found it deleted with a note on my talk page, the image was later deleted. I've since re-uploaded the image with a comment as to how I had e-mailed Mr. Tapscott's company asking whether or not they had promotional shots for wikipedia, they replied with the one I have since uploaded (and reuploaded). I'm not sure how to go about validating this claim, though. Please let me know what I can do to make sure that I'm properly respecting Wikipedia policy in this instance. Thanks for your time -Jdechambeau 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Run for mayor of Edmonton

This is something that he did that generated significant press coverage (not in and of itself significant enough to justify the existence of the article, but still very significant). If somebody removes this material again, please justify the removal here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No more relevant than any of the other mayoral candidates. Tapscott did not continue with a career as a politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.242.112 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his run for mayor is no more notable than any of the other candidates'. The difference is that he, unlike several of the other candidates, has achieved sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article; all of the others for whom that is true have mention of the campaign in their articles.

If what I've said hasn't convinced you, would you be comfortable making use of WP:THIRD to resolve this dispute? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.242.112 (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that the use of WP:THIRD is required. I note that the campaigns of many Canadian figures - Lewis MacKenzie and A.M. Klein, for example - are mentioned, though they did not continue with a career in politics. I'm all for maintaining the information.Victoriagirl (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your intervention, WP:THIRD is not only not required, it's forbidden (since it can only be used in conflicts between two editors). I agree with you, though - let's give it a couple of days, and if this argument doesn't continue I'll reinsert the material. (Incidentally, I was so quick to propose the use of WP:THIRD because I didn't realize that there was anybody else frequenting this talk page.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Documenting a 7th place finish, although it seems to have been done in good faith, could be read as trying to embarrass Don, which is counter to the principles of biographies of living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.157 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the principles which would indicate that his placing - actually, fifth in a field of seven - not be recorded, nor do I consider this an attempt to embarrass the subject of the article. In fact, given the fact Tapscott was at the time a student, it could be considered an achievement. Either way, the placing doesn't explain why it is that all mention of his campaign for mayor was removed. I've restored the information. Victoriagirl 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant when compared to the rest of his career. Tapscott is not a politician; a 30 year old municipal election result doesn't warrant space in such a short bio of a multiple bestselling author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.157 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, consider it relevant and not at all out of the ordinairy (as demonstrated above). I encourage others to weigh in.Victoriagirl 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Both examples that you state refer to people that ran as a representative of a major political party in a federal election, not a municipal election campaign of a full-time student. It's not really the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.157 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

208.54.95.157 (talk · contribs), my raising the examples of Lewis MacKenzie and A.M. Klein was in response to the observation made by 99.233.242.112 (talk · contribs) that Tapscott did not continue with a career as a politician. I could just as easily chosen bestselling authors Jimmy Breslin and Norman Mailer. With all due respect, whether running for Mayor of Edmonton is more notable than campaigning in the hopes of becoming a CCF Member of Parliament is, I think, not a debate worth pursuing. Victoriagirl 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Breslin and Mailer were already well-known authors (and used their fame to make themselves serious candidates). Tapscott was an anonymous student when he ran for Mayor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.157 (talk • contribs)

A couple of things:

• The subject contacted me last night to express his concern about this information appearing in the article (I don't know the subject personally, but I have corresponded with him a little bit on Wikipedia-related issues). His concern seems to be (and I'm paraphrasing) that being cited as finishing fifth out of seven candidates, while accurate, omits context such as i. he wasn't running to win, but rather to provide opposition to a fringe candidate whose views he considered hateful and dangerous, and ii. all four candidates who defeated him were major Edmonton political figures, and indeed all served as mayor of Edmonton at some point. What would people think about changing the wording to reflect this context, in the interests of the spirit of WP:BLP?
• I still think this is worth including in the article, but how would people feel about going to WP:RFC about this? I'd rather do so earlier rather than later, because in my experience responding to RFCs it's never a welcoming sight to respond to an RFC and see twelve pages of debate. Sarcasticidealist 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First, without better sources, I don't think the topic is of much importance, and deserves little mention per WP:WEIGHT. Second, WP:BLPN might be a good place to bring this up, since there is the concern that this information might be viewed as embarrassing. --Ronz 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't deserve much mention - I think the single sentence in there now is appropriate (it omits, for example, the fact that he was running as a far-left candidate, and I think that omission is appropriate). I've also added a new source.

As for the appropriate venue to pursue this, WP:BLP would be fine with me too, but I'm not really sure how much of a BLP issue this is. We can go there, but I think there's a decent chance that somebody will just send us over to RFC anyway. I'm fine with either, though. Sarcasticidealist 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Before addressing what I consider more serious matters, I'll dispense with the rather trivial issues of who ran where, for what office, how important they were, and how this all compares. True, Breslin and Mailer were celebrities in their own rights before running for Mayor of New York. Sadly, A.M. Klein was anything but well-known when he ran for the CCF. Does it matter? In my opinion, not at all. Again, my point was that putting one's name forward in a campaign is of interest, and noting such is not in any way unusual. Looking at it a different way, had Jean Drapeau published a novel as a student I would hope and expect this information to be included in his Wikipedia entry.

While I believe the mayoralty run should be included, I agree with Ronz's observation concerning WP:WEIGHT. I can't see that the topic should be expanded to cover Tapscott's motives, opinions and the like. In fact, now that I've considered Ronz's observation, I'm of the belief that discussion of the race should be reduced even further by eliminating the reference to the subject's fifth place finish. I don't see that it is at all necessary.

With all due respect to Sarcasticidealist, and recognizing the position in which he has been placed, I am always troubled when a subject contacts an editor. That the subject raised the issue of his candidacy hours before it became an ongoing matter of discussion from a single purpose acount - one who refers to the subject as "Don" - is very extremely disconcerting. I will assume in good faith that this is a coincidence, but I think the optics are not at all good.

I'm not at all against asking others to become involved through WP:RFC, but am not entirely convinced that consensus can't be reached amongst those participating in this discussion. Victoriagirl 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The new source suggests we give very little weight to this information - it certainly doesn't give it much mention at all.

If no one considers this a BLP issue, then let's try RFC. --Ronz 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've actually dropped a feeler over at WP:BLP, so we'll see if anything comes up. In the meantime, though, as I interpret what the three of us are saying, we all agree that this is worth a mention but not much more. I'm quite happy with User:Victoriagirl's suggestion that we remove information about his placing and leave it at that. Does that satisfy you, User:Ronz?

As for the subject contacting me, I don't think it's a problem. He did so in order to discuss the article and raise some concerns rather than in order to try to get me to make edits on his behalf. It does seem probable that the IPs are somebody affiliated with the subject, but that's probably not his fault. Sarcasticidealist 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last observation, Sarcasticidealist. In fact, I have sympathy for the subject on this and the whole issue of the mayoralty race. It must be trying at times to be in the public eye.Victoriagirl 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

User:206.248.191.99 reverted User:Mangostar's placement of a new photo with the rationale "see talk page for past discussion"; however, I don't see any relevant discussion on the subject of which photo to use here. Unless somebody can clarify, I'm reverting to Mangostar's picture, which I agree is better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article is largely sourced with the author's own materials (generally staff pages are largely sourced from said staff) and local publications. A large amount of google hits unless to notable publications isn't indicative of notability. I personally have more google hits than Mr. Tapscott due to work for my job, trade associations and coincident but am hardly a notable public person. Reboot (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tapscott qualifies as author of award winning books such as Wikinomics

Creative professionals Shortcut: WP:CREATIVE Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.49.18 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the unsigned comment above that Mr Tapscott fits notability guidelines under the WP:CREATIVE guidelines. A quick google search for "Don Tapscott" returns a quarter-million results. Skipping to the 50th page of results, all search results are all about the same and single Don Tapscott. On the first page of results is an Authors@Google talk hosted by Google's Eric Schmidt, that strikes me as a notable accomplishment. Your objection seems to be based around a lack of proper citations, would you agree that it would be more appropriate to add a citation needed flag rather than a non-notable flag? --Jdechambeau (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Reboot (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate

1947 - per Wikinomics --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Chairman at Moxie Insight

http://moxieinsight.com/about/ "Don is Chairman of Moxie Insight and directs several of Insight’s research and education programs, was the founder and chairman of the international think tank New Paradigm before its 2007 acquisition by Moxie Software." --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links moved to talk

In case they can help with content verification, expansion, or finding other references: --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Don Tapscott's profile at newparadigm.com
• Authors@Google Interview with Eric Schmidt on YouTube
• Don Tapscott Web 2.0 article and podcast
• 3 minute preview of Wikinomics to ZDNet
• Interview with Don Tapscott on bigthink.com, June 2009
• Interview with Don Tapscott on TWIT's Net at Nite
• RSA Vision webcast – Don Tapscott "The Economic Crisis and the Age of Uncertainty"
• Interview with Don Tapscott on IT Manager Connection by, Stephen Ibaraki

Article being treated as a part of his marketing

I don't think it is any stretch to assume that most of the recent, major changes to this article are being done as part of Tapscott's own marketing. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID.

A general rule of thumb to avoid WP:NOT and WP:NPOV problems is to work from independent, reliable sources.

Anything unsourced or poorly sourced should be considered for removal per the restrictions on biographical information. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that unlike public relations pieces, a biographical article should emphasize historical context and all noteworthy aspects of a person's life. Highlighting recent activities or echoing recent publicity is inappropriate per NOT and POV. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Tapscott

The insertion of material about Alex Tapscott's legal difficulties in business (example) has no place in an article about Don Tapscott. I have raised this subjection at the BLP Noticeboard, here. Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to tie it in with the previous paragraph, but the sources I was finding were all poor. The Bloomberg ref used for that paragraph looks questionable as well, mostly promotional. Does anyone have access to the full Bloomberg ref to summarize it and see if it's worth retaining? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a quality-of-referencing issue—it's a this-material-has-nothing-to-do-with-Don-Tapscott issue. It is, viewed charitably, completely irrelevant. Viewed less charitably, it is an attempt to smear him with guilt-by-association. Steve Smith (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Any comments on the previous paragraph or the Bloomberg ref? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong views on the preceding paragraph. The source looks good, though; Bloomberg News is, to my knowledge, a reliable news source, and the fact that it's behind a paywall suggests that it's a legitimate news article (putting promotional content behind a paywall sort of defeats the purpose). What's your basis for thinking that it's promotional? Steve Smith (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I got a copy. It's a simple announcement, and looks like a warmed-over press release from Tapscott. It also doesn't verify the info. I'm removing it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)