Talk:Psychological safety

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychological safety article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 16 March 2013 by reviewer Nimuaq (talk · contribs).

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I would like to question the actual existence of psychological safety. I have no doubt in theory it should and probably does exist but has it been scientifically proven to exist in an organization and if so can you add a link to these organizations and the scientific peer revied papers to show how it was proven please? And if it has not been proven to exist shouldn't that be stated here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.13.165 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've worked really hard with leading academics in the field (including Dr Amy Edmondson, who is the authority on the topic) to turn this page into a valuable resource for students and practitioners alike. I've pasted below the "good" version of this page. It would be great to maintain this page as a useful, valuable and valid resource, but someone has deleted most of the important content, and reverts my changes. I'm interested to hear other's insight on this.

Please, if you wish to make changes, simply make contributory additions. This is too important a topic to be devastated by mass removal of content. Tomgeraghty (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomgeraghty, You absolutely should not be edit warring to include materials you have a conflict of interest with, including your own web site. Much of this material is not reliably sourced (blogs such as leaderfactor.com, infoq.com, psychsafety.co.uk) or is from nonexperts writing in different domains. If you are working with Edmondson, adding a bunch of citations to Edmondson is also a conflict of interest. You're new here, I would suggest that you find some articles unrelated to your own websites and professional interests to get started with so you can learn how Wikipedia works. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I might be new here, but I'm certainly not new to psychological safety. Personally, I'm not keen on leaderfactor and Tim Clarke's work, but it stands. This page was such as excellent resource, it's such a shame to see it trashed by non-experts in the domain. Tomgeraghty (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, self published websites are never 'excellent resources' when it comes to Wikipedia sourcing, see WP:RS and WP:V. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant that this wikipedia page was an excellent resource for students and practitioners alike, combining the history and context of psychological safety as an interpersonal construct, with particular relation to its application in the workplace. There were key academic texts, industry research (Google's project Aristotle), practical and actionable insights on both measuring and building psychological safety, and more. And instead of removing a particular link that you objected to, you've removed 75% of the page and left some random points that align with your perspective. In that respect, what you've done is academic vandalism. You may not like links back to my site, you may not like Timothy Clarke's work, but you are not the arbiter of truth. This wikipedia page is certainly not worth my time or effort as a researcher and practitioner in this field, so I will rely on others to gradually rebuild the damage you have wrought. Please have a little think about what you've done, and examine your motivations. Finally, please don't take anything I've said as a personal insult, I don't know you, and I'm sure you mean well. Tomgeraghty (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

75% of the page was improperly sourced. If it is based on bad sources it cannot be an 'excellent resource'. Wikipedia has sourcing requirements, if you don't want to work within them I would suggest you host such an article on your own web page. - MrOllie (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed references to the authoritative academic text on psychological safety itself. Please don't pretend that you rigorously examined the veracity of each source. Tomgeraghty (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant problems with this page

We know wikipedia has an inherent white male bias due to the majority of editors being white, male, and privileged, and combined with the unconscious biases of said editors, results in poor quality articles and topics that are of interest or contributed to largely by women are ignored or suppressed. ^[1] ^[2]

This is one of those pages. The lead researcher in the field is Dr Amy Edmondson, who continues to drive much of the research and contribute most to the psychological safety community. Editors on wikipedia have removed much of her contribution on this page, in favour of less well-known male researchers.

I encourage everyone to work to improve this page and bring it back to the excellent state it was once in.

And remember, "“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” ^[3]

Tomgeraghty (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your obvious conflict of interest has nothing to do with any of this, the problem is that everyone else is biased. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid getting personal, folks. Tomgeraghty (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the temptation to return in kind is difficult to resist. In the future, don't accuse people of being sexist if you don't want to make a discussion personal. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Conflict resolution

After reading the recent conflicting discussion and resultant bias accusations I feel there is a lack of psychological safety present. Which brings me back to my pet subject, conflict. Of course psychological safety or the lack of it is intricately interlaced with poor behavior and the conflict that arises from that. And yet on the Wikipedia page for psychological safety there is not a single mention of conflict and why people don’t feel safe to personally interact and share opposing views. How can I feel safe if there are no personal protections for me? Unless this area of discussion is considered to be included I believe psychological safety will just be another fad, which it is starting to become, in my view. Signed DesSherlock 117.20.115.79 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyc8 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Allyc8 (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

[2] ttps://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/bewailing-wikipedia-s-white-male-bias

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules

[1]

[2]

[3]