Talk:The End of Work

Criticism

Philosopher of economics Constantine George Caffentzis is critical of Jeremy Rifkin and Antonio Negri as two of the major contributors to the "end of work" discourse and literature of the 1990s which he argues has been theoretically and empirically refuted.

Hilarious, thanks for the laughs. Refuted? Let's see:

1. Worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. Check.
2. Devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. Check.
3. While the small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech global economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful. Check.
4. As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a "third sector"- voluntary and community-based service organizations - that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. Check.

This criticism reads like a coatrack. On the one hand, there is no wiki article for the critic, Constantine George Caffentzis. Critics should have some kind of notability. On the other hand, I fail to see what Antonio Negri has to do with this article. Perhaps that can be explained. Rifkin and Negri are not the only proponents of the "end of work" idea. Finally, the criticism added to this article consists of nothing but Caffentzis saying Rifkin has been "theoretically and empirically refuted". That's not a valid criticsm. Of course, Rifkin has been criticized by many notable authors, so one wonders why someone took the time to add such an obscure and vapid criticism in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I've restored the criticism section which is obviously a stub.
2. Whether or not a person has a wiki article can not be used to determine whether a critic is notable because it might simply mean that a contributor simply has gotten around writing an article for this person.
3. Caffentzis wrote a critique of both Jeremy Rifkin and Antonio Negri as two of the major contributors to the "end of work" discourse and literature of the 1990s. This article is about the book The End of Work as well as the "end of work" concept to which Negri also contributed to. That being said, I've removed the mention of Negri to avoid any confusion.
4. Not only was I the person who created The End of Work article but I was the one who took the time to add this criticism stub which, as the expand tag indicates, should be expanded. In other words, unless someone else does it, I was planning on expanding this section to detail why Caffentzis (and others) think Rifkin has been theoretically and empirically refuted.

--Loremaster (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, saying someone has been "theoretically and empirically refuted" is not a valid criticism by any measure (POV criticism sections are discouraged as well) and Antoinio Negri has nothing to do with this article. Caffentzis doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry, which is a good indicator that this criticism is empty. I can see no good reason for its restoration, and I await one, so I must again question your judgment in this matter. If no reason is produced or if the criticism is not fixed to actually show a criticism, I will remove it again. Challenged criticism requires secondary sources to assess notability. So far, you have cherry picked this "criticism" straight out of a website without the proper reference, which is:

Caffentzis, George 1998. "The End of Work or the Renaissance of Slavery? A Critique of Rifkin and Negri", presented at the "Globalization from Below" Conference at Duke University February 6, 1998

There's no secondary source for this criticism because it is an unpublished paper presented at the "Globalization from Below" Conference at Duke University on February 6, 1998. Do you think that meets that requirement for 1) Reliable sources 2) Published sources 3) Secondary sources 4) Criticism sections?

1. To repeat, the criticism section is a stub, which I am working to expand.
2. Negri is no longer mentioned in the Criticism section so why are you still bringing him up.
3. There are countless notable people who do not have Wikipedia articles (yet) so having a Wikipedia is a not a good indicator of whether or not someone is notable. However, I will remove Caffentzis' name from the Criticism section until his notability can be established.
4. I agree that this particular source may not meet requirements to be the sole source of the Criticism section. That's why I am working on finding better ones.
5. You should assume good faith otherwise I could question your judgement since you seem to have accept Rifkin's thesis uncritically and therefore might be motived to suppress any criticism of it. Let's not good down that road, shall we?

--Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please question my judgment, since I'm not a fan of Rifkin. This isn't how criticism sections are written, and this isn't how sources are used. There's no secondary source for this criticism. Apparently this paper was recently published in a collection of essays, titled Revolutionary Writing: Common Sense Essays in Post-political Politics (2003:ISBN 157027133X). Unless you are writing about Caffentzis in his biography, this is problematic. Is there any reliable secondary source that describes Caffentzis' criticism of Rifkin? It looks like there isn't, and unless there isn't, its use is in question. You need to first show that the criticism is notable using a secondary source which points to the criticism in some way. Then you can go back to the essay. Obviously, the criticism isn't notable, as it has been published it what can only be described as a fringe book, a collected of unpublished essays (in this case a lecture) that has not received peer review or has been subject to any form of editorial oversight. I'm curious if this is also a BLP issue. We have a criticism section linked to an essay which is only very recently (2003) published in a somewhat fringy book published by Autonomedia. How can you possibly defend this? On the other hand, there do appear to be secondary sources that have used this essay to criticize Negri. But, this isn't Negri. This is Rifkin. The thing is, there are loads of critical secondary sources on this book. So why pick an obscure lecture? It doesn't make sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I am fully aware of all the Wikipedia guidelines you mention as well as the problems with the Criticism section. To repeat, it's a stub I created in the hopes that either myself (when I found the time) or someone erudite and of good faith like yourself would work on improving and expanding it in a manner that meets all Wikipedia requirements. I'm not wedded to the mention of Caffentzis in this article or using his essay (or the book that contains his essay) as a source. If there are loads of critical secondary sources for Rifkin's book, stop lecturing me and start listing them here so we can use them. --Loremaster (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think the recent version is a huge improvement over what was there before. It's not exactly accurate, but this can be fixed in subsequent edits. Can you tell me why you feel the need to use a criticism section? Criticism works best when it's woven into the body or specific section. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt the need to temporarily use a criticism section in order to attract people into contributing criticisms to the article before weaving them into the body of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never quite heard that kind of explanation before, so thanks for introducing some spontaneity into my day. But, you can only use it once. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a method to my madness. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

George Caffentzis now has a Wikipedia article. I've restored the mention of his name in the the Criticism section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Impact of IT on agriculture

How can IT have significant impact on agriculture which is mostly farming ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.23.71 (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the The End of Work article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

Hi, just to note that the second External link regarding criticism seems to be broken. Is there automated system on Wiki checking this? Braniti (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The application checking for broken links must be added to the page for the checking to happen. That being said, I've replaced the link with one that leads to an archived version of the essay. --Loremaster (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

References

The last sentence of the quotation seems to be botched.

The "end of work" literature of the 1990s, therefore, is not only theoretically and empirically disconfirmed.

Should that be "but" instead of "and"? I cannot find the source. Bn (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)