Talk:Wikinomics/Archives/2013

How can this article be expanded?

A couple of weeks ago, I made what I thought were some minor edits to the page (adding a chapter list and rewording the final chapter description). They were reverted and described as 'highly promotional'. That wasn't my intention. Could someone please share with me how I could go about expanding the article in a way that wouldn't be misconstrued as promotional? --Jdechambeau 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

re: How can this article be expanded? I would suggest that we describe the phenomenom as social organization structure (or rather lack of) instead of describing the book itself.

.hj barraza march 10, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.250.225 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether to include the official book site

I just noticed that Ronz took out the official book site with the reason "removed official site as promotional" after I made some edits. Although I see Ronz's point but at the same time I ended up having to Google the book site to find it and read more. So I think if the book website actually has added value (IMHO, the sample chapters and the authors' blog, etc.), it should be allowed. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was some attempt to demonstrate the notability of the book, I might be more agreeable. --Ronz 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. Agree to leave it out.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The following analogy is not perfect, but nearly every Wikipedia article about a software program includes a link to the program's official site. {{Infobox software}} even has a field for it. If we apply the same notability requirement to software official sites, we would have to massacre thousands of articles which currently link to official sites for software programs. Including such links follows from the way we expect most people to use an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia - the idea is for readers to check the sources of article information, because Wikipedia makes no guarantee of correctness itself. Obviously, a very large percentage of Wikipedia readers who are interested in a topic will want to follow a link to the official site for an article, if such a site exists. This is different than link spamming to large numbers of weakly-related or unrelated sites. Therefore, I vote for restoring the link to the official site. Notability should be satisfied on the same basis as the notability of the book itself. That is, if the book is notable enough to deserve its own article, then by extension the official site should be notable enough to mention in the article. --Teratornis 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed {{Infobox Book}} does not have a Website: field like the one in {{Infobox software}}. So I proposed that the template maintainers should add one. --Teratornis 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No book site article has a link to its official site. See also Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_book_site.3F. --Ronz 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean "No book article" rather than "no book site"? I assume the former. I still want to know what makes books different than software, companies, and other articles which link to their subjects' official sites. For example, see the Microsoft article, and note the {{Infobox Company}} which not only links to the official Microsoft site but also quotes the official Microsoft slogan. That is not merely linking to advertising, it is actually quoting the advertisement on Wikipedia. The Microsoft article is a featured article - making it one of the best articles on Wikipedia, having gone through a featured article review and weathered criticism from many editors! So, I ask again, what makes a trade book different than a software package or a company, that their articles should have different policies on Wikipedia? --Teratornis 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Links_to_official_book_sites --Ronz 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reply: permanent link. Here is the key question I would like you to answer, because I cannot answer it:

• "What sort of person would choose to read an encyclopedia article about a trade book and not want to browse through the full text of the table of contents and first chapter of the book?"

In any case, I know how to Google for the official site, and I have no interest in a revert war. I just want to understand why a full chapter of actual content from a book is irrelevant to people who would read an encyclopedia article about the book. Wikipedia has thousands of links to official sites for many different kinds of commercial products and enterprises. --Teratornis 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm following the discussions, and trying to encourage more. The best argument I've seen is that book sites as they are today are almost entirely promotional in nature, offering little if anything that's not available from sites like amazon. Further, these sites are today very transitional in nature, often disappearing the way other ads do. --Ronz 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? - Notability

Is this article encyclopedic? It doesn't seem to be so, at first blush, except for the fact that Wikipedians might appreciate the reference due to similarity in naming. Antelan ^talk 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it not encyclopedic? Or do you mean not notable? --Ronz 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is one of many criteria used to evaluate whether or not an article is encyclopedic.

From WP:BK: Finally, note that a book's notability is not a reflection on its worth. A book may be brilliantly-written, fascinating and topical while still not being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Also from that page: A book is generally notable if it meets, with attribution in reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
   • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
5. The book's author is historically significant enough for his or her works to be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

---

Notes:

---

This book does not seem to meet any of those criteria, although I'm not an expert in this field which is why I'm asking the question. talk 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You might consider nominating this article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet our inclusion requirements. If you have any questions about the deletion process, I can probably help answer them; Wikipedia:Deletion policy is probably a good place to start. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think a prod based upon notability per the discussion above would be fine. --Ronz 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonesense! I assume this discussion is dead since it has since become abundantly clear that this book is noteable. Anyone who follows I.T. news has heard of this book. Personally I read a big article in the Guardian about it, saw it on slashdot, and saw one of the authors appearing on BBC newsnight to give an interview about the book, and that's before I even look for others references in the press.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the fact that it has been translated into Japanese at all note worthy? http://finalvent.cocolog-nifty.com/fareastblog/2007/05/wikinomicsdon_t_5634.html 67.211.144.2 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar to Nanocompetition article

The ideas presented in this article are strikingly similar to those in the Nanocompetition article (from 2004) which eventually got deleted for being "original research". 89.244.185.212 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a book called "Wikinomics" (and the book is notable). Now the book itself is "presenting ideas" on a concept called "Wikinomics" (which may or may not be something which people regard as a good name/real concept/worthy or a wikipedia article) but this article is not particularly "presenting ideas" on a concept called "Wikinomics". The reason this article exists... is to describe the book by that title -- Harry Wood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian

"The book has been reviewed by major media outlets, including The Guardian." This seems unnecessary to me, of course a book will be reviewed by people, why mention the Guardian at all? John Saunders (talk) 18:33, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per unopposed request and per WP:DAB. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikinomics (book) → Wikinomics — There is no need to have the disambiguation ('book') in the title anymore now that the Wikinomics page has been deleted. WatchAndObserve 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Is the discussion of whether or not this article is even encyclopedic complete? I feel that should be resolved before renaming the page. --Antelan ^talk 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to "complete" the article before getting its name right. Wikipedia's always a work in progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[Edit - I see you replied to my above post.] --Antelan ^talk 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved for discussion/improvement

The following recently added section is unreferenced and is practically unintelligible because of the jargon. Can we salvage it? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Wikinomics

Wikinomics is a book based on the application of new forms of collaboration found in the business world. Wikinomics is more than a summary of how the internet is changing the business model of the future it is a book about embracing change and enhancing not only share holders wealth but the human race. According to Wikinomics the human race is in the midst of the greatest advancement in human history, not since the Renaissance has such an opportunity existed.

The book is rooted in four ideas; being open, peering, sharing and acting globally. These four principles are applied to different applications of mass collaboration:

• Being Open

Cooperating with the world, participate with other businesses to drive innovation faster than if only internal sources of talent where utilized.

• Peering

An alternative to a hierarchy form of organization. Peering is most efficiently used today to produce knowledge based products. Example of peering is Linux.

• prosumers
• new Alexandrians
• platforms for participation
• global plant floor
• wiki workplace

Individuals getting more power

Perhaps a paragraph can be added about the individual getting more powerful trough crowdsourcing, and internet-related activities (eg harvesting power of botnet, ...). Can be used for environmental purposes, according to John Arquila. Gathering info from protected sites may also be useful for building gyroscopes, and robotic systems according to Shawn Carpenter (latter useful for certain environmental systems). See Cybercrime documentary (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/market-segments/critical-infrastructure/458.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.186.75 (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some expanding without promotional

More concepts of the book:like the definition describe here http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/wikinomics

Central Concepts of Wikinomics in the Enterprise

According to Tapscott and Williams, these four principles are the central concepts of wikinomics in the enterprise:

1. Openness, which includes not only open standards and content but also financial transparency and an open attitude towards external ideas and resources
2. Peering, which replaces hierarchical models with a more collaborative forum. Tapscott and Williams cite the development of Linux as the "quintessential example of peering."
3. Sharing, which is a less proprietary approach to (among other things) products, intellectual property, bandwidth, scientific knowledge
4. Acting globally, which involves embracing globalization and ignoring "physical and geographical boundaries" at both the corporate and individual level.

[update on 1 Nov 2012]

Video: Don Tapscott on the theory of Wikinomics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjGLsp9a6bg

I'm wondering can I add more concepts from the book itself, like index and some detailed reviews. I found a really nice review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhd9 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)