Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:29, 24 November 2007

Business Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

Archives

Archive 1

Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations

There is an growing volume of subjectivity, partial information and misinformation on this topic on the internet posted by self appointed experts, most usually individuals who self report as "victims of bullying", which, however well -intentioned they may be, makes them too subjective and inclined to over identify to the point of not just POV but some serious distortions.

The trouble is it is just TOO EASY fall into the trap of assuming that some of this misinformation is established and verified fact or academic theory, when, too often it is just one person's, subjective, thinking.

I think it is very important on Misplaced Pages to dismiss all that misinformation and get back to established and verified fact or academic theory, from reputable sources and objective experts.

I personally feel bullying is a very important topic and that we owe it to those who have been bullied, are being bullied and will be bullied to present the most thorough, valid, objective and balanced information we can find.

Because of the plethora of misinformation already available, I am hoping we can try to achieve this by sticking to citing sources that people can, at least partially, check for themselves, rather than obscure paper only sources?

Let's do it, huh? --Zeraeph 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POV problems

This article now reads more like journalism than an encyclopedia article, and suffers from serious POV problems in that parts of it are either how-to guides or diatribes against bullying. Section headings like "Workplace Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane" are actively counterproductive to this article being taken seriously, which would be a shame, given the seriousness of its subject. -- The Anome 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have got carried away with your POV objections. However I agree that the section "What to do About Workplace Bullying" is a bit flabby and could be better but it is not so much a POV issue. The content of the section "Workplace Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane" is based on solid research but I accept that the title itself overstates the case. I will think of a slightly less dramatic title for that section after which I can see no reason to keep your POV objections.--81.2.80.50 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing section title for "Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane". The section title is now much better. I agree with your "howto" tag for What to do About Workplace Bullying but I now dont see any reason for general NPOV and cleanup tags for this article so I have removed them. --81.2.80.50 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mind you there is a lot more additional contributions that remains to be done on this article. It is a pity that there is little sign of willing contributors. --81.2.80.50 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now chopped out three sections which I did not feel added significantly to the article: two were just lists of points, without any narrative content, and the third was a how-to-guide. I've also deleted the tags I added earlier. -- The Anome 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking really good to me.--Zeraeph 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with your changes but it is a big shame to have lost "Top 25 Workplace Bullying Tactics" as it was very useful in informing people how workplace bullying manifests itself - it would have easy for people to relate to rather than the dry academic stuff. "Types of Workplace Bullying" was pretty useful as well. There really ought to be a section about what to do about workplace bullying but accept that the previous material on this was inadequate.--82.153.107.122 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is anything intrinsically wrong with lists anyway. I note that we still have a list in the "United States" section which you have left. --82.153.107.122 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If readers wanted associated narrative content for "Top 25 Workplace Bullying Tactics" and "Types of Workplace Bullying" they could have clicked on the references included. --82.153.107.122 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how this link of Namie's is research related

Could you please explain how this link of Namie's is research based and not self promotion (#12 on the bully ref page): http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/WBIbrochure.pdf

He promotes his professional services, DVD and self-help books - that is really within your codes?

You have taken my 2 - 3 sentences off on research of the economic cost of allowing bullying in the workplace, that is cited from my white paper, based on information from Harrison Psychological Associates & Proudfoot Productivity reports - these are world known! I did not promote my services and I am a professional with a degree in social work and group dynamics. My papers do not show a bias of upset and anger towards dissonant individuals. This link goes to my white paper - which is not the same as Namie's sales brochure cloaked as a champaign for "Bully Week"!

If you do not want us to site ourselves then how about this one: http://www.overcomebullying.org/costs-of-bullying.html it seems only fair if people can advertise there services forwardly - then researchers should be able to use their hard work to support their statements - that is why we do the research! user: Tamara Parris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the actual link you are suggesting is dead, whoever owns the site does even provide their NAME, let alone any credentials to establish them as WP:RS. I am not overfond of Gary Namie myself, but he does provide his name, address, telephone number and credentials and he certainly did not post his own link. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph - did you even bother to follow the link before writing this? It takes you to a pdf brochure that promotes his services, dvd, and books - look in the middle of the brochure. His name is clearly on it, as well as phone numbers. How is this not advertising? You say none of his people put it here? What is your proof? Please provide your supporting information (I have) Find out who did it, and remove the link! Why are they permit to put SPAMlinks up to a service promoting brochure masked as a "Bully Week" champaign? It was smart of them - because no one has noticed the marketing scam here! So lets look at your logic flow for editing peoples citations - You will allow a SPAMlink to a brochure that took someone 1-2 hours to make as a creditable source - while you then go around removing links to peoples white papers that they have worked on for years!(and then name calling us as "people who woke up one morning think they are expertise") and putting invalid information back up on legislation that does not exist - even when a telephone number is given to you to confirm. Here read my paper and then you can tell me that I am bias and emotional after you have read it. http://www.overcomebullying.org/costs-of-bullying.html

Zeraeph- Remove the link to this brochure and you might be able to have some creditability here, why not put a link to his bullying page that provides information about bullying. Call the Ontario Occupational Safety and Health office and confirm the information on the laws before reposting the information (Ontario Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421) ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The person with no credibility here is you, particularly when you keep removing a thoroughly verified link to a Government site on the grounds that bullying is restricted to psychological harm.

Gary Namie is named, qualified, peer reviewed, and has his own domain, you are using a freeserver to promote your own ideas, as is the unnamed owner of the other site you refer to. Please stop vandalising the article. If you are as serious about your work as you say then I am sure you can find reliable, verifiable, academic sources to cite in support of your point in accord with WP:RS. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you are mud throwing by down grading the users of a freeserver. How is that relevant to our discussion? OH yeah I forget you enjoy name calling as a tactic to get your point across - does this work on most people?

I gave you the telephone number to Ontario Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421 and you are trying to say they are not a reliable source and this makes me have no credibility? Explain how speaking directly to their staff and reading the actual Act makes me non-credible, but you looking at an old website does?

I am not vandalizing the article - I am correcting the misinformation. You are trying to lead people to believe that this act covers "bullying" which is defined as a psychological harassment by Namie, and others in their published works. However, you have not yet called to confirm if the information is correct or not - you simply put it up. As for the other link - it goes to Namies site! Look at the url http://www.bullyinginstitute.org - that is Namies site!

What you are talking about is assault and battery - "Bullying" as it is used by Namie and others refers to psychological harm. The Acts DOES NOT cover psychological harm. Why don't you just read the Act! If this continues I will get a third part involved now - Your discussion on this issue has moved off relevance to name calling and insults. That it not what being an editor is about. It is about validating information, which you are refusing to carry out with a simple phone call or reading the real Act - here is a link for you http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o01_e.htm ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullying does not "refer to psychological harm" it is the act of intentionally causing harm to others through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation. That includes physical violence. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the page we are discussing "Bullying in the Workplace" it is in reference to psychological harm. Physical assault is covered under the act and in the workplace is assault and battery, however that is not what Namie and others are referring to in relation to "Bullying in the workplace".

Why are you constantly deleting my citation information - as I am citing the direct source of my information an Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament Andrea Horwath Tel: (416) 325-2777 Email: ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca are you trying to make people believe I am not credible by removing my citations? ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Her site does not mention any kind of bullying at all, and you cannot cite somebody's phone number, that would be WP:OR --Zeraeph (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed Namie's link myself to http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2003results.pdf - this goes to his actual research paper that the citation is probably from Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces October 2003 by Gary Namie ~~Tamara Parris02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parriswolfe (talk • contribs)

Also, please read WP:SOAP --Zeraeph (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one to see the irony that this argument has happened over an article about bullying? Without getting into the substance of the disagreement, for what it's worth WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EW also make for good reading. Wikidemo (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no prizes for working out who is the certified bully around here - Madam GD aka "-------"--91.84.95.148 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Unassessed ethics articles
• Unknown-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles