Talk:The Dilbert Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the stupidist article ever. Whats the point? Moreso, nice editorializing and offering conclusions without proof. What schools use this? This is why Britanica will always be around. anon
- I think it is an accurate summary of the Dibert Principle. Whether you agree with the principle or not is another issue, but it is not Wikipedia's role to pass judgement. We just state the principle. mydogategodshat 16:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- Nevertheless, the first comment above raises a valid point about accuracy; the article asserts that the book "is now required reading at some management and business programs", a claim that must be supported. What programs require it? Also, the article's assertion that "There is some evidence that this was and is practiced by some firms" is vague and unsubstantiated. What evidence? Without answering these questions the article appears to be an individual's (non-neutral) point of view rather than an exposition of fact. anon
-
-
- I have added some more background and a number of testimonials to show that there is some support for the theory. I don't like to add testimonials because I do not feel they are appropriate in Wikipedia, but when someone places a "disputed accuracy notice" on an article, they are necessary as a counter-measure. mydogategodshat 00:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Must be a manager? anon
- Your resorting to personal insults is not appropriate on Wikipedia. mydogategodshat 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Must be a manager? anon
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have removed the following three testimonials now that they are no longer needed:"The Washington Times called it "The management book of the century" and a reviewer in the Wall Street Journal said it was "the best management book I have ever read". Leading business strategist Michael Hammer claimed that the book "provides the best window into the reality of corporate life that I've ever seen". mydogategodshat 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-