Talk:Chaordic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
This article is far too philosopical. This isn't a philosopical concept. It's a form of business organization. It is, in fact, the way Visa International, the credit card network, is organized. Visa International is a corporation owned by the competing banks who use its services. That's a very unusual ownership arrangement, yet it works. That's what a "chaord" is.
Dee Hock is a banker, and created Visa International.--Nagle 07:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello:
I tried to edit this page to sharpen the language and remove some spurious innacuracies. Those edits were almost instantly rejected and removed. Why?
It is true I tried to add a definition, and this is not a dictionary. Fair enough. But what about the rest of the changes?
My credentials, BTW: former Managing Director of the Chaordic Commons, the organization set up by Dee Hock.
The term "chaordic" may be used in some philosophies (it would be interesting to learn which philosophies), but it was, as Nagle points out above, not created to describe a philosophical system. "Chaordic" describes systems -- for example, human organizations -- that exist in the zone where chaos and order overlap.
Hock went on to describe some of the characteristics of those systems, and ways they might be coaxed into existence. I suspect he would blanch at "chaordic" being described as "consensus-based" or a philosophy having "adherents."
Also, in the sentence below, "adherents to such a philosophy" has no antecedent, which is grammatically incorrect, although perhaps unintentionally factually correct, as there is--as far as I know--no "chaordic philosophy."
"Some people hold that nature is largely organized in such a manner; in particular, living organisms and the evolutionary process by which they arose are often described by adherents to such a philosophy as chaordic in nature."
71.135.183.37 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'd suggest registering for an account. Although one can edit Wikipedia anonymously, you can't develop a reputation on Wikipedia that way, which means that your contributions are more likely to be rejected. Second, what's needed are citations. "Birth of the Chaordic Age" is a good source. You can certainly cite to that. It also might be worth saying something about why Visa International is giving up the chaord form and going public. But everything has to be verifiable from external sources. --John Nagle 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Good points all. I wasn't looking to develop a reputation, though, just to correct some inaccuracies...but I see why reputation might matter. I mostly deleted things that were not verifiable (although it would have been more thorough to have also changed the "some say" construction in one of the sentences). What remains is verifiable through the links on the page. As to VISA's current and future organizational form, I am not privy to their decisionmaking processes. 71.135.183.37 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
However registered I would hope the points raised by the last Managing Director of Chaordic Commons will feed the review of this page and be taken seriously by the WikiProject.
If his suggested edits are verified and endorsed by Chaordic Commons, i.e. a Governing Trustee (Me) is this enough to edit the article?
The Chaordic article should indicate that the term "chaordic" is a registered trademark of the Chaordic Commons. I am a trustee and owning member of the Chaordic Commons, and am thus charged with protecting our intellectually property. Your cooperation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Tjsherlock 04:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
