Talk:Getting Things Done

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Link to author's lecture

I've tried to add this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7vUdKTlhk But the automatic bot did not allowed it. Should it be added ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_Things_Done&diff=189326401&oldid=189326379

[edit] NPOV dispute

. . . I should come back to this later . . .  ;)

I thought this article should have an NPOV tag, but then in line with the thinking here, I just added it here's why:

There is no real balance to the ideas Allen puts forward. The article reads as a synopsis of the book with no critique. "Objectivity" is fine when appled to a phenomenon but when applied to a set of ideas, such as Allen's book, simply reporting on what it says is not fitting in my view for an encyclopaedic entry.

For instance, the notion that filing's fundamental characteristic is that it should be "simple" in order to enable "rapid retrieval" has an impact on the dundamental notion of Allen's to "move tasks out of the mind". Electronic fining systems using full text indexing attempt to provide a solution to the problem of remebering, for example, the author's name of the article you read two years ago that has now become relevant to your work.

So unless the A-Z or Chronology is remembered for each piece of information stored in tbhis "simple" filing system, it becomes extremely difficult to locate once the volume of stored information moves above a trivial limit.

This is an example of a "basic" issue with the theories. An example of a "higher level" issue would be the notion of "tasks" that appears to underlie the concepts. The system works fine for activities that require minimal creativity. Without wanting to spend too long detailing this, the defintion of the problem defines the possible solution set. The "problem" in many, and arguably the majority, of instances does not exist in the symbols of language we use to articulate it. Therefore there is a translation between the reality which causes us some discomfort and which we would like to improve and our perception of this. As we articulate the components as we choose to select and define them we also constrain the opportinities available to us for "solution" of these issues. For instance: 1. My wife and I argue about X. 2. We have explored options for compromise but our positions are irreconcilable. 3. We can no longer speak about this issue without arguing. The implicit assumption is that the argument is about X. More often than not it is about A and Y and a bit of R too, combined with the fact that 27 and 359 have not even been considerd, as well as the fact that it's bright pink. The point is that scientific methodology only works when it is applied with a full understanding of its limitations.

Allen's methodology is great, but it has limitations and boundaries and those are not dealt with in the article. I will note the structure and integrate it with other conceptual frameworks, so thanks. But filing is not only about storage and retrieval, it contains understanding in its structure. Similarly tasks are not merely executable instructions sometimes they comprise true exploration i.e. exploration that relies upon techniques other than Aristotlean ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LookingGlass (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For something like this a neutral point of view is to accurately describe his system. There is no real "controversy" about his system. If it's not your cup of tea, and Seven Habits or WorkSmart or something else is, you use that system instead. Nobody's picketing David Allen, nobody's writing irate op-eds in newspapers. The "theories" are not scientific theories subject to peer review or political or ecomonic ideas. They are just suggestions that may or may not work for different people. It's like writing an entry for Japanese cuisine and then one for Mexican cuisine. Would you have a paragraph in the Mexican entry pointing out that Japanese feel that food should be less spicy and vice versa in the Japanese entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.216.99.100 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia is neither a place for original research nor original philosophical discussions, disputes, or criticism. If there is something out there to cite that specifically refutes GTD, that would be a useful addition. -Cyberscribe 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing NPOV tag in absence of any notable sources of criticism. -Cyberscribe 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Ticker or Tickler file? (User:199.2.125.42 signature added)

Tickler. --- Charles Stewart 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have some possible critisism listed of the GTD system. I am trying to implement it at the moment and it looks like it should work but maybe there are other perspectives. Having some critisisms outlined tends to make one consider the article is more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.43.12 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 October 2005

Give us some criticisms then :D Keithlard 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Some possible critisisms could be: Critics have argued that not prioritising actions can mean dull or unenjoyable activities are put off rather too long.

Perhaps a specialist can comment on the groups of people or professional roles who might find this system suitable? Strikes me that people in different professional environments with differing temperaments etc might find different aspects of different systems useful at different times.
Personally, I find not prioritising actions a bad idea when drastically overworked. Plus, the system seems to intrinsically prioritise short (less than two-minute) jobs over long ones. Combined with under-resourcing, you'll never start the more involved tasks. Combine this with the Peopleware idea that a 30-second interruption destroys concentration for up to 20 minutes, and the unmodified system, on the face of it, looks ill-suited to thought-intensive, non-managerial roles, where constant interruption is counterproductive. Meeprophone 11:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another more general critical perspective could be that this system need only be applied by people who find disorder frustrating and burdensome, while people less concerned with order can be creative and productive without it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.194.92 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 October 2005

Please sign comments. I find this last claim to be silly: I have found GTD useful, have no objection to harmless disorder, but hate deciding to do something and then later forget to do it. --- Charles Stewart 16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you fall on the side of those who find disorder frustrating and burdensome! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.154.25 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another criticism is that some find GTD more complicated, and no more effective, than Do It Tomorrow, a method described in a book of the same name by a British specialist in time management, Mark Forster. David Colver 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Template:advert which was added anonymously. In view of the discussion above, template:fixpov might be ok, in the absence of significant referenced critique, but the article as it stands doesn't appear meet the criteria for wp:not#soapbox. Mjwild 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is neglecting any mention of an inbox, which is a major component in the GTD system. It should definately be added in. If no one else adds it in, I will when I find the time, which will probably be a couple of weeks hence. --ErikStewart 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Time management is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want to see this article improved to featured status.--Fenice 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Funny that he calls it David Allen & Co., given the existence of the famous and weird singer David Allen Coe. 24.13.86.24 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you want external links?

*GTD Evaluation of third-party software for the Blackberry

This is not a commercial page, there are even no adsense placed. It contains an objective view to all GTD programs which are available on the BlackBerry. Because this is not SPAM, I do not understand why you deleted the link?

Compared to lifehack and stuff there is no difference. So I guess small blogs targetting to quality articles instead of 1000-mass-junk-ones every day are not welcome here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.169.154.163 (talk • contribs) .

Really, blog articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia no matter what the size or level of quality. If there are current links to other blog articles, they should go too. Wikipedia is not a tool to drive traffic to any site, no matter what quality it is. It is also not an internet directory listing "all the great articles" about any topic. If there is useful information in the article, why not incorporate it into the Wikipedia article? -- Renesis13 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Because this might violate someone's rights. The fact is, that all wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL which is not allowed on many resources. Even most of the wikipedia articles and content are just plagiates created by their "contributors" who do not know what they are doing. That's why I did not want to integrate the content. Clear? By the way: lifehack and 43folders are both just commercial stuff - the one a blog (you told me, these kind is not wanted here...) and 43f, ok, a wiki but just a wrapper for www.43folder.com - so your arguments sound some kind of ridiculous, don't you think so?
No, I don't think so at all. I didn't even look at the external links. Now I see that they are to the main landing page for those two sites. That's fine with me. What we don't need is links to "helpful articles" on blogs (of any kind) unless it is used as a reference for a fact quoted in the wikipedia article. The problem is Wikipedia is not an internet directory. There is a lot of useful information on the internet - but it is not Wikipedia's job to list all of it or even any of it. If a notable, long-standing site is a good resource for information on the topic, then it might be appropriate for the "External links" section. Otherwise, it is just turning Wikipedia into an internet directory.
And by the way, I was not suggesting copying the information to Wikipedia. Of course that would be a copyright violation. But do to the No original research policy on Wikipedia, no information included in WP articles should be "direct from the source". Information in articles should come from third-party, verifiable sources. Such as that blog article. So, I was suggesting gleaning the useful information from the blog article and writing it in your own words into this article. That would of course be fine, as it is the way Wikipedia is built. -- Renesis13 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I'm a big Getting Things Done [fan?] . But a valid criticism is that it doesn't tell you much about prioritizing.

Henry Thoreau

Cute. Got a real source somewhere? --Cyberscribe 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementing GTD

What, if anything, do you use for GTD? I'm running on a Mac (10.4), and I use Pierre Chatel's Sidenote as a general ToDo/list app. I'm still looking for something decent to use (freeware/open source-I'm really quite cheap), and would welcome any tips. Flintwill 0015, 28 October 2006 (Greenwich Meridian Time)

GTD Tiddlywiki is a great system with few dependencies (DB, Website, Software) that I've had success with. I am absolutely not affiliated with the site or the software. It is free and open.

Okay, this is a discussion about the WP article, so let's keep this offtopic post short: have a look around 42folders.org, lifehack.org and zenhabits.net (my favourite) for ideas and implementations. There's also lots of software around that fits different preferences and principles. I'd use MyLifeOrganized if I wasn't so accustomed to my fully integrated Outlook2007/PocketPC/PocketInformant2007 setup which is just missing good GTD "project" & Next Actions management. No affilations here either. Greetz, 80.132.201.58 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software tools for GTD: Source deleted

The Software tools for GTD section now makes undocumented claims after an anonymous editor deleted the following source citation:

(See Comparison of GTD Software)

I invite neutral and independent editors to either restore the citation (edit # 202433077), or provide a superior source compliant with Wikipedia policy, or delete the entire section as unsupported and effectively plagiarized content due to lack of sourcing.

Here's why I feel the content should be kept and the link restored:

1) The content is valuable. A independently-verified count and scope is an objective measure of influence, controversy, or interest. (Example: See Cold Fusion article.)

2) The content is essential to the entire section. The first half of Software tools for GTD relies on the now-unsourced portion to make sense in its context. If we delete just the last half, we need to delete or move the first half. If we move the first half, the Tools and techniques section is reduced to a single tool, the tickler file.

3) Sourcing is required:

  • "... you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (WP:No original research)
  • "... readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (WP:Verifiability)
  • "The purpose of citing your sources is: To improve the credibility of Wikipedia; ... To help users find additional information on the topic.... (WP:Citing sources)

4) Re: the anonymous editor's concerns:

  • Commercial sites are not automatically unreliable. "There is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy." (m:When should I link externally?)
  • Fear is not fact. A source should not be removed because it could become biased, but only if it actually is biased. Is a specific bias seen in the cited research?
  • The source is independently respected. See, for example, citation by GTD Times, the David Allen Company official blog.
  • "own ... methodology" is misleading. The page owner's "methodology" is a GTD extension, not a GTD replacement. (See Why Does Priacta Maintain This List?)
  • Page owner's software is specifically not promoted on the cited page. All software is listed there on an equal footing.

5) This external inline link best serves Wikipedia's purposes because:

  • The inline link satisfies the Principle of least astonishment. Many visitors still come looking for a Wikipedia Comparison of GTD software article deleted by WP editors 4 Dec 2007 as "original research." That content was the original basis for the cited source. (See details and debate here.)
  • We've seen a surge in spam in this article since the inline link was deleted, even after someone re-added the source under External Links. This may indicate that inline deletion created a content vacuum with an inadequate outlet.
  • "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites .. should not be placed in an external links section." ( WP:External Links, References and citation, emphasis mine.)
  • "Wikipedia articles may include [external] links to ... further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail ... or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability. " (WP:External links)

I will not restore the link myself as I am affiliated with the current page owner. "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines." ( WP:EL, Advertising and conflicts of interest, emphasis mine.) For the reasons in #5 above, I originally posted the article content and link there when the "Comparison of GTD software" article was deleted. That may not have been ideal given the guideline just quoted, of which I was unaware at the time. I now step out and leave this to the group to decide.

Kcren (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software related to GTD

If it's possible, would there be any software or online web 2.0 applications that might work with this? 207.81.184.128 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the past several months, many links have been added to this page for software products related to GTD, but since such links are usually inappropriate without some sort of relation to the content of the article, they have typically been removed. You might be able to find some in the history of this page, and if you are interested in the subject, you are certainly welcome to add a section regarding GTD software as long as it is encyclopedic (Wikipedia discourages directories or collections of indiscriminate external links). It seems like there is some interest in this, so maybe a written section would help. -- Renesis (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current software link looks a bit like SEO opportunism - the target page is riddled with links to services, and the company provides related software. I preferred the http://gtd.jeffsandquist.com/GTDTools.ashx page, which was a wiki without any obvious bias, not a "mail us and we'll put you on the list" type of page. Full disclosure: I sell GTD software as well. Richard.watson (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Richard.watson

There used to be a Comparison of GTD software which now redirects to this article. It was where I used to point people who were adding software links to this article. Does anyone know what happened to it? ChemGardener (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of the external page pointed to mentions that "the editors" took it down because it wasn't encyclopaedic enough. I don't really know enough about how WP works, but maybe there's something in the page history somewhere to say who took it off. Richard.watson (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After discussion, Comparison of GTD software was deleted by admins 4 Dec 2007 as non-suitable for WP. Reasons included "non-encyclopedic," "list of software," "should be somewhere but not here," "original research," really just a list of external links, out-of-date content. On the day the admins deleted it I added the Software tools for GTD section—truly encyclopedic content to fill the void left by the deleted article—and linked it to the original content which my company opted to host, research, and maintain externally, as suggested in the discussion. Since WP uses "rel=nofollow" in hyperlinks, no SEO benefits result from the link. (See Google's Official Blog.) Per the "principle of least astonishment" it is best to redirect and link to content that most closely resembles the original comparison page. The jeffsandquist.com list may be useful but: a) As a source, does it really constitute research? b) Does it best support the article content? For example, some titles in the jeffsandquist list do not directly support GTD (e.g., MonkeeBiz and Macro are useful but not GTD software per se). c) It lacks a lot of information the original article included (OS, sync comparisons, free vs. cost, etc.). Kcren (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For "SEO", read "traffic", which will generate SEO and sales benefits - which you are no doubt aware of because your page is pretty good advert. If general contributors and other software authors don't mind then it's no problem, but it still absolutely looks like a traffic trap to me, and I personally wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. Richard.watson (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Kevin and I have had an offline chat and I'm happier about their intent. Without a full canvassing of the GTD community it would be hard to know what the ideal solution would be, so as long as there is a commitment to making the page worthy of the link from Wikipedia, I'm okay with it. Richard.watson (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I retract my last statement. I would prefer that the Wikipedia link points somewhere else. The current target website contains text drawing attention to their own methodology as a superior alternative to GTD, and sells their own coaching services. To me this seems directly opposed to the spirit of participating in the GTD community, and in no way "win-win". I likely won't remove the link myself, but I fully support anyone else doing so. Kevin - this is the proper forum to discuss this issue, not in an offline discussion. Richard.watson (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I hear and definitely want to help resolve your concerns. However, you may misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. Keep in mind that this GTD article isn't supposed to support just the GTD community, nor is its purpose to present a single perspective of GTD or provide links to GTD software. It should be an encyclopedia article—neutral, accurate, and supported via citations to original (off-WP) research. Even alternative points of view are encouraged here to maintain a NPOV. (See comments in NPOV dispute and Advertisement?.)
Nevertheless, the Software Tools for GTD section and its supporting link do happen to benefit the GTD community (and others) because they are pertinent, actively-researched, accurate, and complete. The externally-referenced article is without slant (hopefully!) because the hosting company (my company) needs to recommend GTD-related software covering the gamut. The coaching services you mention are the very reason that research takes place. (See Why Does Priacta Maintain This Page?) Furthermore, just because a cited article resides on a commercial site doesn't inherently make the citation inappropriate. (Citations to David Allen's site are one example.) The page cited in this article does not advertise Priacta's own software, specifically to maintain neutrality for the GTD software article, and no affiliate links are used. Wikipedia article citations to wikis or blogs would likely be inappropriate because they are rarely true, accurate research.
I think what's done here should be consistent with Wikipedia's charter. Discussion beyond that scope should probably be in another forum like email or the public discussion board on the external site in question. Richard, let's do talk there (or via email) to resolve your related concerns offline. If anyone feels that the Software Tools for GTD section and citation are inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, please do speak up here so appropriate corrections can be made. Am I wrong, anyone? Kcren (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really prefer that you stop promoting your website (and your new discussion forum). If you want an external discussion forum, have it on an independent site or on the DavidCo site (here's a new thread: http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8028) who are at least truly central to the debate. I'm trying to get this page to reflect as inclusive a truth as possible, so I fully encourage edits from users with a wide range of views.
Your research page was essentially a copy of the page that the admins identified as not encyclopaedic, with minor modifications and a request for additional input, and MANY links to your own (better) methodology, software and coaching services. Is that research? What are you measuring against? How closely a product is aligned with the principles of GTD? How many GTD-specific features a product has? No, rather the default view shows which product was updated last, with your own currently at the top. I'm very sure that any coaching (or software) company in the world would happily invest the effort to maintain that page, and have links to their own services all over it, and explaining the benefits of their own methodology as effectively as this page does: TRO-GTD comparison
So I propose that we move the link to a site 1) that nobody could claim is biased, and 2) with content that reflects actual research on GTD software based on something a bit more fundamental - hopefully agreed upon with someone vaguely authoritative. I'd like a disclaimer that the GTD-ness of all applications is only a claim by the authors, and that the DavidCo company endorses only these products: DavidCo store. I also propose that we move the link to any other less biased page in the meantime.
If you want to point at your own methodology, have a Wikipedia page about it and point from there. People who are searching for TRO can find TRO, and people searching for GTD can find GTD. Richard.watson (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Richard, again, you appear to misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose.
  • This discussion is about a citation that supports specific content in the article.
  • It would be inappropriate for me to create a page for my company's methodology as you suggest. That would be self-promotion, which is inappropriate here. The links above are only to facilitate discussion and not self-promotion.
  • "Research" = (in part) not posting or accepting blind links to purported GTD solutions; validating claims, maintaining release dates as explained on the cited page. Evaluation of specific facets of GTD-ness is in progress.
  • A page with your disclaimer ("the GTD-ness of all applications is only a claim by the authors") would be weak research and a poor source—simply a collection of claims by software vendors.
  • Wikipedia editors have been begging for alternative perspectives in this article to get a more neutral point of view.
  • A NPOV does not mean only including so-called neutral assertions and sources. It allows for different or contrasting POV.
  • David Co. is not neutral, it is authoritative in defining "GTD" (trademark), but not the GTD system's limitations, enhancements, or alternatives. Outside entities with some real interest and expertise must do that.
  • This GTD article measures the influence of GTD by citing software "supporting GTD to one extent or another." DavidCo.'s measure of GTD-supporting titles would likely be too narrow or far too broad, as they have a vested interest in their perspective.
  • A DavidCo.-party-line takeover of this article would be inappropriate. Your external discussion thread almost seems to be a "call to arms" among that narrow segment of the GTD community, as evidenced by its venue.
  • Therefore, this citation seems in full compliance with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy and adds substantial value to the article. If anyone feels the cited web page is in any way inappropriate or inaccurate, it has links where changes can be requested publicly. Those changes are made quickly, in my experience. Kcren (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The original page of links was not created by the software authors - I assume that some of the links presented are by other interested parties, so it would not necessarily be a page of authors' links any more than this is a page written by David Allen.
At the very least, define "GTD software" and "supporting GTD to one extent or another". Is it anything that can be used for GTD software? Applications that have any GTD elements in them? If the former is true then Notepad is right up there. If the latter, then I'm pretty sure quite a few applications fall out. I would find it very impressive if any company would create a definition that would exclude their own software, so I would prefer a non-participant (or a more inclusive group) to perform that function.
My external link is to a forum that is central to GTD, which for the purposes of discussing what GTD software is, seems entirely reasonable. That forum has had threads with opposing viewpoints many times before. My explicit query on that thread was to get more independent thinking and my intent is to widen the group of people who are aware of this discussion. In it I declared my own possible bias, as I have from the beginning of this thread.
As to DavidCo's neutrality about GTD software, my experience is that they act in a very neutral way. They do not advertise their own software on their own forums, for example.
I'm happy to create a TRO page, then it would not be self-promotion and all the people searching for TRO would have a Wikipedia page.
Please tell me why you hosting that page is not like DavidCo hosting a Seven Habits of Highly Effective People resource page, and then linking to lots of content explaining why GTD is better? Richard.watson (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Richard, I think I see the problem here. You misunderstand TRO:
  • GTD and Seven Habits are fundamentally different, competing systems. Your hypothetical resource page would not really benefit both communities, so it would only serve to lure one to the other. Conflict. Not a good Wikipedia source.
  • On the other hand, TRO, Zen-to-Done (ZTD), and most other GTD-like systems fall well within DavidCo.'s broad description of GTD. They enhance, simplify, or clarify GTD. They are "alternatives" only to "out-of-the-box" "vanilla" GTD. They do not seek to supplant GTD. Resources for one are resources for the other. No conflict. (They just can't be called "GTD" because DavidCo. trademarked the term.)
Reality check:
  • ZTDers need GTD-like software, so Zen Habits (a commercial site) has a GTD resource list. It legitimately serves both communities. No conflict.
  • If Zen Habits started coaching or publishing would they need to remove their GTD resource list? No. It would still be an essential or valuable resource to both communities. No conflict.
  • Like the Zen Habits list, the Priacta list is a legitimate, essential resource to the TRO, GTD, and other GTD-variant communities. No conflict.
  • Unlike the Zen Habits GTD list, the Priacta page cited is current, researched openly, verifiable, and subject to public review there. A legitimate source.
  • BTW: Clear criteria for GTD-ness were already posted in the site's forum, but a link has been added to make this more clear. Is is open for discussion.
Richard, since this isn't a forum, I feel very uncomfortable responding here further. It improperly monopolizes this Talk page. If you still have concerns, let's link the discussion to a new Google Group and invite everyone to resolve the issues there. Kcren (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, you're welcome to stop replying if you think it's not the best place to discuss this. My point was - I'm not comfortable with what I feel as your fairly self-serving editing of this page, and I wanted to make sure my implicit support was taken back, and my original objection reinstated and expanded. So as long as you're happy to keep this text here, then I'm happy for others to read it and make their own minds up. Your defense of implying that I don't understand some pretty simple concepts is a good job of hiding the important point. It's obvious how much you care about keeping this link right where it is, and benefiting your company. Richard.watson (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

I have removed the following from the article: "Allen has also been linked to the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness. Whether or not MSIA should be labeled a cult is a matter of dispute but the connection has led to considerable online debate about the 'cult of GTD'."

First, this is about Allen, not the "cult of GTD". Secondly, the "considerable debate" is a forum, for crying out loud. Not allowable, and furthermore, even the 43folders guy thought these people were "warring" and asked them to leave - post #48. Now, some geeks arguing on a forum sinply isn't notable. Its like reporting gossip from the school lunchroom. If you want to keep the information about MSIA, rewrite it (the cite states he is a minister, NOT "linked to a cult"), add it to the article on him. It doesn't belong here. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Definition

David Allen & Co. has asked that any website that purports to "define" GTD (including educational sites) provide a link back to the "official" definition of GTD on the davidco.com website. The purpose of the messagebox at top is to comply with this request so as not to create confusion in the marketplace as to the official definition and meaning of GTD as it is intended by its creator, David Allen. Cyberscribe 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever David Allen & Co wish to do is mostly irrelevant. This message box is a form of special treatment that we do not extend to any other trademark holder of which I'm aware. Sdedeo (tips) 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As the trademark holder and inventor of the methodology, David has asked that any site purporting to "define" GTD link back to the official definition. Since it is stated in the body now that this is a registered trademark, the second part of this message box intent has been handled. Reinstating the link to the official definition. --Cyberscribe 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is not appropriate for wikipedia. We do not do "favours" like this. I will try for a compromise. Sdedeo (tips) 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Putting this in the "What GTD Is About?" section and ensuring the terms are listed as a registered trademark right away seem like reasonable compromises. I am surprised Wikipedia does not use the ® symbol for registered trademarks, however, as I thought this was the only universally acceptable form of legal designation. Then again, IANAL. --Cyberscribe 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IANAL is pretty key. Basically, nobody can force you to use a trademark symbol, and they're rare in the media, but companies like it lots when you do. (Take a look at issues of Columbia Journalism Review for plenty of ads begging journalists to use TM on their extra special product name that is rapidly becoming generic -- rollerblades, for example.) In the case of GTD, it's even more bizarre: "getting things done" is just an ordinary phrase, so Allen has plenty of work to do to convince people he has a special case use for it. If he had given it a wacky name ("The Unicorn Folder System"), he wouldn't have to work as hard to fight dilution. Sdedeo (tips) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement?

RandomHumanoid flagged this article as looking like an advertisement. Personally, I don't see it. It is a summary of GTD and some sources for GTD in popular culture. No hype, no emotional language. Pretty basic. I do think it would be great to have more sources cited and know the community has been looking to incorporate criticism - but there isn't a lot out there, except maybe in the occasional blog. So, can we get this removed, please? Or is there anything else we need to discuss? Cyberscribe 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "What GTD is about" section is fairly egregious in this regard. It is written as if it were ad copy, not an entry in an encyclopedia. --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe move the flag into just that section, then? --Cyberscribe 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved this (revert if you disagree) - but on re-reading it, it doesn't really seem sales-heavy to me. "Allen contends...", "the psychology is based on ...", "unlike other time-management systems" - seems to just put out the theories, bases and differentiations - doesn't really "champion" the approach as better or worse than anything else. Then again, I may be too close to the trees... --Cyberscribe 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My psychobabble/pseudoscience alarm was ringing off the charts with this section. Your move is fine, but I'll look through the article again. By the way, I have nothing against this system. I just have issues with the article. --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Really happy to see it become more empirical. --Cyberscribe 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced Criticism

What would make this article more balanced and objective? --Cyberscribe 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus To Remove Tag?

I've read the article through twice and there appears to be little that I would class as unbalanced about it. It doesn't, for example, slam other systems or their practitioners and seems to be a pretty well-rounded, well-written article that, granted, might need some fleshing out, but nothing major. Remove. Gentian Hush 22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GTD in popular culture

This section would really be better if integrated into the main article as citations. As it stands, the article doesn't have any in-line citations aside from the book itself. I think moving some of this into the main article would help strengthen the references, and clean up the layout a bit. -- Kesh 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

somebody wrote about their peni5 in the process part of the article, but i'm not sure what goes there or how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.55.212 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


NM, i figured it out. Who cares enough about GTD to consider it vandalism worthy? This isn't the fox news page for cripes sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.55.212 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated External Link

At the bottom of the External Link section the link "GTD for passwords Outsource password management to declutter your mind" appears unrelated or at least way off subject. It leads to the PassPak online service page. That story page is more like a marketing campaign landing page not to any additional information.

This implies that maybe the other links should be examined for relevance.

(Johnswolter (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] GTD Next Generation

These comments about criticism covering the range of application of GTD caused some thoughts. It strikes me in the very short time I've worked with GTD that it's useful. Based on comments here, as the range of applications has expanded the way it is applied needs to be adjusted. Those alterations show where GTD needs flexibility and or new perspectives. It may be time for the next generation GTD.

Also I came across a book "Keeping Found Things Found" by William Jones which is a conceptual look at PIM, Personal Information Management. It came out of an academic project at the University of Washington, http://kftf.ischool.washington.edu/index.htm . Being academic it needs interpreted application into daily life. It gives a good start on a technical definition of portions of GTD. It should also be an external link about PIMing.

The technical side may be most helpful for defining the operational characteristics needed to support GTD. Based on the discussion of software here I'd have to say none of them get it yet. There is a need to express the underlying ideas of GTD at a more Meta, by that I mean a higher, level. Given an understanding of the larger principles of GTD, applications will be easier to create.

Let the criticisms flow like a river, we need the information.

(Johnswolter (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)