From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Articles for improvement  
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as the article for improvement on 26 October 2020 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon

Organizing subsections[edit]

The paragraphs below were part of a section on organizational structure, but had been grafted into the section in a way that made it inconsistent with the topic sentence for the section. I'm putting them here till I figure out how to best reintegrate them into the article. Ms. Citizen (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Staff organization or cross-functional team[edit]

A staff helps an expert get all his work done. To this end, a "chief of staff" decides whether an assignment is routine or not. If it's routine, he assigns it to a staff member, who is a sort of junior expert. The chief of staff schedules the routine problems, and checks that they are completed.

If a problem is not routine, the chief of staff notices. He passes it to the expert, who solves the problem, and educates the staff – converting the problem into a routine problem.

In a "cross functional team", like an executive committee, the boss has to be a non-expert, because so many kinds of expertise are required.

Organization: Cyclical structure[edit]

A theory put forth by renowned scholar Stephen John has asserted that throughout the cyclical nature of one’s life organizational patterns are key to success. Through various social and political constraints within society one must realize that organizational skills are paramount to success. Stephen John suggests that emphasis needs to be put on areas such as individual/ group processes, functionality, and overall structures of institutions in order to maintain a proper organization. Furthermore, the individual's overall organizational skills are pre-determined by the processes undertaken.

"Chaordic" organizations[edit]

The chaordic model of organizing human endeavors emerged in the 1990s. The idea is based on a blending of chaos and order (hence "chaordic"), and originated in the work of Dee Hock and the creation of the VISA financial network. Blending democracy, complex systems, consensus decision making, co-operation and competition, the chaordic approach attempts to encourage organizations to evolve from the increasingly nonviable hierarchical, command-and-control models.

It can be compared to the similar principles of emergent organization and self-organization. See also group entity for an anarchist perspective on human organizations.

Your Feedback / Ratings[edit]

Hi - I am interested the (sociological) process through which collaborative work is generated, such as on Wikipedia articles. I noticed at the end of this article a section eliciting reader feedback / ratings. Can you please help me understand where that box came from, whether there are other articles using this template, and whether anyone is collecting rating data by article? Thank you! Buburuza (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buburuza, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment for an explanation of the project on quality assessment. Ms. Citizen (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack Welch/NPOV[edit]

This is not very NPOV. The revolting Jack Welch is no moral example. Mere mention of him should trigger a rather high-voltage discharge on GE's practices under his management.

Not NPOV[edit]

A brief scan of this article reveals it to be nowhere near NPOV -- a great example: "Don't bet on it in the long term. Success outgrows the ability of the genius. There just get to be too many special cases." 'Don't bet on it?' This needs to be changed, heavily. And what's with all the exclaimation marks?


The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization versus organisation[edit]

At 3 November, Jachin copied the article organization to organisation and made the former into a redirect, but forgot to also move the talk page. Please do not move an article without also moving its talk page! --Kernigh 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    • If in Britland they use both, and in America only one is correct, and if the "z" usage is etymologically correct, why does the page redirect to the less-used, less-proper spelling?Polyhymnia

Move back to Organization[edit]

The article started out as Organization. In November 2005, it was incorrectly moved (copy and paste!) to Organisation by Jachin. There was no good reason to move the article and the move was performed secretly. The article should be moved back to Organization. Since both articles have an edit history, the move has to be performed by an administrator. The two edit history should be merged if possible. SpNeo 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
Strongly oppose - Z is used only in dialects swerving from the only official norm of the English language which is the British English. The article should immediately be returned to Organisation Bogorm (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
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.

Organisation vs. Organization (a proposal)[edit]

I propose that the page be changed do a dual title "organisation - organization" or "organization - organisation"

Just because 3/4 of articles found in a search engine use "organization" is no justification to abandon the use of "organisation". It would be like saying we should pretend African Americans do not exist because 85% of Americans do not identify as such.

One can point out that the Commonwealth has 600 million people in it (1.7 billion if we include india) almost twice that of the United States. This is true even if we were to include Canada and some other members that use both spellings as part of the U.S.

The English language has one of the most diverse histories of any language in the world. Let's respect that, and the right to self-determination and international use of this language.

S! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrimpurstala (talkcontribs) 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

While I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, the best way forward is with the status quo. Organizations from the UK or elsewhere that use the "ise' version of the word in their title should retain that in their articles and title of the pages, but all other categories and pages should reflect the international (not american) standard. Please visit the WikiProject, where we are moving towards taking a lot of action in this field. Oldsoul 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

-ize is not an 'international standard', it is purely American English. There is nothing wrong with that, however if the article purports to represent anything other than American English, it is demonstrating classic NPOV. There are more countries in the world where -ise is used. The fact that they are less populous or internet penetrated than the USA should not discriminate against them being represented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging Organized[edit]

Qualified No. This particular article deals with human organizations. Organizing deals will just about anything that isn't entropic - both animate and inanimate. However, it might not be a bad idea to

  • rename organized to organization (titles should normally be nouns, yes?)
  • rename this topic to organization (business) or organization (social)
  • add see also/disambiguation links in the organizing-->organization topic

Egfrank 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say no on this. Just because they use the same root word doesn't mean the topics are directly related. Some guy 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote: NO, same reasons as above --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I love that...[edit]

...the article on organization "may be in need of reorganization". Inspired templating here!--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why that is, besides humour? Froginvestor (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Organizations in Psychology[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add a section comparable to the "In Sociology" sections that delves into organizations in psychological thought? Notwithstanding that there is already an article on Industrial and Organizational Psychology. We wouldn't want to rehash everything in the aforementioned article... Mdwilliams2 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling and punctuation errors, spam, or is it just me?[edit]

Among the introductory paragraph, the following sentence appears: "It is the collection of organs of scientific methods and artifacts of the al mamater The word is derived from the Greek word organon, itself derived from the better-known word ergon which means "organ" – a compartment for a particular task." Could someone explain this to me? I think there are some spelling errors and shouldn't there be a full stop somewhere? ~thelittlegumnut [talk] 08:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead revison[edit]

"An organization or organisation (see spelling differences) is an entity comprising multiple people, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment[citation needed]." What is an external environment? Not clear, need to fix. Gordon410 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations?[edit]

I just ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector on this article and the results are not good. Either somebody is copying this article or this article is copying somebody else. The former would be OK (subject to licensing issues) but the latter would be a big problem. If we are using other people's copyrighted material without explicit permission then that is very bad indeed and has to stop.

Specifically, the report says that there is a 67.4% confidence that we could be violating the copyright of

Now that may not look too bad at a first glance because it has a Creative Commons licence on it but it is one of the CC types that is not compatible with what we are doing here (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). It does not permit distribution of derivative works, which is exactly what we are doing if we copy parts of it and modify or incorporate them into our articles. Also it only permits non-commercial use and, while Wikipedia is not itself commercial, Wikipedia content is licensed to permit commercial reuse (CC BY-SA 3.0), subject to some rules on attribution and licensing of derivatives, so we can't incorporate content that does not allow us to do that.

Full results of the Copyvio Detector are here. (This link will recalculate a new score if the article is changed.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. I took a sample text string from the copyvio detector, " goals are subdivided and reflected" and found it on this revision from 2011. If the blog post is from 2012, it seems like they just plagiarized Wikipedia. Nothing to do from our end. AlexEng(TALK) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)