Talk:Dilbert principle/Archive 1

Untitled

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)

Support for actively using the Dilbert Principle, or support for its existence? Since I can't find either in any of the live references, I've removed this sentence. Please feel free to re-add it, if you can explain clearly what it means and provide a reference for that claim. Rogerborg (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Must be a manager? anon

Your resorting to personal insults is not appropriate on Wikipedia. mydogategodshat 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dilbert Principle.jpg

Image:Dilbert Principle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how all this works, but I remember from reading the book that the Dilbert principle is not at all what is told in here. But rather, it is a very very simple statement : "People are idiots.", I'd check in my book but it's at home and I'll surely forget to check later tonight. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.163.7 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged

I have merged this into the popular culture section of the peter principle. After stripping all the extra stuff this was no more than a paragraph when merged and certainly never deserved it's own article.

I had the merge tag up for days and no one objected so I went ahead and merged it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this merge for the following reasons:

• The merge failed to include the main elements of this article into the target article.
• I doubt anyone looking for information on The Dilbert principle would be satisfied by looking at the popular culture section of the Peter principle article in it's current state.
• The Dilbert principle is substantively different from the Peter principle and is notable in it's own right. It is the subject of a bestselling book.
• The merge tag was only up for 2 days 11 hrs so it was unlikely to attract much comment.

regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dilbert principle is nothing more than a cartoon retelling of the peter principle. It has no acertation of nobility. I've nominated it for deletion.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Scott Adams wrote an entire book on the subject, and the book has been required reading in some business schools. So it's not a good deletion candidate. — ¾-10 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Dilbert Principle isn't a retelling of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle describes a darwinian process that is essentially a dark pattern that was never consciously intended by any of the people involved, whereas the Dilbert Principle is that fools are purposely sequestered. — ¾-10 20:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The possibility of a merge to the Peter Principle was raised at the AfD discussion by the nominator (RaptorHunter), but it hasn't gained any support. I for one don't see much sense in it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. I recommend removing the merge discussion tag if no one else argues for merging the articles. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the tag. ascidian | talk-to-me 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)