![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article still needs work. I am at the limit of my expertise now. I hope others can help make the following contributions:
I am sure others will have more ideas for improving this article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The economics section sources one guy multiple times from the 1960s, saying featherbedding is great for everyone and "efficient." A source from the 60s is barely admissible as it is--most of what we call Economics barely if at all existed then--but a source arguing that inefficiency is by definition efficiency needs some explanation. I actually came her during the course of a master's level econ class and was horrified to see such a pro-union section attributed to Economists. It would be rare to find an economist who would say that employing so many people that you start to uncontrollably bleed money outside of the company is "efficiency," and I want to say it would be rare to find a union who says that's their goal. I would quicker remove the econ section than imply it would be endorsed by an economist.-- Mrcolj ( talk) 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed it essentially brought down the auto industry and is one of the reasons our schools are failing it is a form of corruption and exploitation Irishfrisian ( talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What you propose ("a base article that is well written and NPOV first") goes against Wikipedia's rules. It violates WP:CITE and WP:ORIGINAL. - Tim1965 ( talk) 18:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
User Kjj31337 makes the claim that the Economics section is both NPOV and contains factual inaccuracies. 1) Since all claims are cited by neutral, reliable published articles, the claim of factuall inaccuracy itself constitutes original research. 2) Merely claiming the article is not neutral is not enough: What rationales are offered for that claim? Are the authors all pro-featherbedding? All anti-featherbedding? Pro-labor or anti-labor? Are the journals in which the articles appear biased in some way? 3) The Economics section is clearly neutral: It offers both supportive and critical discussions of featherbedding. 4) Despite User Kjj31337's claims about non-neutrality and lack of factual accuracy, User Kjj31337 has offered no new cited claims, corrections, or even unsourced claims to the section. If it is so clear that the section is biased, it should be quite easy to correct the bias. Why hasn't it been? There isn't even a claim that "I'm working on it"; after years, no edits have been made by User Kjj31337 or anyone else to correct these supposed glaring problems.
Absent any of the foregoing, it makes no sense to just make an assertion and tag the article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article still needs work. I am at the limit of my expertise now. I hope others can help make the following contributions:
I am sure others will have more ideas for improving this article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The economics section sources one guy multiple times from the 1960s, saying featherbedding is great for everyone and "efficient." A source from the 60s is barely admissible as it is--most of what we call Economics barely if at all existed then--but a source arguing that inefficiency is by definition efficiency needs some explanation. I actually came her during the course of a master's level econ class and was horrified to see such a pro-union section attributed to Economists. It would be rare to find an economist who would say that employing so many people that you start to uncontrollably bleed money outside of the company is "efficiency," and I want to say it would be rare to find a union who says that's their goal. I would quicker remove the econ section than imply it would be endorsed by an economist.-- Mrcolj ( talk) 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed it essentially brought down the auto industry and is one of the reasons our schools are failing it is a form of corruption and exploitation Irishfrisian ( talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What you propose ("a base article that is well written and NPOV first") goes against Wikipedia's rules. It violates WP:CITE and WP:ORIGINAL. - Tim1965 ( talk) 18:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
User Kjj31337 makes the claim that the Economics section is both NPOV and contains factual inaccuracies. 1) Since all claims are cited by neutral, reliable published articles, the claim of factuall inaccuracy itself constitutes original research. 2) Merely claiming the article is not neutral is not enough: What rationales are offered for that claim? Are the authors all pro-featherbedding? All anti-featherbedding? Pro-labor or anti-labor? Are the journals in which the articles appear biased in some way? 3) The Economics section is clearly neutral: It offers both supportive and critical discussions of featherbedding. 4) Despite User Kjj31337's claims about non-neutrality and lack of factual accuracy, User Kjj31337 has offered no new cited claims, corrections, or even unsourced claims to the section. If it is so clear that the section is biased, it should be quite easy to correct the bias. Why hasn't it been? There isn't even a claim that "I'm working on it"; after years, no edits have been made by User Kjj31337 or anyone else to correct these supposed glaring problems.
Absent any of the foregoing, it makes no sense to just make an assertion and tag the article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)