408:
387:
321:
580:, a GTD system that lacks a dedicated Knowledge article may nonetheless be sufficiently notable and appropriate for inclusion in this article. If that is the case, as established by the references provided, then reverting the inclusion of said system would constitute inappropriate and overzealous censorship, and - some might say - inadvertent vandalism, despite its having been enacted in good faith.
311:
293:
203:
418:
262:
233:
1022:
secondary sources or it could seem to be an advertisement or promotional. It seems I read somewhere that "Knowledge" may not be supportive (I will have to look) of a "Criticism" section, and I saw where an editor removed an NPOV tag reportedly because there was no criticism. Think about it? If a subject, or system, receives any media attention it would
598:? I agree that a blue link isn't the only way of establishing B-folders by JointLogic as worthy. A reference relating it to GTD in an independent source would do it. Your comment about my contributions as "inadvertent vandalism, despite its having been enacted in good faith" is self-contradictory, see
548:
If the software is notable I recommend you write the article first to establish that notability, then add it to the list after acceptance. The reason for the high bar is that this article is a honey pot for no end of GTD wannabes trying to promote their stuff. BTW, Evernote is specifically listed as
1197:
Does the article have issues? Sure it does. The world does not need to be presented with a
Knowledge view that the "system" (from the book) is the best thing since toilet paper, just present facts fairly and with balance. That should not be an insurmountable and unobtainable goal, possibly with the
1017:
I saw that several editors, and those leaving comments, used the system or were fans. There is apparently a "GTD community". I was using a form of this system over 40 years ago. I made it through high school by taking notes and prioritizing. I hardly ever took books home and maintained a B average.
668:
The more I think about it, the more I think the article needs a major re-write but it's not clear to me how to approach it. On the issue of secondary sources, I seem to recall there are a great many articles of the kind "Five Great Tools to Use in GTD" but I don't remember if they are just bloggers
1124:
In just a few clicks I found criticism with things like "WHY I DON’T USE GETTING THINGS DONE" and I am not attempting to suggest some "trashing of the book, the system, or the person but if the article is about a book it inherently should have a "review" section and will just as inherently include
894:
Thanks for the reply. I have not looked at the article in depth and it seems you may be referring to the "advertisement" tag on the main page. My comments are concerning a template on the editing page. I performed a cursory glance at the article because of the tag, deciding to clicked on the edit
1021:
I do have some concerns. The article is supposedly about a management system "based on a book by the same name". A small amount of constructive consideration will lead to a conclusion that there may be no difference if not clearly shown. This means that the entire article should rely heavily on
563:
While I understand and don't disagree with SageGreenRider's concern (i.e., "this article is a honey pot for no end of GTD wannabes trying to promote their stuff"), I must point out that having a dedicated
Knowledge article is not a prerequisite for establishing that a GTD system is sufficiently
1026:
for there to be no criticism no matter how good it was. I don't think I am a fan of "not" having a criticism section but would have to explore it more. I do know that when there is "nothing but praise of good" on a subject it can be bad editing or a
564:
notable to include in this article, as SageGreenRider suggests and wants to require (i.e., "If the software is notable I recommend you write the article first to establish that notability, then add it to the list after acceptance"). Rather, as per
750:
namely OmniFocus and
Evernote (4th and 5th in the list manager list) and eProductivity for Lotus Notes and NetCentrics GTD Outlook Add-In and (#1 and #2 on the List Manager Add-ons list). Please discuss here what you think about this addition.
653:
What's encyclopedic about that though? If there are secondary sources that mention there are a great number of tools, or something similar, we should follow those sources. (I haven't looked at the article and sources in detail yet).
837:
I went back to the page history and the section looked ify (are those sites really tailored for GTD?). It would be nice if there was a section with software/apps, though. I came here via a link claiming the info was on this page.
766:
SageGreenRider, it makes sense to add an asterisk to software tools that are both notable and mentioned on the GTD webpage; however, I think there ought to be an additional denotation for software tools designated on the
153:
925:
Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing
Knowledge unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from
720:
OK Boldly, I did complete rewrite. I still need to add some page numbers for each part of the "Themes" section but basically the source is the book itself. Feel free to edit or even completely revert if not worthy.
993:
I went to "See" the page but the first step it gave was to discuss the issue on this page which I have started. As I stated, I do not have an issue with the page notice but the wording of the subject title. --
1168:
in fact being a force of nature, hence a resource which is capable of overcoming obstacles to understanding some problem). The 1st edition's text shows me in what context obstacles might be understood (his
622:
Glancing at the list, it's not clear that each entry is even verified at this point. It might be better removing the section completely if there are no independent, reliable sources demonstrating that it's
602:. Removing spam is not the same as censorship. As for your editing I'd says that masking an irrelevant blue link ("Password manager") with the name of commercial software ("B-folders by JointLogic") with ]
918:
community supported reasons NOT to be on the page. It redirected my attention because I took exception to the tag being there and decided I did not need to edit the article. See the opening paragraph at:
515:
Why the restriction to internal wiki links? I added a link to an implementation that does not have a
Knowledge article, but is reasonably well know and respected. Perhaps more importantly, it is designed
642:
I agree. Maybe the simplest thing is to delete the list and to write "There is a list of tools on David Allen's "tools" page. There are many other claimants, too many to mention here." Thoughts?
859:) at the top of the editing page? There are a host of reasons why this possibly has well intentions, but there are more as to why it shouldn't be used, and this needs attention.
1241:
464:
1113:
and "fans" have to be aware that even a notable subject can be subjected to AFD (or a repeated listing) if the article cannot be written to conform to policies and guidelines.
243:
147:
695:
An additional complication is that I just noticed there is a second edition, claimed to be a complete re-write. So we should cover the 2001 and 2015 editions somehow.
1198:
exceptions of someone that is a paid editor or such a big fan that any controversy is not acceptable. It is my opinion that a designation for that type of editing is
952:). The warning (banner of harassment) seems to exhibit possessiveness rather than an attempt to create a better article (thus encyclopedia), by possible restricting
1236:
1125:
negative aspects. Forbes has referred to the book as the "Entrepreneur's Bible". If a majority of reviews are positive then we (Knowledge editors) strive for
771:
as "GTD Enabled." This is a designation given by the David Allen
Company to software solutions that Mr. Allen was personally involved in testing and approving
1071:"By developing and using the trusted system that deals with day-to-day inputs, an individual can free up mental space to begin moving up to the next level."''
1139:
This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
44:
928:
If a page needs protecting there are many tools provided to facilitate this without some warning that looks (even if not the intent) to show some form of
79:
627:
in some manner. Minimally, the inclusion criteria needs to clearer, every entry verified, and we need to be sure that the list remains maintainable. --
474:
877:, Some editor in 2017 thought the article was written like an advertisement. if you and I think it does not, and others agree. it can be removed.
1246:
1028:
85:
946:
You do ... Yes, anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training.
1231:
1118:
949:
440:
341:
938:
Knowledge has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.—Larry Sanger
190:
194:
1180:
1173:' is one such technique). Yet my take could be understood as OR, so I forbear from inserting just how GTD has been helpful to me. --
168:
680:
I looked around the listings of featured articles and good articles to try to find a model for this one. The closest I found was
345:
746:
I added an asterisk for software that is both notable (i.e. having an article on
Knowledge) and mentioned on in the gtd webpage
135:
1114:
536:
99:
30:
1226:
929:
431:
392:
104:
20:
74:
273:
569:
335:
298:
65:
129:
202:
185:
780:
239:
213:
125:
1110:
953:
794:
756:
554:
599:
109:
439:
articles on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
175:
595:
532:
1177:
811:
I've removed it, given editors are ignoring the edit warning and apparently unconcerned with grammar. --
681:
279:
1117:
has become a strong policy and at a point, at the very least, an article may have to be considered for
1073:, that is tagged as needing a source. There are clearly "words to watch" (using the trusted system) **
1126:
1032:
974:
920:
776:
577:
573:
565:
524:
349:
528:
261:
232:
982:
907:
882:
790:
752:
722:
696:
685:
670:
643:
607:
550:
161:
55:
24:
1091:. There have been 1,668 revisions involving 907 editors since 2005 and yet it is in the article.
407:
386:
1154:
218:
141:
70:
506:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Getting_Things_Done&diff=189326401&oldid=189326379
1199:
1130:
1121:(TNT tipping point argument) to stub-class as a starting point to create something acceptable.
1074:
1044:
941:
933:
594:
Hmmm... several points here... If you believe B-folders by JointLogic is notable then why not
51:
1207:
1174:
1146:
1096:
1052:
999:
961:
864:
684:
which has a simple Lede/Themes/Reception/end matter structure. Maybe that is a good model?
215:
789:
Sounds good to me. Maybe one asterisk for a mention and two for "GTD Enabled" designation?
1170:
585:
423:
353:
897:
IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING
1088:
1040:
1036:
978:
911:
900:
891:
878:
816:
711:
659:
632:
768:
747:
1220:
839:
827:
624:
520:
for GTD, while many others on the list are note (Remember the Milk, Evernote, etc).
320:
1084:
326:
1162:
is GTD's biggest message; and to me the text shows me how to deal with obstacles (
1152:
I personally could use some help understanding just how the text is advertising.
1203:
1142:
1092:
1048:
995:
970:
957:
874:
860:
217:
1211:
1183:
1003:
986:
965:
886:
868:
842:
832:
820:
798:
784:
772:
760:
727:
715:
706:
Following the examples of related GA articles is always good in my opinion. --
701:
690:
675:
663:
648:
636:
612:
589:
581:
558:
540:
499:
413:
316:
1035:. The absence of criticism is one thing. An article can still show to need a
812:
707:
655:
628:
1135:
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.
417:
310:
292:
899:
that seems it can be interpreted to be a warning of intimidation (See :
436:
1080:
340:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
1158:
895:
button to remove puff wording, but was confronted with a "warning"
1164:
511:
Restrictions on types of links in
Software Implementations section
502:
But the automatic bot did not allowed it. Should it be added ?
956:. That is my concern regardless of the intent of the warning.
255:
227:
219:
15:
1137:
If there is only a small amount of negativity we include it:
574:
Knowledge:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence
1109:
Involved editors (a good thing) have to be careful because
603:
566:
Knowledge:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
505:
160:
570:
Knowledge:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria
773:(source: excerpt from an interview with David Allen)
435:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1039:tag (a non-negotiable policy) because of seemingly
748:
http://gettingthingsdone.com/common-tools-software/
578:Knowledge:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
352:. To improve this article, please refer to the
174:
8:
1242:Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
906:I am sure it was directed to slow or stop
855:What is the purpose of the "page notice" (
500:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7vUdKTlhk
381:
348:. To use this banner, please refer to the
287:
1111:Knowledge is not an advertising platform
932:. There needs to be a balance with the
346:discuss matters related to book articles
1079:** in the sentence, and identified as
914:, but my concern is that it is against
606:is less than helpful to say the least.
383:
354:relevant guideline for the type of work
289:
259:
1138:
1134:
945:
937:
924:
1237:B-Class WikiProject Business articles
7:
742:Asterisk for software on GTD webpage
429:This article is within the scope of
332:This article is within the scope of
1159:Wu wei (Chinese: 無為; pinyin: wúwéi)
950:Knowledge:Contributing to Knowledge
549:"GTD enabled" by David Allen. hth.
278:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1018:Imagine if I had studied as well?.
14:
416:
406:
385:
319:
309:
291:
260:
242:on 21 April 2017. The result of
231:
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
469:This article has been rated as
238:This article was nominated for
833:01:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
821:22:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
449:Knowledge:WikiProject Business
1:
1247:WikiProject Business articles
728:16:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
716:17:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
702:03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
691:03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
676:03:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
664:19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
649:18:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
637:17:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
613:00:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
590:23:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
455:WikiProject Business articles
452:Template:WikiProject Business
443:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
942:encyclopedia anyone can edit
843:20:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
799:14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
785:19:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
761:00:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
498:I've tried to add this link
973:, Ah. The edit notice. See
669:or more reliable sources.
559:20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
541:17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
362:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1263:
1232:WikiProject Books articles
475:project's importance scale
365:Template:WikiProject Books
1184:13:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
826:For the best, I think. —
468:
401:
304:
286:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1212:16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1115:WP:What Knowledge is not
1004:12:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
987:16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
966:16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
887:06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
869:13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
807:Software section removed
494:Link to author's lecture
493:
268:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1227:B-Class Book articles
682:Requiem for a Species
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1024:almost be impossible
975:Knowledge:Editnotice
921:Knowledge:Harassment
432:WikiProject Business
105:No original research
1069:section it states,
1029:notability red flag
25:Getting Things Done
274:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1087:so generally not
544:
527:comment added by
489:
488:
485:
484:
481:
480:
380:
379:
376:
375:
336:WikiProject Books
254:
253:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1254:
1171:50,000-foot view
1012:Article concerns
600:WP:NOT VANDALISM
543:
521:
457:
456:
453:
450:
447:
426:
421:
420:
410:
403:
402:
397:
389:
382:
370:
369:
366:
363:
360:
342:join the project
329:
324:
323:
313:
306:
305:
295:
288:
271:
265:
264:
256:
235:
228:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1217:
1216:
1194:
1155:Mind like water
1106:
1062:
1014:
923:that includes:
853:
809:
777:Nathan.Paul.ICA
744:
596:WP:WRITEITFIRST
522:
513:
496:
454:
451:
448:
445:
444:
424:Business portal
422:
415:
395:
367:
364:
361:
358:
357:
325:
318:
272:on Knowledge's
269:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1260:
1258:
1250:
1249:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1229:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1122:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1083:because it is
1076:Red flag alert
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1045:words to watch
1019:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
991:
990:
989:
904:
852:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
808:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
791:SageGreenRider
753:SageGreenRider
743:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
724:SageGreenRider
698:SageGreenRider
693:
687:SageGreenRider
678:
672:SageGreenRider
645:SageGreenRider
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
609:SageGreenRider
551:SageGreenRider
512:
509:
495:
492:
487:
486:
483:
482:
479:
478:
471:Low-importance
467:
461:
460:
458:
441:the discussion
428:
427:
411:
399:
398:
396:Low‑importance
390:
378:
377:
374:
373:
371:
331:
330:
314:
302:
301:
296:
284:
283:
277:
266:
252:
251:
244:the discussion
236:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1259:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1235:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:writing when
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:collaboration
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
922:
917:
913:
909:
905:
902:
898:
893:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
876:
873:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
858:
850:
844:
841:
836:
835:
834:
831:
830:
825:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
806:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
765:
764:
763:
762:
758:
754:
749:
741:
729:
726:
725:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
700:
699:
694:
692:
689:
688:
683:
679:
677:
674:
673:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:
650:
647:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
614:
611:
610:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
519:
510:
508:
507:
503:
501:
491:
476:
472:
466:
463:
462:
459:
442:
438:
434:
433:
425:
419:
414:
412:
409:
405:
404:
400:
394:
391:
388:
384:
372:
368:Book articles
355:
351:
350:documentation
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
328:
322:
317:
315:
312:
308:
307:
303:
300:
297:
294:
290:
285:
281:
275:
267:
263:
258:
257:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1163:
1153:
1119:cutting back
1075:
1070:
1066:
1023:
979:—¿philoserf?
915:
896:
879:—¿philoserf?
856:
854:
828:
810:
745:
723:
697:
686:
671:
644:
625:encyclopedic
621:
608:
523:— Preceding
518:specifically
517:
514:
504:
497:
490:
470:
430:
334:
333:
327:Books portal
280:WikiProjects
247:
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1181:| contribs)
1175:Ancheta Wis
1067:Perspective
1047:are used.
1033:non-neutral
851:Page notice
769:GTD webpage
148:free images
31:not a forum
1221:Categories
1200:WP:NOTHERE
1127:neutrality
1089:acceptable
1085:subjective
1131:"balance"
1104:Criticism
1031:as it is
930:ownership
908:vandalism
892:Philoserf
529:Jakeparis
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1129:through
926:editing.
840:Danski14
537:contribs
525:unsigned
446:Business
437:business
393:Business
240:deletion
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1192:My take
1157:, i.e.
1081:puffery
1065:In the
1060:Example
1037:WP:NPOV
934:purpose
901:WP:BITE
857:Warning
473:on the
270:B-class
199:31 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1204:Otr500
1202:. --
1143:Otr500
1093:Otr500
1049:Otr500
996:Otr500
971:Otr500
958:Otr500
948:(See:
875:Otr500
861:Otr500
276:scale.
126:Google
1178:(talk
1165:water
1041:biaed
940:. As
582:Froid
359:Books
299:Books
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1208:talk
1147:talk
1141:--
1097:talk
1053:talk
1000:talk
983:talk
962:talk
916:many
912:spam
883:talk
865:talk
817:talk
813:Ronz
795:talk
781:talk
757:talk
712:talk
708:Ronz
660:talk
656:Ronz
633:talk
629:Ronz
604:here
586:talk
576:and
572:and
568:and
555:talk
533:talk
344:and
248:keep
246:was
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
910:or
829:fox
465:Low
176:TWL
1223::
1210:)
1149:)
1133::
1002:)
985:)
977:.
964:)
944::
936::
903:).
885:)
867:)
819:)
797:)
783:)
775:.
759:)
714:)
662:)
654:--
635:)
588:)
557:)
539:)
535:•
197::
156:)
54:;
1206:(
1169:'
1145:(
1099:)
1095:(
1055:)
1051:(
998:(
981:(
960:(
881:(
863:(
815:(
793:(
779:(
755:(
710:(
658:(
631:(
584:(
553:(
531:(
477:.
356:.
282::
250:.
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
