Talk:Crossing the Quality Chasm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comment[edit]

I noticed en.wikipedia.org didn't have a page for "Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century" while To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (2000), does have a page [1]. Edthebedhead (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing the article. --maclean 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

laundry list of authors[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If somebody wants a complete list of authors they can look at the ref. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument though, if they wanted to know the content of the report, they could just read it. Unfortunately, I can't control that this has twenty authors rather than three, but it does contribute to notability and understanding the source of the data in the report.Alaynestone (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion/consensus on this? I think including the committee membership is relevant to understanding the notability/background to the report. It was deleted for not following WP: Not a Directory, but I don't believe the list falls under any of the bullet points. To make an extreme example, it'd be like talking about the Federalist Papers without mentioning that they were written by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison under a pseudonym. This just happens to be a bigger group. Alaynestone (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing of encyclopedic value in a WP:LAUNDRYLIST. If committee members' backgrounds had some relevance to the report or its reception it makes sense to discuss that, or on the flipside, if someone's participation in the project had some significant impact on their career, that might make sense to. But the laundrylist has no encyclopedic value. I do appreciate your fleshing out this article btw. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no worries! I appreciate the review and am only pushing back on the edit because I think we're making a mistake. (For the record, no direct COI - I'm not on the list or working for anyone on the list or anything - and I've never actually read the full report, embarrassingly enough.) I am, however, in the industry and these names (edit: and organizations) are informative to the content. What if I moved them to a more prose-like format that spells that out for the non-industry folks? Honestly, I just got tired yesterday and figured someone else could do that, but I'd rather see the information in here than not. Alaynestone (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is policy. You have not said anything about why the list is encyclopedic. Please actually read WP:LAUNDRYLIST which is a useful essay. The same argument you are making could be made by a company wanting to list all its products in its Wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is encyclopedic for the same reason that listing the author to a book in an article is encyclopedic. This just happens to have numerous authors. I've offered a reasonable compromise scenario, but you'll have to give me time to implement it (which means I need the content in there for easy editing). Please try to be patient with what is an inherently iterative process among volunteer editors - as you'd see if you read my comment on the most recent revision, rather than immediately tagging me for an edit war to which you've contributed. Alaynestone (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, talking stuff out is entirely normal here. I am really not opposed to adding encyclopedic content about any of the members of the group. And please be clear - if you add content, and someone reverts it, and you just add it back, you are edit warring. Don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh... doesn't it technically depend on when you count the edit as starting, though? (And I'm asking this seriously because you're my first legit conflict and I've never been tagged for anything. It's going to come off as pedantic and I don't mean it to.) I thought it was: you made an edit, I reverted it with a talk page post to discuss, and you reverted it back while the conversation was ongoing. At best, we both should've slowed down a bit, although I did try to explain my rationale in the most recent update note.Alaynestone (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please do read WP:BRD...sometimes editors work toward they can agree on by each going in and editing, but the binary there/not there thing, is different. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossing the Quality Chasm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crossing_the_Quality_Chasm&oldid=1198925343"