Jump to content

Talk:Soft skills/Archives/2016

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


Explanation

  • Investopedia is a dictionary. Site identified by two members as spam, link removed.
  • Soft skills aren't a mere cluster of personality traits...so says references.
which references? What are they, then? Please state exactly. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Check the basic references.
This is incomplete "equation" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
And that is a pov, if its published, that's it.

Major rewrite required

An IP 61.1.216.237 wrote a text of dubious quality by liberally throwing in references some of which don't even use the term "soft skills", while others are "dictionaries" of unknown expertise, used to promote some businesses. Clearly the concept is somewhat fuzzy and different sources may define the term somewhat differently. These definitions must be clearly entered, like it was done with Collins Dictionary. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

dictionaries are dictionaries whether they are of unknown expertise or not. The term is not fuzzy, if you don't want it to be, but yes people are lenient to parts of it. When Marcel writes her soft skill equation using previous materials, she identifies people skills as different and subset of soft skills and further explores what are career attribute skills means and mentions social skills. Since soft skills differ from field to field, mostly due to different career attributes requirement - definition of soft skills can get cloudy in amateurish articles or explained around any important skills required. I cant find the exact text I used to paraphrase america promise link, I have deleted the article from my documents. Enumeration and categorization citations are all identifiable with easy google search. Overall the current format of the article is in a better state than that of before, at least it doesn't misguide anyone. I have seen published books and articles quoting directly from wikipedia on soft skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.161.92 (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunate, I haven't found the exact material to the cited link. This is a related sentence " 2006 america’s Promise alliance report, entitled Every Child, Every Promise: Turning Failure Into Action, asserts that soft skills are as important to the success of our youth as the more traditional academic indicators"[1] The document I used said "ECEP Report" and further goes on about importance of soft skills in education. If anyone can help, verify or find the crosslink mentioned, it would be a kind gesture.59.96.161.92 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.dol.gov/odep/documents/SoftSkillsMastery.pdf

"First documented usage"

I reverted this text because it is based on IP editor's usage of Google ngrams. This constitutes original research not allowed in wikipedia, see WP:NOR. Not to say that Google does not know everything yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Kindly look into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Move assistance for a start to reckon it as accepted practice. To know more about ngram check Google Ngram Viewer. Ngram is a tool that helps to identify this sort of matters from printed and published materials so it doesn't come within WP:NOR policy and your actions doesn't satisfy other disruptions in deleting external links that is close to the subject.103.196.228.131 (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you are not very familiar with WP:NOR. ngram usage in order to make conclusions and put them into wikipedia is disallowed original research. In particular it is false to conclude "first documented use" from ngram. Google did not google all documents on Earth yet. In "Move assistance" you mentioned ngram was not used in article text, but in discussion. You can cite even your grandmother in discussions. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Google NGrams are not reliable - we don't know how many books they have indexed. To conclude from this is original research. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I think its good to take things on a faith that google have a good data collection system in place plus to get a statistical understanding it doesn't require to "google all documents". I have to confess I don't know much about ANI pages, but i took it in a good faith that those discussions are meant for well and sure some could be seen as such. But I am removing it for now to keep it for discussions.117.215.199.27 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The first problem is we don't know how Google NGram works - its corpus and the books it has indexed. Secondly, we rely on secondary sources to do this research. Once it is published, we can use it as a source. Otherwise it is essentially original research which is not permitted according to policy. See WP:NOR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the secondary source requirement, it appeals to commonsense. So I have searched and found the year to be 1972 from google books but I still would prefer Ngram results which shows the significant rise of usage from 1980s (there are tools in wikipedia that we believe to be true, right and flawless even if we don't know the working and in cases like mine to analyze the code, test and verify).117.215.196.56 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It appears you don't realize what kind of garbage source you have found for "year to be 1972". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
And I've just added some text into wikipedia which shows that your ngram search was sorely mistaken. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Funny

It is funny how an army person's straight-on admission of failure:

"in other words, those job functions about which we know a good deal are hard skills and those about which we know very little are soft skills.

converted into a smartass dicdef:

"desirable qualities for certain forms of employment that do not depend on acquired knowledge"

As early as in 1936 Dale Carnegie proved that the latter is total bullshit: how to manipulate people is a knowledge which may be acquired, just like any other. Unfortunately to put this into wikipedia would be original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you direct "in other words, those job functions about which we know a good deal are hard skills and those about which we know very little are soft skills" this mentioning in John P. Fry and Paul G. Whitmore; What are soft skills?, 1974, 39pp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.53.149 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soft_skills/Archives/2016&oldid=927509267"