Talk:Beyond Freedom and Dignity

Fair use rationale for Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg
Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have addressed these concerns by expanding the fair use rationale per the requirements of WP:NFCC. -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Really Stupid Lie
Removed:


 * The book caused an enormous controversy on publication and was the subject of a Congressional investigation in America.

I have the book and the dustjacket and the latter is devoid of text other than the title on the outside and there's no mention of its reception on the leaves. It's of course common-sense since 1) the hardcopy was published first and would be prior to any reaction; 2) The notion of a congressional investigation is ... well it boggles the mind that somebody just fabricated this and put it here. Perhaps the same person that created the archive when it was hardly needed. 71.186.177.184 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't know for a fact there was no Congressional Investigation, but I will be really surprised if there was. A tangential mention in a committee meeting about something else maybe at most. 71.186.177.184 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretive Foible?
Entry 1.3, Dignity ( an interpretation of the original definition of dignity (as per Skinner's text) is given:       "Dignity is the process by which people are given credit for their actions" This definition is followed by a citation from p.g.58 of the text:       ""We recognise a person's dignity or worth when we give him credit for what he has done" presumably present in order to support the previously given interpretation of the definition. However in the citation Skinner describes a process of recognising and individuals dignity, identifying dignity as a property present in an individual. Whereas the interpreted definition states that dignity is a PROCESS. Surely this interpretation is incorrect as their is a clear conflict between the given definition and the citation. It is of course possible that in the context of the text as a whole this definition could be said to be correct, but if that is the case then a more appropriate supporting citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -->

"Non-notable trivial" Criticism
Hi,

> 04:33, 5 February 2021‎ Sundayclose talk contribs‎ 9,981 bytes −1,691‎  Reverted 3 edits by 202.153.212.80 (talk): Non-notable trivia undo Tags: Undo Twinkle

This section that I added was reverted as "Non-notable trivia".

This significant professor who worked with Skinner spent the quite some time in a highly influential book that has its own WP page (that was recommended by a certain billionaires, a former American president among others) providing critique of Skinner's work generally and this book specifically.

There's verbatim quotes, page references. They worked together at Harvard at the same time (it's mentioned on his WP page that he influenced her).

What is malformed or "trivial" about this criticism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity&oldid=1004934654

Philosophy Professor Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism states that "in the mid-1970s graduate department at Harvard where I studied and Skinner professed, many students referred to the book as Towards Slavery and Humiliation"[21]. Zubroff goes on to criticize the work: "for Skinner, our attachment to notions such as freedom, will, autonomy, purpose, and agency are defense mechanisms that protect us from the uncomfortable facts of human ignorance", dedicating a chapter section to discussing the background to Skinner's work[22].

---

Out-of-hand reversion is suspicious and frankly a complete joke. I rarely engage with Wikipedia because of this kind of stuff. Every time no matter how solid a contribution its reverted. This was reverted inside 15 minutes. What a joke. Seriously screw you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.212.80 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

---

In this reversion 2x references underneath "Reactions" were removed -- those by: Shoshana Zuboff and Ayn Rand. The reversion doesn't appear to hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.212.80 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Update: It's been re-reverted by the same Wikipedian. Amazing. Exemplary.

The original Skinner work was controversial. Well respected scholars who are considered left and right, and past and very recently wrote a chapter and an essay respectively, yet the Wikipedian who has reverted mention of these considers it too **trivial** to note as reactions.

I've heard of reference to this Skinner work in at least 2 other books I've read recently, yet these aren't worth mentioning -- I'd agree that those references too trivial. But the discussion in the Zubroff book is both recent and significant. It is probably remiss that it is not represented here.

I would ask the reverter to look at the "Reception" section to the Zubroff book, which include a blog, for comparisons in terms of "triviality": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism#Reception

I would appreciate some further conversation from the Wikipedian to justify these reversions.

Also I would like to have at least 1 third party review this situation as I would like to call in to question the objectivity of the Wikipedian who insists on these reversions.

He posted on my personal talk page recommending that I read about "contributing constructively to this encyclopedia".

Further I'm keeping a copy of this discussion.
 * Read WP:WEIGHT. The opinion of a few grad students a few decades ago, especially in the amount of detail as you presented it, places excessive emphasis on the opinions of a few people in the context of the weight of professional opinions about the book. If this had been a group of well-respected scholars who are notable and published in their field of expertise, it might merit inclusion (although trimmed down). But that's not the case. Please get consensus to restore. Thank you. By the way, the level one template I placed on your talk page does not pertain to the content itself; it refers to your reverting without discussion. Read WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)