Talk:Getting Things Done/Archive 1

Massive loss to value of entry
I know nothing about the editing policies of Wikipedia but it is worth pointing out that this page has lost the majority of its value by the deletion of the Core Principles section on 12th July.

The last entry with the Core Principles section is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_Things_Done&oldid=301643397

Gabriel 145.8.104.65 (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly - Debbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.215.46 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
'''. . . I should come back to this later. . .''' ;)

I thought this article should have an NPOV tag, but then in line with the thinking here, I just added it here's why:

There is no real balance to the ideas Allen puts forward. The article reads as a synopsis of the book with no critique. "Objectivity" is fine when applied to a phenomenon but when applied to a set of ideas, such as Allen's book, simply reporting on what it says is not fitting in my view for an encyclopaedic entry.

For instance, the notion that filing's fundamental characteristic is that it should be "simple" in order to enable "rapid retrieval" has an impact on the fundamental notion of Allen's to "move tasks out of the mind". Electronic fining systems using full text indexing attempt to provide a solution to the problem of remembering, for example, the author's name of the article you read two years ago that has now become relevant to your work.

So unless the A-Z or Chronology is remembered for each piece of information stored in this "simple" filing system, it becomes extremely difficult to locate once the volume of stored information moves above a trivial limit.

This is an example of a "basic" issue with the theories. An example of a "higher level" issue would be the notion of "tasks" that appears to underlie the concepts. The system works fine for activities that require minimal creativity. Without wanting to spend too long detailing this, the definition of the problem defines the possible solution set. The "problem" in many, and arguably the majority, of instances does not exist in the symbols of language we use to articulate it. Therefore there is a translation between the reality which causes us some discomfort and which we would like to improve and our perception of this. As we articulate the components as we choose to select and define them we also constrain the opportunities available to us for "solution" of these issues. For instance: 1. My wife and I argue about X. 2. We have explored options for compromise but our positions are irreconcilable. 3. We can no longer speak about this issue without arguing. The implicit assumption is that the argument is about X. More often than not it is about A and Y and a bit of R too, combined with the fact that 27 and 359 have not even been considered, as well as the fact that it's bright pink. The point is that scientific methodology only works when it is applied with a full understanding of its limitations.

Allen's methodology is great, but it has limitations and boundaries and those are not dealt with in the article. I will note the structure and integrate it with other conceptual frameworks, so thanks. But filing is not only about storage and retrieval, it contains understanding in its structure. Similarly tasks are not merely executable instructions sometimes they comprise true exploration i.e. exploration that relies upon techniques other than Aristotelian ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LookingGlass (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For something like this a neutral point of view is to accurately describe his system. There is no real "controversy" about his system. If it's not your cup of tea, and Seven Habits or WorkSmart or something else is, you use that system instead. Nobody's picketing David Allen, nobody's writing irate op-eds in newspapers. The "theories" are not scientific theories subject to peer review or political or economic ideas. They are just suggestions that may or may not work for different people. It's like writing an entry for Japanese cuisine and then one for Mexican cuisine. Would you have a paragraph in the Mexican entry pointing out that Japanese feel that food should be less spicy and vice versa in the Japanese entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.216.99.100 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Wikipedia is neither a place for original research nor original philosophical discussions, disputes, or criticism. If there is something out there to cite that specifically refutes GTD, that would be a useful addition. -Cyberscribe 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing NPOV tag in absence of any notable sources of criticism. -Cyberscribe 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Ticker or Tickler file? (User:199.2.125.42 signature added)
 * Tickler. --- Charles Stewart 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have some possible criticism listed of the GTD system. I am trying to implement it at the moment and it looks like it should work but maybe there are other perspectives. Having some criticisms outlined tends to make one consider the article is more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.43.12 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 October 2005
 * Give us some criticisms then :D Keithlard 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Some possible criticisms could be: Critics have argued that not prioritising actions can mean dull or unenjoyable activities are put off rather too long.


 * Perhaps a specialist can comment on the groups of people or professional roles who might find this system suitable? Strikes me that people in different professional environments with differing temperaments etc might find different aspects of different systems useful at different times.
 * Personally, I find not prioritising actions a bad idea when drastically overworked. Plus, the system seems to intrinsically prioritise short (less than two-minute) jobs over long ones. Combined with under-resourcing, you'll never start the more involved tasks. Combine this with the Peopleware idea that a 30-second interruption destroys concentration for up to 20 minutes, and the unmodified system, on the face of it, looks ill-suited to thought-intensive, non-managerial roles, where constant interruption is counterproductive. Meeprophone 11:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another more general critical perspective could be that this system need only be applied by people who find disorder frustrating and burdensome, while people less concerned with order can be creative and productive without it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.194.92 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 October 2005
 * Please sign comments. I find this last claim to be silly: I have found GTD useful, have no objection to harmless disorder, but hate deciding to do something and then later forget to do it. --- Charles Stewart 16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly you fall on the side of those who find disorder frustrating and burdensome! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.154.25 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another criticism is that some find GTD more complicated, and no more effective, than Do It Tomorrow, a method described in a book of the same name by a British specialist in time management, Mark Forster. David Colver 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Template:advert which was added anonymously. In view of the discussion above, template:fixpov might be ok, in the absence of significant referenced critique, but the article as it stands doesn't appear meet the criteria for wp:not. Mjwild 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is neglecting any mention of an inbox, which is a major component in the GTD system. It should definitely be added in. If no one else adds it in, I will when I find the time, which will probably be a couple of weeks hence. --ErikStewart 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
Time management is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want to see this article improved to featured status.--Fenice 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny that he calls it David Allen & Co., given the existence of the famous and weird singer David Allen Coe. 24.13.86.24 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The section Getting_Things_Done needs to be expanded a little, it doesn't make sense to me as a new reader. --DuLithgow (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you want external links?
*GTD Evaluation of third-party software for the Blackberry

This is not a commercial page, there are even no adsense placed. It contains an objective view to all GTD programs which are available on the BlackBerry. Because this is not SPAM, I do not understand why you deleted the link?

Compared to lifehack and stuff there is no difference. So I guess small blogs targetting to quality articles instead of 1000-mass-junk-ones every day are not welcome here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.169.154.163 (talk • contribs).
 * Really, blog articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia no matter what the size or level of quality. If there are current links to other blog articles, they should go too.  Wikipedia is not a tool to drive traffic to any site, no matter what quality it is.  It is also not an internet directory listing "all the great articles" about any topic.  If there is useful information in the article, why not incorporate it into the Wikipedia article? -- Renesis13 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because this might violate someone's rights. The fact is, that all wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL which is not allowed on many resources. Even most of the wikipedia articles and content are just plagiates created by their "contributors" who do not know what they are doing. That's why I did not want to integrate the content. Clear? By the way: lifehack and 43folders are both just commercial stuff - the one a blog (you told me, these kind is not wanted here...) and 43f, ok, a wiki but just a wrapper for www.43folder.com - so your arguments sound some kind of ridiculous, don't you think so?


 * No, I don't think so at all. I didn't even look at the external links.  Now I see that they are to the main landing page for those two sites.  That's fine with me.  What we don't need is links to "helpful articles" on blogs (of any kind) unless it is used as a reference for a fact quoted in the wikipedia article.  The problem is Wikipedia is not an internet directory.  There is a lot of useful information on the internet - but it is not Wikipedia's job to list all of it or even any of it.  If a notable, long-standing site is a good resource for information on the topic, then it might be appropriate for the "External links" section.  Otherwise, it is just turning Wikipedia into an internet directory.


 * And by the way, I was not suggesting copying the information to Wikipedia. Of course that would be a copyright violation.  But do to the No original research policy on Wikipedia, no information included in WP articles should be "direct from the source".  Information in articles should come from third-party, verifiable sources.  Such as that blog article.  So, I was suggesting gleaning the useful information from the blog article and writing it in your own words into this article.  That would of course be fine, as it is the way Wikipedia is built. -- Renesis13 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
I'm a big Getting Things Done [fan?]. But a valid criticism is that it doesn't tell you much about prioritizing.

Henry Thoreau


 * Cute. Got a real source somewhere? --Cyberscribe 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You wish him to prove the lack of something by citing it? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.14.2 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Implementing GTD
What, if anything, do you use for GTD? I'm running on a Mac (10.4), and I use Pierre Chatel's Sidenote as a general ToDo/list app. I'm still looking for something decent to use (freeware/open source-I'm really quite cheap), and would welcome any tips. Flintwill 0015, 28 October 2006 (Greenwich Meridian Time)

GTD Tiddlywiki is a great system with few dependencies (DB, Website, Software) that I've had success with. I am absolutely not affiliated with the site or the software. It is free and open.

Okay, this is a discussion about the WP article, so let's keep this offtopic post short: have a look around 42folders.org, lifehack.org and zenhabits.net (my favourite) for ideas and implementations. There's also lots of software around that fits different preferences and principles. I'd use MyLifeOrganized if I wasn't so accustomed to my fully integrated Outlook2007/PocketPC/PocketInformant2007 setup which is just missing good GTD "project" & Next Actions management. No affilations here either. Greetz, 80.132.201.58 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The best hardware I found is HP 200LX. It's instant on and has some nice software on it. To bad it got discontinued "because you can't use touch-typing on it". 27.11.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.143.78 (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Software tools for GTD: Source deleted
The Software tools for GTD section now makes undocumented claims after an anonymous editor deleted the following source citation:


 * (See Comparison of GTD Software)

I invite neutral and independent editors to either restore the citation (edit # 202433077), or provide a superior source compliant with Wikipedia policy, or delete the entire section as unsupported and effectively plagiarized content due to lack of sourcing.

Here's why I feel the content should be kept and the link restored:

1) The content is valuable. A independently-verified count and scope is an objective measure of influence, controversy, or interest. (Example: See Cold Fusion article.)

2) The content is essential to the entire section. The first half of Software tools for GTD relies on the now-unsourced portion to make sense in its context. If we delete just the last half, we need to delete or move the first half. If we move the first half, the Tools and techniques section is reduced to a single tool, the tickler file.

3) Sourcing is required:
 * "... you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (WP:No original research)
 * "... readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (WP:Verifiability)
 * "The purpose of citing your sources is: To improve the credibility of Wikipedia; ... To help users find additional information on the topic.... (WP:Citing sources)

4) Re: the anonymous editor's concerns:
 * Commercial sites are not automatically unreliable. "There is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy." (m:When should I link externally?)
 * Fear is not fact. A source should not be removed because it could become biased, but only if it actually is biased. Is a specific bias seen in the cited research?
 * The source is independently respected. See, for example, citation by GTD Times, the David Allen Company official blog.
 * "own ... methodology" is misleading. The page owner's "methodology" is a GTD extension, not a GTD replacement. (See Why Does Priacta Maintain This List?)
 * Page owner's software is specifically not promoted on the cited page. All software is listed there on an equal footing.

5) This external inline link best serves Wikipedia's purposes because:
 * The inline link satisfies the Principle of least astonishment. Many visitors still come looking for a Wikipedia Comparison of GTD software article deleted by WP editors 4 Dec 2007 as "original research." That content was the original basis for the cited source. (See details and debate here.)
 * We've seen a surge in spam in this article since the inline link was deleted, even after someone re-added the source under External Links. This may indicate that inline deletion created a content vacuum with an inadequate outlet.
 * "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites .. should not be placed in an external links section." ( WP:External Links, References and citation, emphasis mine.)
 * "Wikipedia articles may include [external] links to ... further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail ... or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability. " (WP:External links)

I will not restore the link myself as I am affiliated with the current page owner. "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines." ( WP:EL, Advertising and conflicts of interest, emphasis mine.) For the reasons in #5 above, I originally posted the article content and link there when the "Comparison of GTD software" article was deleted. That may not have been ideal given the guideline just quoted, of which I was unaware at the time. I now step out and leave this to the group to decide.

Kcren (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Software related to GTD
If it's possible, would there be any software or online web 2.0 applications that might work with this? 207.81.184.128 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the past several months, many links have been added to this page for software products related to GTD, but since such links are usually inappropriate without some sort of relation to the content of the article, they have typically been removed. You might be able to find some in the history of this page, and if you are interested in the subject, you are certainly welcome to add a section regarding GTD software as long as it is encyclopedic (Wikipedia discourages directories or collections of indiscriminate external links).  It seems like there is some interest in this, so maybe a written section would help. -- Renesis (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current software link looks a bit like SEO opportunism - the target page is riddled with links to services, and the company provides related software. I preferred the http://gtd.jeffsandquist.com/GTDTools.ashx page, which was a wiki without any obvious bias, not a "mail us and we'll put you on the list" type of page. Full disclosure: I sell GTD software as well. Richard.watson (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Richard.watson

There used to be a Comparison of GTD software which now redirects to this article. It was where I used to point people who were adding software links to this article. Does anyone know what happened to it? ChemGardener (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of the external page pointed to mentions that "the editors" took it down because it wasn't encyclopaedic enough. I don't really know enough about how WP works, but maybe there's something in the page history somewhere to say who took it off. Richard.watson (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After discussion, Comparison of GTD software was deleted by admins 4 Dec 2007 as non-suitable for WP. Reasons included "non-encyclopedic," "list of software," "should be somewhere but not here," "original research," really just a list of external links, out-of-date content. On the day the admins deleted it I added the Software tools for GTD section—truly encyclopedic content to fill the void left by the deleted article—and linked it to the original content which my company opted to host, research, and maintain externally, as suggested in the discussion. Since WP uses "rel=nofollow" in hyperlinks, no SEO benefits result from the link. (See Google's Official Blog.) Per the "principle of least astonishment" it is best to redirect and link to content that most closely resembles the original comparison page. The jeffsandquist.com list may be useful but: a) As a source, does it really constitute research? b) Does it best support the article content? For example, some titles in the jeffsandquist list do not directly support GTD (e.g., MonkeeBiz and Macro are useful but not GTD software per se). c) It lacks a lot of information the original article included (OS, sync comparisons, free vs. cost, etc.). Kcren (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For "SEO", read "traffic", which will generate SEO and sales benefits - which you are no doubt aware of because your page is pretty good advert. If general contributors and other software authors don't mind then it's no problem, but it still absolutely looks like a traffic trap to me, and I personally wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. Richard.watson (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Kevin and I have had an offline chat and I'm happier about their intent. Without a full canvassing of the GTD community it would be hard to know what the ideal solution would be, so as long as there is a commitment to making the page worthy of the link from Wikipedia, I'm okay with it. Richard.watson (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I retract my last statement. I would prefer that the Wikipedia link points somewhere else. The current target website contains text drawing attention to their own methodology as a superior alternative to GTD, and sells their own coaching services. To me this seems directly opposed to the spirit of participating in the GTD community, and in no way "win-win". I likely won't remove the link myself, but I fully support anyone else doing so. Kevin - this is the proper forum to discuss this issue, not in an offline discussion. Richard.watson (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, I hear and definitely want to help resolve your concerns. However, you may misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. Keep in mind that this GTD article isn't supposed to support just the GTD community, nor is its purpose to present a single perspective of GTD or provide links to GTD software. It should be an encyclopedia article—neutral, accurate, and supported via citations to original (off-WP) research. Even alternative points of view are encouraged here to maintain a NPOV. (See comments in NPOV dispute and  Advertisement?.)


 * Nevertheless, the Software Tools for GTD section and its supporting link do happen to benefit the GTD community (and others) because they are pertinent, actively-researched, accurate, and complete. The externally-referenced article is without slant (hopefully!) because the hosting company (my company) needs to recommend GTD-related software covering the gamut. The coaching services you mention are the very reason that research takes place. (See Why Does Priacta Maintain This Page?) Furthermore, just because a cited article resides on a commercial site doesn't inherently make the citation inappropriate. (Citations to David Allen's site are one example.) The page cited in this article does not advertise Priacta's own software, specifically to maintain neutrality for the GTD software article, and no affiliate links are used. Wikipedia article citations to wikis or blogs would likely be inappropriate because they are rarely true, accurate research.


 * I think what's done here should be consistent with Wikipedia's charter. Discussion beyond that scope should probably be in another forum like email or the public discussion board on the external site in question. Richard, let's do talk there (or via email) to resolve your related concerns offline. If anyone feels that the Software Tools for GTD section and citation are inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, please do speak up here so appropriate corrections can be made. Am I wrong, anyone? Kcren (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd really prefer that you stop promoting your website (and your new discussion forum). If you want an external discussion forum, have it on an independent site or on the DavidCo site (here's a new thread: http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8028) who are at least truly central to the debate.  I'm trying to get this page to reflect as inclusive a truth as possible, so I fully encourage edits from users with a wide range of views.


 * Your research page was essentially a copy of the page that the admins identified as not encyclopaedic, with minor modifications and a request for additional input, and MANY links to your own (better) methodology, software and coaching services. Is that research?  What are you measuring against?  How closely a product is aligned with the principles of GTD?  How many GTD-specific features a product has?  No, rather the default view shows which product was updated last, with your own currently at the top.  I'm very sure that any coaching (or software) company in the world would happily invest the effort to maintain that page, and have links to their own services all over it, and explaining the benefits of their own methodology as effectively as this page does: TRO-GTD comparison


 * So I propose that we move the link to a site 1) that nobody could claim is biased, and 2) with content that reflects actual research on GTD software based on something a bit more fundamental - hopefully agreed upon with someone vaguely authoritative. I'd like a disclaimer that the GTD-ness of all applications is only a claim by the authors, and that the DavidCo company endorses only these products: DavidCo store.  I also propose that we move the link to any other less biased page in the meantime.


 * If you want to point at your own methodology, have a Wikipedia page about it and point from there. People who are searching for TRO can find TRO, and people searching for GTD can find GTD.  Richard.watson (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, again, you appear to misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose.
 * This discussion is about a citation that supports specific content in the article.
 * It would be inappropriate for me to create a page for my company's methodology as you suggest. That would be self-promotion, which is inappropriate here. The links above are only to facilitate discussion and not self-promotion.
 * "Research" = (in part) not posting or accepting blind links to purported GTD solutions; validating claims, maintaining release dates as explained on the cited page. Evaluation of specific facets of GTD-ness is in progress.
 * A page with your disclaimer ("the GTD-ness of all applications is only a claim by the authors") would be weak research and a poor source—simply a collection of claims by software vendors.
 * Wikipedia editors have been begging for alternative perspectives in this article to get a more neutral point of view.
 * A NPOV does not mean only including so-called neutral assertions and sources. It allows for different or contrasting POV.
 * David Co. is not neutral, it is authoritative in defining "GTD" (trademark), but not the GTD system's limitations, enhancements, or alternatives. Outside entities with some real interest and expertise must do that.
 * This GTD article measures the influence of GTD by citing software "supporting GTD to one extent or another." DavidCo.'s measure of GTD-supporting titles would likely be too narrow or far too broad, as they have a vested interest in their perspective.
 * A DavidCo.-party-line takeover of this article would be inappropriate. Your external discussion thread almost seems to be a "call to arms" among that narrow segment of the GTD community, as evidenced by its venue.
 * Therefore, this citation seems in full compliance with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy and adds substantial value to the article. If anyone feels the cited web page is in any way inappropriate or inaccurate, it has links where changes can be requested publicly. Those changes are made quickly, in my experience. Kcren (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The original page of links was not created by the software authors - I assume that some of the links presented are by other interested parties, so it would not necessarily be a page of authors' links any more than this is a page written by David Allen.


 * At the very least, define "GTD software" and "supporting GTD to one extent or another". Is it anything that can be used for GTD software?  Applications that have any GTD elements in them?  If the former is true then Notepad is right up there.  If the latter, then I'm pretty sure quite a few applications fall out.  I would find it very impressive if any company would create a definition that would exclude their own software, so I would prefer a non-participant (or a more inclusive group) to perform that function.


 * My external link is to a forum that is central to GTD, which for the purposes of discussing what GTD software is, seems entirely reasonable. That forum has had threads with opposing viewpoints many times before.  My explicit query on that thread was to get more independent thinking and my intent is to widen the group of people who are aware of this discussion.  In it I declared my own possible bias, as I have from the beginning of this thread.


 * As to DavidCo's neutrality about GTD software, my experience is that they act in a very neutral way. They do not advertise their own software on their own forums, for example.


 * I'm happy to create a TRO page, then it would not be self-promotion and all the people searching for TRO would have a Wikipedia page.


 * Please tell me why you hosting that page is not like DavidCo hosting a Seven Habits of Highly Effective People resource page, and then linking to lots of content explaining why GTD is better? Richard.watson (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, I think I see the problem here. You misunderstand TRO:
 * GTD and Seven Habits are fundamentally different, competing systems. Your hypothetical resource page would not really benefit both communities, so it would only serve to lure one to the other. Conflict. Not a good Wikipedia source.
 * On the other hand, TRO, Zen-to-Done (ZTD), and most other GTD-like systems fall well within DavidCo.'s broad description of GTD. They enhance, simplify, or clarify GTD. They are "alternatives" only to "out-of-the-box" "vanilla" GTD. They do not seek to supplant GTD. Resources for one are resources for the other. No conflict. (They just can't be called "GTD" because DavidCo. trademarked the term.)
 * Reality check:
 * ZTDers need GTD-like software, so Zen Habits (a commercial site) has a GTD resource list. It legitimately serves both communities. No conflict.
 * If Zen Habits started coaching or publishing would they need to remove their GTD resource list? No. It would still be an essential or valuable resource to both communities. No conflict.
 * Like the Zen Habits list, the Priacta list is a legitimate, essential resource to the TRO, GTD, and other GTD-variant communities. No conflict.
 * Unlike the Zen Habits GTD list, the Priacta page cited is current, researched openly, verifiable, and subject to public review there. A legitimate source.
 * BTW: Clear criteria for GTD-ness were already posted in the site's forum, but a link has been added to make this more clear. Is is open for discussion.
 * Richard, since this isn't a forum, I feel very uncomfortable responding here further. It improperly monopolizes this Talk page. If you still have concerns, let's link the discussion to a new Google Group and invite everyone to resolve the issues there. Kcren (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, you're welcome to stop replying if you think it's not the best place to discuss this. My point was - I'm not comfortable with what I feel as your fairly self-serving editing of this page, and I wanted to make sure my implicit support was taken back, and my original objection reinstated and expanded. So as long as you're happy to keep this text here, then I'm happy for others to read it and make their own minds up. Your defense of implying that I don't understand some pretty simple concepts is a good job of hiding the important point. It's obvious how much you care about keeping this link right where it is, and benefiting your company. Richard.watson (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cult
I have removed the following from the article: "Allen has also been linked to the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness. Whether or not MSIA should be labeled a cult is a matter of dispute but the connection has led to considerable online debate about the 'cult of GTD'."

First, this is about Allen, not the "cult of GTD". Secondly, the "considerable debate" is a forum, for crying out loud. Not allowable, and furthermore, even the 43folders guy thought these people were "warring" and asked them to leave - post #48. Now, some geeks arguing on a forum sinply isn't notable. Its like reporting gossip from the school lunchroom. If you want to keep the information about MSIA, rewrite it (the cite states he is a minister, NOT "linked to a cult"), add it to the article on him. It doesn't belong here. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Definition
David Allen & Co. has asked that any website that purports to "define" GTD (including educational sites) provide a link back to the "official" definition of GTD on the davidco.com website. The purpose of the messagebox at top is to comply with this request so as not to create confusion in the marketplace as to the official definition and meaning of GTD as it is intended by its creator, David Allen. Cyberscribe 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever David Allen & Co wish to do is mostly irrelevant. This message box is a form of special treatment that we do not extend to any other trademark holder of which I'm aware. Sdedeo (tips) 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the trademark holder and inventor of the methodology, David has asked that any site purporting to "define" GTD link back to the official definition. Since it is stated in the body now that this is a registered trademark, the second part of this message box intent has been handled. Reinstating the link to the official definition. --Cyberscribe 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not appropriate for wikipedia. We do not do "favours" like this. I will try for a compromise. Sdedeo (tips) 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting this in the "What GTD Is About?" section and ensuring the terms are listed as a registered trademark right away seem like reasonable compromises. I am surprised Wikipedia does not use the ® symbol for registered trademarks, however, as I thought this was the only universally acceptable form of legal designation. Then again, IANAL. --Cyberscribe 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IANAL is pretty key. Basically, nobody can force you to use a trademark symbol, and they're rare in the media, but companies like it lots when you do. (Take a look at issues of Columbia Journalism Review for plenty of ads begging journalists to use TM on their extra special product name that is rapidly becoming generic -- rollerblades, for example.) In the case of GTD, it's even more bizarre: "getting things done" is just an ordinary phrase, so Allen has plenty of work to do to convince people he has a special case use for it. If he had given it a wacky name ("The Unicorn Folder System"), he wouldn't have to work as hard to fight dilution. Sdedeo (tips) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that GTD is described as an "action management method". What is "action management"? The link redirects to "management", which doesn't say anything about "action management". I am also trying to find references to "action management" being used to define the field in which GTD is in, and can't find any. Does anyone has any justification for defining GTD as an "action management" method? Otherwise I will be tempted to remove those two words. --Avernet (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to lack of comments on this topic, and to proper references on what "action management" is, I am removing "action management" from the definition of GTD. It would be good though to know what "field" GTD is in, what other methods would be defined as alternatives to GTD, and how is GTD and those other methods generally called. --Avernet (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement?
RandomHumanoid flagged this article as looking like an advertisement. Personally, I don't see it. It is a summary of GTD and some sources for GTD in popular culture. No hype, no emotional language. Pretty basic. I do think it would be great to have more sources cited and know the community has been looking to incorporate criticism - but there isn't a lot out there, except maybe in the occasional blog. So, can we get this removed, please? Or is there anything else we need to discuss? Cyberscribe 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "What GTD is about" section is fairly egregious in this regard. It is written as if it were ad copy, not an entry in an encyclopedia.  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe move the flag into just that section, then? --Cyberscribe 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved this (revert if you disagree) - but on re-reading it, it doesn't really seem sales-heavy to me. "Allen contends...", "the psychology is based on ...", "unlike other time-management systems" - seems to just put out the theories, bases and differentiations - doesn't really "champion" the approach as better or worse than anything else. Then again, I may be too close to the trees... --Cyberscribe 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My psychobabble/pseudoscience alarm was ringing off the charts with this section. Your move is fine, but I'll look through the article again.  By the way, I have nothing against this system.  I just have issues with the article.  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. Really happy to see it become more empirical. --Cyberscribe 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Balanced Criticism
What would make this article more balanced and objective? --Cyberscribe 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus To Remove Tag?
I've read the article through twice and there appears to be little that I would class as unbalanced about it. It doesn't, for example, slam other systems or their practitioners and seems to be a pretty well-rounded, well-written article that, granted, might need some fleshing out, but nothing major. Remove. Gentian Hush 22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GTD in popular culture
This section would really be better if integrated into the main article as citations. As it stands, the article doesn't have any in-line citations aside from the book itself. I think moving some of this into the main article would help strengthen the references, and clean up the layout a bit. -- Kesh 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
somebody wrote about their peni5 in the process part of the article, but i'm not sure what goes there or how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.55.212 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

NM, i figured it out. Who cares enough about GTD to consider it vandalism worthy? This isn't the fox news page for cripes sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.55.212 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated External Link
At the bottom of the External Link section the link "GTD for passwords Outsource password management to declutter your mind" appears unrelated or at least way off subject. It leads to the PassPak online service page. That story page is more like a marketing campaign landing page not to any additional information.

This implies that maybe the other links should be examined for relevance.

(Johnswolter (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

GTD Next Generation
These comments about criticism covering the range of application of GTD caused some thoughts. It strikes me in the very short time I've worked with GTD that it's useful. Based on comments here, as the range of applications has expanded the way it is applied needs to be adjusted. Those alterations show where GTD needs flexibility and or new perspectives. It may be time for the next generation GTD. Also I came across a book "Keeping Found Things Found" by William Jones which is a conceptual look at PIM, Personal Information Management. It came out of an academic project at the University of Washington, http://kftf.ischool.washington.edu/index.htm. Being academic it needs interpreted application into daily life. It gives a good start on a technical definition of portions of GTD. It should also be an external link about PIMing.

The technical side may be most helpful for defining the operational characteristics needed to support GTD. Based on the discussion of software here I'd have to say none of them get it yet. There is a need to express the underlying ideas of GTD at a more Meta, by that I mean a higher, level. Given an understanding of the larger principles of GTD, applications will be easier to create.

Let the criticisms flow like a river, we need the information.

(Johnswolter (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge this...
I randomly stumbled onto this article...Having read most of it, I cannot see why there is a separate article on this topic. Most of this page reads as a fawning how-to guide for this particular self-help philosophy. The best course I can recommend is to move the basic, sourced, relevant material to the David Allen (author) article where it belongs and leave a redirect. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No reason to do that. Articles on individual books are fine, and quite common. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My complaint wasn't regarding the existence of an article on an individual book, but the rather extensive outline of the book's contents and it's overall informal/promotional tone. In any case, I've done some further research and I think the book passes WP:N, so there's no real need to do what I suggested above. I did, however, attempt to clean up the article some. I think it could still use greater pruning to strip away the superfluous detail. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like you did some good cleanup. Nearly all articles can be trimmed. Maybe I'll try a little bit, but it looks fairly concise. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

External link to blog
I have undone a recent edit which added an external link to a blog. The blog is a collection of articles about productivity in general. Some of the articles may mention GTD, but the site as a whole is not focused on GTD. Does anyone object? –  e James  (talk) – 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External link to commercial websites
I have removed an external link to www.mylifeorganized.net which appeard in the "Excerpts from Business Week" section. It appears to be a commercial website geared towards selling a single product: A GTD software package for use on PDAs. As such, I do not think it belongs in an enyclopedia article, and it certainly does not belong in the "Business Week" section. –  e James  (talk) – 14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And another two (1, 2). –  e James  (talk) – 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

External link to blog
I have undone a recent edit which added an external link to a blog. The blog is a collection of articles about productivity in general. Some of the articles may mention GTD, but the site as a whole is not focused on GTD. Does anyone object? –  e James  (talk) – 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External link to Moleskine notebook blog
I expect this would be better linked to the Moleskine Wiki entry. Will change it myself in the next few weeks if no objections, or anyone else is welcome to change it. Smileypete (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blog on use of the moleskine with the GTD system: http://gtdretail.webege.com/?p=89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.43.191 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

listing for deletion
This was listed for speedy deletion as promotional. As reviewing administrator I declined the deletion, since there was a core of reasonable content. But the overlong summary of the method was in fact promotional--it is not appropriate encyclopedic  content. I removed it all, except for the software section. I think a one or two paragraph summary would be appropriate, but I leave it to someone else to write it. I point out though, that I have no special rights as administrator over the content of the article--all that I did relating to that role was to decline to delete it. DGG (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got impatient and removed too much.  I've restored the full version, and then made a more careful cut at what seems a reasonable level of detail, and some other edits. In particular, I removed the excessive repetition of the name of the author and the name of the method--its that sort of thing that makes an article appear promotional.    Please see WP:BRD--sometimes an article needs a bold move to get revision started -- again, in making the edit I was not acting as an administrator, as administrators have no special control over content, and can be reverted just like anyone else. We don't get angry at it--well, at least almost all  of us don't get angry at it. DGG (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GTD Software Section Suggestions
The GTD software section has been both a separate article and a target for all kinds of spam. I think it would be useful to have some guidelines for what belongs. My suggestion would be including only internal links in this section and restricting them to software that has a WP article. I've edited the section to internal links only; but, some of them have red links. (A couple of them were not red; but, did not lead to software articles - I've italicized and not linked these.) ChemGardener (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This section shouldn't have ANY links to specific software, internal or not. The current list of software (7 titles at present) should be removed because it is original research in every sense. The "original research"ness of this can't be fixed, it just is. Once you remove the list, the rest of the section is actually pretty good, though it certainly needs more sources. JCrenshaw (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think we might well remove the section, leaving only a general statement--or,even better, combine the other articles into here with a brief statement for each. . There is really nothing particularly distinctive about them except their co-branding and the use of the terminology. To-do lists are not Allen's invention,. DGG (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference to David Allen's role as a minister in a religious group
I have removed a sentence in the intro presenting David Allen as a minister in a religious cult / group / whatever. I was unaware of this, but I hardly think this is relevant to the system he has come up with. The way this was written, the assumption was that this was somehow relevant to the content of the book.

Furthermore, I find it misleading to present the author as a minister, and not as a productivity consultant (and a successful one at that), which is in fact the capacity under which he wrote the book. I have read the book, and it has no references to anything religious in it. In fact, the first time I heard about David Allen's links to this religion is just now, when I visited wikipedia to see if GTD was in it to show to a friend.

The overwhelming impression that the inclusion of that sentence gave, left as it was, is that GTD is somehow religious preaching material or whatnot, which couldn't be further from the truth. I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association. (Especially when the article on David Allen himself only makes a light fleeting comment regarding his religious role). Tpapastylianou (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it may seem difficult to find a connection between the religious activities of the author on his book on time management, but it actually is central to the system, and important for readers to know. The aim of the GTD system is to achieve what Allen calls "mind like water", by entering all things on one's mind into the system (either as projects/tasks, or as reference material). The aim is to attain mental clarity conducive to religious experiences promoted by David Allen's religion. He refers to this in discussions on podcasts available at "GTD Connect", and in his later book, Making it all Work. This is important for readers to know because it shapes the GTD system. For example, it results in the rule to clear everything from one's mind, rather than just what needs to be dealt with, and totally dismisses (or is unaware of) the role of prospective memory.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE COMMENT: "I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association."

It is not Wikipedia's role to censor material for the purpose of promoting a book or system, or to avoid losing adherents to a book/system. Deluno (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please restore description of methodology, please. Do not limit access to information
The senseless vandal who has removed the methodology section from this article just now forced me to buy the book. I repeat what so many have said here, since apparently it is not getting through: Allen's approach aims to be an aid in a world of information and activity avalanche. With the same logic, go delete as much as possible from Wikipedia and force people to buy Encyclopedia Britannica. What were you thinking? Really? The actions were for the benefit of who exactly? The readers of Wikipedia? Hardly. 91.152.190.110 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)YouSeriouslyHaveNothingBetterToDoThanRunningAroundDeletingUsefulInformation?

I agree. I've been thinking the same thing. Although apparently made with frustration and passion, I think it's a fair comparison you've made with the idea of deleting much of Wikipedia to boost Encyclopedia Britannica sales. Just as I'm starting to consider regularly editing and writing more to contribute to Wikipedia, this severe deletion, and that nothing has been done about it for so long, have caused doubts about integrity and the potential for good work to go to waste here. Why hasn't this article been restored already? Who ultimately has control of this? Deluno (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Add a section on history or background
The GTD book doesn't cite sources of the system, and doesn't even have a References or Bibliography section. Although this is common in the genre, it is in effect plagarism (which for example wouldn't be tolerated without "citation needed" notes in Wikipedia articles). It clearly draws ideas (such as its procedure for "processing stuff") heavily from other time management books which were popular and influential before it was published, including for example The Organized Executive by Stephanie Winston. The ideas of other time management books which GTD apparently draws heavily upon should be at least mentioned or compared in the Wikipedia article. Such a sub-section may be titled "Background" or "History". Deluno (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Team
The heavy deletions have made this useless. The labour spent on writing articles in Wikipedia is becoming useless because of the edits of people who don't know the subject. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh. But it is worth thinking about it again before writing an article. -- Tora131.104.139.203 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See my comments at the bottom of the What Happened to this Article? section above. Jrajav (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Willpower book
Here's a good source to add as a reference to this article: the book "Willpower" by Baumeister and Tierney. It definitely meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (IMO) because the authors have published many scientific articles in the subject of self-control. Pages 75 to 87 of this book are all about GTD and David Allen. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Here are some quotes and notes from the book that could be useful in this article:

p. 76 "Allen doesn't offer seven simple rules of life or rouse crowds into frenzies of empowerment. He doesn't offer vague wisdom like "begin with the end in mind" or exhortations like "awaken the giant within." He focuses on the minutiae of to-do lists, folders, labels, in-boxes."

p. 76 "... GTD, the the acronym for Allen's book that has become the name for a system of working and living ..."

p. 76 (paraphrased) Re the inner nag: experiments in Baumeister's lab and Allen's experience arrived at the same conclusions/technique along different paths.

p. 77 "mind like water" is from Allen's karate lessons.

p. 78 "Allen remembered a tool from his travel-agent days, the tickler file. ... Allen's tickler file -- thirty-one folders for each day of the current month, twelve folders for each of the months -- would become so widely copied that his followers used it for the name of a popular lifehacker web site: 43folders.com."

p. 79 "Dean Acheson (not the former secretary of state)" had people write down everything in their head. (everything that had their attention. This was the origin of Allen's "mind dump" apparently.)

p. 80 The idea that an action has to be specific, specifying for example whether phone or email is to be used. The example given is "Consult Esther Dyson about self-control", described as "much too vague by GTD standards".

p. 83 The Ziegarnik effect: research shows that you're distracted until you make a plan. "So it turns out that the Ziegarnik effect is not, as was assumed for decades, a reminder that continues unabated until the task gets done. ... instead the unconscious is asking the conscious mind to make a plan." (italics in the original) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What happened to this article?
This article recently received heavy deletions. IMO it needs to be restored. It used to be solid reference material (a clear description and summary of the GTD system, measures of its influence and adoption rate, independent external research, etc.). Now it is confusing and lacks substance, making it fairly useless.

Imagine the same kind of changes being made to this SCRUM article, and I think you'll see the point.

See here for my discussion with the admin who deleted it. He declined to restore it himself, but his page indicated that he does not consider reverts to be wheel warring.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that "speedy deletion" editing was unwarranted in this situation (except for some external spam links at the bottom of the old article) and doesn't serve Wikipedia's purposes. The original article was sourced (authoritative, primary sources, not for other topics as asserted); it was not promotional; it was written by hundreds of independent authors over a period of years; it described a system that became influential over a decade. I'm not affiliated with David Allen, I'm an independent GTD SME and past contributor to this article and talk page.

However, I'm only one guy and may be missing the big picture, so I'm opening a discussion. What do you think? Kcren (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been following the discussions, reverts related to this article. I am not aware of many of Wikipedia's policies, but I am losing much confidence in Wikipedia. I am quite stunned to see the fact the much of the methodology section is removed from this article. Such is life. - Hardduck (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have restored the censored content. Please, help to fight censors. Wikipedia has the tools to block these vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.13 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The censorer (User:Tnxman307) says that the censored text is promotional material and removes the content. How can we block this user for deleting such useful content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.13 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with tnxman's actions. What he removed was promotional in nature and was not a neutral representation of the subject.  Them  From  Space  08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The neutrality question was already discussed at length in this archived NPOV dispute discussion. Conclusion: WP:NPOV concerns were not upheld; there were no notable sources of criticism, so the most neutral approach is to describe the system. Kcren (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Neutrality is often dependent upon context." (—Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) Kcren (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there was some promotional content on the older versions, but the methodology that was listed was very useful. By deleting this content we all know less.  We can get the basic summary of information from the online book sellers, people come to Wikipedia for the details, imho.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumrooster (talk • contribs) 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing all the information from and article and replacing it with bits of information-free blah blah does not really help anyone. A detailed description of a books contents in the article about that book is not advertisement. If someone is concerned about the wording of an article, he should rephrase, not delete a text on which dozens have worked many hours. --84.178.113.123 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Restore the summary of methodology section.

We need to define "promotional" carefully in this context. Cui bono? Who benefits? To someone who doesn't understand GTD, those deletions seem to remove salesy content for David Allen. However, that conclusion stems from a limited understanding of the subject. Explaining what the GTD system is doesn't send people running to David Allen's store. GTD is an idea, a system, a philosophy, and it isn't patented, so the better people understand it, the less they may need to buy a book, not more. People need to understand what a subject really is, not just a bunch of things about it that fail to define it, which is all we're left with right now in this article. Otherwise, we'd need to delete all mentions and pictures of the latest car models in the Ford Motor Company listing as "promotional." Kcren (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to explain the system. It's quite another to have 11 kb of detail explaining every single facet of the system. If people wanted that, they would buy the book. Wikipedia is summary, not a supplementary reading guide. TN X Man  11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked by Kcren to comment, based on my previous work on the article. I consider the current version a good compromise. I thank Tnxman for his patient work with it, which was more  careful than my own earlier work.  DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All note: Important discussion with DGG about this here. His assessment was based on a mistaken classification (book instead of method). '''The article is about a methodology, not a book. See the disambiguation and first two paragraphs.''' Tnxman made the same mistake, follow the links above to see his original comments.

Therefore, I believe this methodology article should be restored. However, the book banner on the side is promotional and confusing and should be removed, or the article will be zapped again IMO. The book is only one source re: that method, notable third-party sources are more appropriate, we should all continue to add those.

The methodology is highly notable. The article should exist. Google it: tens of thousands of blogs, mainstream magazine articles, newspaper articles, and scientific publications discuss it.

Important comments from DGG (admin) re: your rights vs. admins who edit content:


 * "... the appropriate non-admin actions when an admin is making content changes is to treat them like just another editor of similar experience--to assume the comments or edits are in good faith, intended to improve the article--and that they might actually be doing that. But if you disagree, anything anybody says here can be challenged. If an admin or any other editor should try to be overbearing, the first step is to wait a day or so in order to  decide calmly if the issue is worth the contention, and then continue the discussion. The response will be either conciliatory or  defensive or aggressive.    If it is defensive, ask for opinions at a suitable noticeboard--see the list of them at the top of WP:ANB.   I would normally reserve AN/I  for matters which can not be otherwise handled, and which are important  enough to be worth wide attention, with the understanding that once something reaches there, it gets so much attention that it can very quickly escalate.  If at all unsure whether it is worth proceeding that far, after asking for an opinion from another editor, on or off wiki. And before getting too involved in a dispute, it is wise to observe the dynamics of Wikipedia disputes. It is sometimes worthwhile to examine the course of prior disputes with the same editor.' — DGG (as you can read here until it is archived)

Your options as a regular editor: Therefore, if you're a non-admin and want to restore the article, any/all of the following are appropriate: I was willing to prosecute this but not willing to revert/restore alone. Kcren (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussing with people above who supported the deletion, including any admins,
 * Restoring the article (keeping in mind these guidelines),
 * Posting your reasons here,
 * Coming back often to see how the discussion is going, and even
 * Using Twinkle to closely monitor edits on the page (CAUTION: read the warning at the top of that page; learn the appropriate Wikipedia policies first).

Timewarp a couple of years ago, this article was a beautiful and concise article on the complete methodology of GTD, from the processes to interesting facets like the tickler file. It even had a picture of the tickler file. What happened to it? It was what inspired me to learn more about GTD and an article I often showed others. I would dearly love to see that, one of my first and favorite wikipedia articles, retuned. A Friendly Nerd (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A agree with what Kcren, A Friendly Nerd and others pro-restoration have said here. I also went to this arctile to get good information on GTD (the methodology, not the book) and also sent friends to it. I was sadened today when I went here during a telephone call and couldn't cite parts from the article and had to tell the person I was talking to that alot of the article had been deleted from wikipedia. Which feels bad, ofcourse. So I would also like to see restoration. Scrdcow (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This article used to be good documentation of a common method, but now it is useless. This is misguided vandalism, and I intend to restore the article as soon as I have the time.  I am really shocked that someone would rationalize hacking up a useful article this way because of fear that there is a profitable product related.  Should we also wear dirty clothes because washing machines are for sale?  Honestly, this makes no sense whatsoever. -- M0llusk (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Last Version containing useful information on the GTD method circa 04:32, 12 July 2009, all versions after that have all useful information removed. Perhaps current GTD article should be GTD(Book) and a new article GTD(Method) be added with all useful information on the GTD process/method be placed with minimal reference to the actual book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.119.15 (talk)

I agree. The previous version of the article was far more useful, and it's a great loss to Wikipedia's users to have articles as severely censored like this. Is it possible that somebody working for the David Allen Company is responsible for the censorship?Deluno (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. From reading this SCRUM article I expected this page to give enough detail on the methodology so that it could be implemented. The removed section was much more useful. Regards. JeanPhilippeD (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this article for the first time, as an extensive user of the GTD methodology for several years. I have to say, this a pretty embarrassing article for such a popular subject, and just one more example to add to the list of "Why Wikipedia doesn't always work so good." This article is so short, and covers the material so poorly that I find it hard to believe anyone could find it satisfactory right now. Inadequate coverage of the subject is still only a minor problem in my view, though, and that can be fixed by expanding it. I find another issue to be much more problematic: The subject is inaccurately presented as being synonymous with David Allen's book. The infobox makes it seem like an overblown Amazon listing. Really? He certainly authored this methodology, but that is the kind of thing that belongs in a "History" section in the article text. The book cover and title certainly shouldn't take front and center. Now, a picture of David Allen might be appropriate. No one denies his deep connection to GTD. However, GTD is now a methodology that has been embraced by millions of people, with each person implementing and understanding it in a unique way. There are a huge number of tweaks, hacks, methods, tools, discussions, and expositions out there related to GTD. "GTD" has 113 million Google results. The only reason David Allen and his book have remained relevant to the system is because his book is still regarded as one of the best resources for GTD, whether you want an introduction to it or a guide to a full implementation. It is possible to implement GTD fully without reading a word of the book, and elements of it can be used independently. The system does not depend on buzzwords or flowcharts or a specific set of software. GTD is often viewed as a infomercial-esque "kit," but anyone familiar with it can tell you otherwise. That informed view is the one that should be on Wikipedia, provided that it's objective, and I would argue that it is.

GTD is directly comparable to Agile software development. It's a set of techniques to address a systematic problem that was originally expounded by a single person, but has gained large popularity and become relevant to the entire field (productivity vs. software development). The main difference is that agile software development can be summed up in one or two sentences, while GTD requires at least a small article to adequately cover (which this article does not), and as a direct consequence of this fact, David Allen's book remains useful. With this in mind, this article should be at least as thorough as Agile software development. (I know there are several important differences between the two; please understand I'm only using the comparison to make a point.)

One footnote: I think it's very important to present the subject objectively and neutrally. I do not think this contradicts my points at all. In fact, I am arguing for a more objective and neutral presentation of the material. It would be crossing the line to present the subject in such a way as to try to convince people it is more effective than other methods for productivity, or that it will change your life for the better, etc. This is a smaller matter, a matter to be considered when writing the specifics of the article content. I am arguing for the nature of the content as a whole.

I value open discussion highly, but I also want this article fixed. If no one responds in two weeks, I will rewrite the article, possibly including older revisions. Even if it's not perfect, it can be improved incrementally after the most important fixes. Please respond with your views on this! Jrajav (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up for anyone tracking this article who might have missed it at the bottom of my huge rant: I will rewrite this entire article soon if there are no serious, well-founded objections. This will, in spirit and effect, be a reversion to the older and more complete version of the article. I will also be changing the way David Allen and his book are presented re: my comments above. So far the only reply has been Tora's (in the Wikipedia Team section farther down). Like many others who have written here, he's discouraged and confused at the deletions, and I don't think anyone knowledgeable on the subject has offered a good reason for them. Again, if you want to defend them, speak now or make your case after the rewrite (before reverting it!). Jrajav (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI -material that is not properly sourced (much like the previous version) will be removed, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you can provide independent third-party sources, any previously removed material should not be re-added. You should also carefully review our guidelines on advertising and writing with a neutral point of view. TN X Man  13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be very careful in rewriting the article, including sourcing and NPOV. I never meant to imply that I would simply cut and paste old content. I am confident that I can find objective, third-party sources on the details and methodology of the system. That was, in part, my point! Thanks for your concern; at least it shows that someone else is concerned about the quality of this article. I hope I can trust that if I do indeed show due diligence, other editors will do the same in deciding whether or not to wantonly revert the changes. Jrajav (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok so what happened, the current version is still useless. This is a methodology page, it should have an outline of the method like it used to right? Rjljr2 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to add my voice to the disappointed-in-incompleteness side of this discussion. I have no conflict of interest. I don't even use GTD. I wanted to learn more about it. I was surprised that there was so little information about it on Wikipedia, given its popularity and given the multiplicity of available sources. Like another writer on this talk page, part of my interest came through the discussion of the GTD methedology in the Willpower book. So here I find myself going through the history of the page to recover (for myself, not to revert ... I don't want to be in the middle of a Wikipedia edit war) basic factual information about a widely-discussed approach to to-do-list management. I'm sure deletions were made in good faith, but I want to be clear that I'd rather a too much information than too little. I can recognize self-promotion and other Wikipedia sins and ignore them. Or maybe even edit some out myself. But not at the cost of deleting whole sections full of useful information. Frustrating. Bobagem (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)