Talk:Karl E. Weick

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rosslocascio22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism Deletion
Plagiarism is not the same thing as a copy write violation. Further, simply insulting Weick for "shotty work" is an asinine insult over a trivial matter. In comparison to the major influence Weick has had on scholarship, devoting this much of his page to this kind of meaningless nay-saying is a waste of everyone's time and disingenuous at best. I'm going to move it be deleted as non-notable, particularly given the guidelines for biographies of living persons, unless there's some further discussion to be had over the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.198.163 (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok 97.119.170.123 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don´t mind the deletion. The tone of the request, however, is an insult to people like Thomas Basbøll and Henrik Graham, who researched the matter. Who ecactly calls these researchers asinie? How exactly is (s)he able to judge? As far as I could follow the matter, Karl was perfectly able to reply without insults. Yotwen (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Basbøll and Graham's accusation of plagiarism is a substantively significant event, as academia takes plagiarism very seriously. The accusation has been documented and discussed in both academic blogs and journals. The absence of any mention of it in this entry is conspicuous. I have reintroduced a short section about it, with full references. --Phnk (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Stub
I have added a lot of new material. At what point does this article cease to be a stub?--RichardVeryard 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Request
I have an out-of-date link to a paper called "A comparison of the works of Karl Weick and Sir Geoffrey Vickers", by Errol Smythe. Can anyone provide an up-to-date link?--RichardVeryard 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Loose Coupling
was introduced into management theory by James G. March. Weick explores the topic, no less, but no more, either. Yotwen (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coupling
Hello. I agree that March suggested the role of coupling but he is not the scholar who developed the concept. Do you agree? I'd argue that Charles Perrow was the scholar who actually constructed the concept in the 70's and 80's. We can both agree that Weick was not responsible for the concept, however. Getting back to March (and Simon for that matter), if we gave them credit for inventing every thought they wrote, then all of the organizational science literature could be credited to them. It's good to be them! P.A.P. (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - being slow picking up the thread... As far as I know, March introduced the concept in organizational theory. I don't claim he invented it. Anyway, Dick Cyert would also be a good one, Derek Pugh and the Aston Group... No, they surely did not invent everything they cite in their works. Don't we all stand on the shoulders of giants? Yotwen (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Citogenesis
I removed this citation from the "Plagiarism" section:



You'll see that Gelman's post relies on this very Wikipedia article, and so citing him can't substantiate the claims made here. Gdr 15:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)