Talk:Law of triviality/Archives/2013

How myths get currency
A significant amount of the debate on the talk page Parkinson's Law of Triviality focuses on the color (or colour) of the bike shed. This suggests that the debaters never actually read Parkinson's book, since Parkinson never mentions colour in the anecdote. The debate is about material for the roof.

While it is reported in the article that Poul-Henning Kamp applied the law to software development and introduced the colour of the bike shed, the casual reader will presume that Parkinson therefore talked about the shed colour. Not so.

It also tends to be misleading. Colour is aesthetic whereas roof material is a debate about durability vs initial cost. Such debates are important... do we invest in a freeway (motorway) made of concrete that will last longer but cost more, or bitumen chip that is cheaper but requires more repair (that inconveniences drivers)? These are appropriate governance questions (as opposed to colour where the colour red will probably cost the same as the colour blue). What makes the debate trivial is in contrast to the $10 million contract just approved. Kamp's introduction of colour may serve his point, but it actually tends to diminish Parkinson's point.

To assist the reader, I have added a set of quotes from the book that should make it evident that it's about the roof, not the paint.

Also, the writers talk about nuclear power plants, whereas Parkinson writes about "the Atomic Reactor". I have made the correction. People used different language in 1957 than they do today. If one is referring to a 1957 book (which, for example, talks about asbestos roofing which now is considered a hazardous material), it is appropriate to use the 1957 language. In fact, an atomic reactor may be referring to different physics than that of a nuclear power plant. Since we do not know, it's best to quote the book, rather than make presumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but I think that nuclear reactor is the better and more precise term as it is the nuclei which are being reacted. --John (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, aesthetics (colour) vs. durability (roofing materials) of the bikeshed ignores the larger contrast: cheap, able to be fixed later, lesser importance vs. difficult, expensive, and vastly more important. 163.150.25.207 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the difference between a scientist and historian. Newton has been disproved, but we would not apply quantum physics language when describing what Newton said. There has been a language change, just as we used to have Conservationists and now we have Environmentalists. However, there is a subtle difference in how people think now vs back then. For the historian, it is important not to contaminate the past with the present... especially when students now quote Wikipedia as gospel. I added quotes and [sic] to make it clear. ClassicalScholar 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, that seems fine. --John (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Burkeman is a fine fellow but it is a shame that the minor error re "colour" of the bikeshed crept into his recent book. If Wikipedia has any purpose it has got to exist to squash errors of that type. Such a mangling of the law does not belong in the lede section as to do so will only give it further legs. I have moved it to the "other formulations" section and classified it clearly as a misquotation. --Zymurgy (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)