User talk:Designergene

Design Thinking (Wiki edu)
We appreciate that you are widely read in Design Theory and appreciate your assistance with "awkward" prose as the course includes ESL graduate students. The topic is relevant to the course regardless whether one considers it relevant to art history or digital art. Vengeful Goddess (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there was some odd mistake in your signature there, so I fixed it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here @Designergene Much obliged. FYI @Heliane (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Design thinking
Hi @Designergene, I saw you undid a couple of my edits to Design thinking. The reversion struck me as counter to the spirit of Revert only when necessary. If you feel that I mischaracterized the source, then you should feel free to improve what I said. But deleting information from a new, high-quality source strikes me as counterproductive, and it makes me worry about a general tendency among editors of the Design Thinking article to delete or minimize any of the critical sources on the topic. We need to be careful about violations of Neutral point of view. Owunsch (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that what you cited was a 'high-quality source' - it was an opinion piece, not an academic article, in the online MIT Technology Review.
 * I don't agree that my reverts were against Wikipedia spirit or guidelines. I reverted the edits because they were not based on a reliable source and did not even represent the general view presented by that source - despite the click-bait headline of the source piece it was a more nuanced appraisal of the history and possible future developments for design thinking than you represent it to be.
 * You seem to confuse discussion of two separate IDEO 'school lunch' projects and claim that the cited piece: 'detailed the failure of an IDEO initiative to increase school lunch consumption in the San Francisco Public Schools', while the full quote is: 'An analysis a few years after IDEO’s 2013 engagement showed that about the same number of kids or even fewer were choosing to eat school lunch, despite a continuous increase in enrollment. This may have had several reasons, including that the quality of the food itself did not significantly improve' - and the food itself was outside IDEO's remit.
 * You added to the Timeline section: 'by 2023, the phrase "design thinking" is removed from the d.school's undergraduate and graduate program materials', while the full quote from the cited piece is: 'the phrase “design thinking” does not appear in any materials for the d.school’s revamped undergraduate or graduate programs—although it still shows up in electives in which any Stanford student can enroll (and a representative from the d.school claims the terms “design” and “design thinking” are used interchangeably)'. Your statement is very partial, and inappropriate in the Timeline section.
 * I don't agree that there is 'a general tendency among editors of the Design Thinking article to delete or minimize any of the critical sources on the topic'. There is a substantial section on Criticisms. I consider that your addition to that section was a flawed mis-representation of the cited piece. I consider that your addition to the Timeline section is inappropriate because it strays away from historical factual statement and in its partiality is itself potentially against Neutral Point of View guidelines. Designergene (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The MIT Technology Review is a bi-monthly periodical that is published both in print and online. The article that I cited is not an "opinion piece." It is a piece of reported journalism, not the author's "reflections." In any case, it clearly meets the Reliable sources standard.
 * If you disagree with my summary of the source, you should improve it, not delete it wholesale. I confess that I do not understand the criticisms you are making of my summary. The article indicates that IDEO's recommendations had limited impact on school lunch consumption, stating that "it’s clear that only after IDEO left the project did the real work begin." It suggests that IDEO's main benefit was that it "helped sell the value of improving school cafeterias to the decision makers."
 * Any time that I have added a mildly critical source to the design thinking article, I have faced immediate opposition. There was no criticisms section in the design thinking article until I added one last year. It was immediately deleted, then subsequently reincorporated after a long discussion on the talk page. Owunsch (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I see your point about the timeline section. It's hard to tell from the article what the status of design thinking is at the d.school. So I took my addition out of the timeline. Owunsch (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. I think that your sentence on IDEO and school lunch should also be deleted as it may not be a fair representation and stylistically does not belong in the section or add to the general criticisms made in the cited source - i.e. it is over-egging the point. Designergene (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussions about the content of Design thinking should happen at Talk:Design thinking. I recommend moving this talk page section to there, for the record. (You can delete this meta-comment by me.) Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)