Talk:Accountability

message: Check the "Deutsch"-Link for example ;-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.38.34 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in Language Links on the sidebar

message: The entry to this point (September 3 20🏄🌊reflects more rhetoric than substance. It needs to be developed to deal with various meanings beyond the narrow focus on US and political arena. I will attempt to built this up overtime. Assistance, feedback, input appreciated....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdubnick (talk • contribs).
I've eliminated the term "enforcement" as a synonym. While enforcement implies holding someone to account, it seems one step removed. One can say to be accountable is to be answerable, liable, responsible, etc, but "to be enforced" does not seem to fit.Mjdubnick (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more substance

message: Moving this here till there's a citation:
:Accountability implies a concern for the welfare of those with whom one works. Accountability denotes an ambition to leverage one's position in the economy to the benefit of society as a whole. Accountability at the most fundamental level signifies an obligation to one's self- an obligation to lead a meaningful life-both in and out of the workplace consistent with one's own values. - Yale, School of Management
Couldn't find the source for this online. Jokestress 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here, although with a few wording changes: http://mba.yale.edu/account.asp -- Sharpner 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving unsourced comment 

message: i added the definition and types of accountability
see if there's any problem
please leave a comment here if any source missing
plus, this is the first time i try to edit an entry in wiki, forgive if any inconvenient caused
-- 
The goliath 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes added 

message: In the most recent revision (prior to my own) Kuru removed the following link:
*[xhttp://www.accountability-central.com Accountability Central - Daily Updated News, Commentary, Research, Books, Magazines, and other resources specific to Accountability]
(This looks like one of a dozen or so related reversions, the rationale for which is given here.)
I don't disagree with this decision; nor do I claim to be a Wikipedia expert. But I'm curious why this was the only link removed when the other four are actually significantly less deep and substantive sites. After a quick read of WP:EL my conclusion is that the other four links need to be removed as well. While I won't restore the one Kuru removed, it looks to me like it's the only one that might plausibly survive WP:EL analysis. I leave this for others to determine.
For the record, the links I removed are reproduced below. Compare these sites to the one above:
*[xhttp://www.resultsaccountability.com The Fiscal Policy Studies Institute]
*[xhttp://www.raguide.org The Results Accountability]
*[xhttp://www.accty.com Accountability Tax Service]
*[xhttp://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/AccountAbility The AccountAbility Story in Policy Innovations]
My edit leaves a blank "External Links" section (other than Wiktionary). I don't know if the section itself should be removed.
(Disclosure: I have no affiliation whatsoever with any of the organizations involved in these links. I am merely an interested observer of the rise of the "accountability" phenomenon, which the site in the topmost link above does the best job of documenting, at least among these five.) --Sharpner 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: (Originally labeled "Social implications", the following seems to be about political accountability and does not seem to fit idea of "social implications" (which is a topic addressed by sociological and social psychological research). If it is reenter, it should also be referenced.) Mjdubnick (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving unsourced & misplaced comment 

message: The section "Accountability in education" raises some interesting points, but is done in a way that resembles an advertisement for Sudbury Schools.
Anyone responsible for adding this section want to make it a bit more generic? By all means quote SS as an example, but what's there at the moment doesn't look like what I'd expect in an encyclopaedia covering this heading and covers no other aspects of this theme than the differences between SS and other schools. InelegantSolution (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extract from a prospectus? 

message: WP:SEMI because of large random vandlising today. L3X1 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But with only one vandal edit in the last 7 weeks, such a request will almost certainly be refused - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for protection 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Accountability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724221935/http://dial.academielouvain.be/handle/boreal%3A144013 to http://dial.academielouvain.be/handle/boreal%3A144013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703175310/http://www.hapinternational.org/projects/standard/hap-2010-standard.aspx to http://www.hapinternational.org/projects/standard/hap-2010-standard.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Accountability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195312/http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/about-the-charter/ to http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/about-the-charter/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908225546/http://www.accountability.org/standards/index.html to http://www.accountability.org/standards/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202010617/http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/ to http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much as justice can be achieved without punishment (e.g., restorative justice), so can accountability for inappropriate behavior be handled without punishment.  However, in many places in this article the existing language excludes this possibility.  In addition to fixing these overstepping parts, does anyone have a good reference to maintaining accountability via alternatives to punishment that is strong enough for a sentence in the article lede?  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishment vs. restoration 

message: This article had a use of "which" within a restrictive clause, in British English this is correct, per New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide, p74. As far as I can tell this is the first region-specific edit on this page, and would set its variety as British English. A good faith edit replaced "which" with "that", possibly unaware of the British convention, so I have restored the version with "which". Boynamedsue (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak American English and was taught to use "that" for something that directly specifies the noun, or to use a comma followed by "which" when it is additional information about the noun.  "The car that was here yesterday is blue." is key to understanding which car is being discussed.  "My car, which was here yesterday, is blue." specifies something about my car but is not key to knowing which car (assuming that the listener knows that I have only one car).  Also, "which" is sometimes used in a situation that "that" would have been used because the sentence already has a "that". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fair enough. I looked into it after your edit and saw that most American style guides advise against "which" in this context, so I assumed this was the case and there was no malice in it. It's just that this probably shouldn't be changed on sight in future, as it is considered correct in a large part of the English-speaking world.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which in restrictive clauses