Talk:Knowledge worker

message: I think that Drucker coined the term in 1946 in his book Concept of the Corporation, not 1959. --> the Google Books preview may suggest that, but note that it's likely from the foreword of a newer edition ("page xx" on Google Books suggests foreword, and the cover on Amazon suggest the new edition). -- 84.120.143.92 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, who is Martin Feregrino? Al lot of sources are writing that he is the one who coined the term but no reference? No reference anywhere only here. It seems that they all rely bilnd on wikipedia. Never heard about this guy. Bojae72 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Who coined the term knowledge worker?

message: It is proposed that Intellectual worker and Brain worker merge into Knowledge worker.
Relocated discussion from Talk:Intellectual worker#Merge with Knowledge worker:
Should be merged with knowledge worker..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Mosel (talk • contribs) 
Is there any real reason NOT to merge them? They do seem to be adressing the same subject. I see no distinction, and no reason to further keep the two separate. One article with more information would be better than two articles which are, honestly, not much bigger than stubs. Mitchell 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about the brain worker & knowledge worker pages, I would definitely agree. As for the knowledge worker page, I think there's certainly a good case for merging this page with that one, as the terms are often used interchangably; however, it could be argued that there is a very subtle difference between "knowledge worker" & "intellectual/brain worker" and that there is therefore some merit in keeping them as separate articles. They are sometimes used in slightly different contexts & have a slightly different emphasis (i.e. intellect vs. knowledge - you can possess plenty of either one without much of the other!). "Knowledge worker" has become a management/occupational psychology/business buzzword, whereas "intellectual worker" is more often used in the context of politics/sociology/philosophy etc. Although I'm not sure if this subtle distinction is overridden by the fact that they are treated by most people as pretty much interchangable, especially since I am not aware of an writer who has emphasised the differences between the two. But brain worker & intellectual worker are definately interchangable & should therefore be merged. Missdipsy 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comment is a bit confusing - I guess you meant that brain worker & knowledge worker are definitely interchangeable and should be merged, whereas intellectual worker may have a different emphasis? --Chris Howard (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: There is a URL link in the body of the text indicating a website where the document that this entry refers to can be found for free.  While I think including the URL is appropriate as a source it should be listed as a source and not jsut put willy-nilly in the middle of the entry.  Would the Author please edit this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.146 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link?

message: I have read the WP:Style material in response to the editorial style annotations made to the clean-up work I've done, and will set to work on the additional references.  I have plenty of sources, I do not believe there is any OR included; it's more a matter of being too general on references, and not using any specific footnotes; I'm working up the learning curve.  JonesC-NC (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic content looked sound when I reviewed it, although the phrasing at times looked like OR (hence the tags) and note removing it as a link from Knowledge management.  Its potentially an important article so good to see someone working on it.  --Snowded (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up from April 2009 

message: Who is the Weiss mentioned in the article? The link just goes to a disambiguation page. --Zundark (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weiss 

message: I think that the article can benefit from the inclusion of information from: Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers by Thomas H. Davenport, 2005. This book contains a lot of information relevant to the topic of knowledge workers and would help fill in the gaps where citations are needed, especially in the Knowledge Worker Roles section as well as the Knowledge work in the 21st century section. I have added information into both of these sections using the Davenport book as my main reference. I have included information both at the beginning of the Knowledge work in the 21st century section as well as at the bottom of the Knowledge worker roles section. The citations add to the credibility of the article as a whole and the added information also help to add more context to the subject.--Leiden88 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference  

message: Since when did software engineers, architects, or lawyers do any thinking? Knowledge worker is a stupid, pretentious term for the idiots who are ruining our world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.152.54 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  They think for a living? 

message: In order to conform to Wikipedia standards, this page needs to be deleted/started over/extremely heavily edited.  It reads as a copy-and-pasted undergraduate student's essay assignment.  If, as mentioned in the banner at the top of this page, it is truly a class project, the professor needs to ensure that the students have at least rudimentary knowledge of Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.
I advise that the majority this article be deleted and recreated.  It's current wording and layout is not conducive to the wiki-approach to content creation.Jtrnp (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then nominate it for deletion ----Snowded TALK 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Reboot 

message: Near the beginning of the article is a mention of "divergent or creative thinking". Aren't they the same thing, and is this phrasing then redundant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.148.206 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I found no support in the remainer of the article nor in any of the linked articles that those three are complementary. Removed until someone provides any reasoning for the opposite. --DenisYurkin (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  divergent/creative 

message: The article itself has a reasonable section about definition issues, but they plague the article as a whole. With such divergent definitions, it is meaningless to say . Furthermore, most of the definitions don't seem to include programmers and physicians, which are offered as examples in the lede. Daask (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition discrepancies 

message: reverted some spam (or so says the edit summary) in Special:Diff/1211247536, and reverting spam is always great (I do it often), but then  deleted the reverted revision, which I've never before seen done for spam. The WP:DEL-CONTENT policy says: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." What was the nature of the content in that revision that couldn't be addressed simply by reversion? I'd like to know because now that the revision is deleted, I can't check it myself, and also because I'd like to know which of my own spam reversions should be deleted in the future. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They come to spam to get clicks on their sites. This denies it. We should not click on a spammer's link because we do not know it it has malicious code. -- Alexf(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  There  be malicious code on non-spam websites too! That a website  be malicious is no justification for revision deletion! Reversion is sufficient to stop readers from clicking on spam links, and WP:REVDEL#3 explicitly says that mere insertion of spam links is not a valid reason for revision deletion. Is there some other reason why you deleted that revision? Biogeographist (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the revision deletion just for spam?