Talk:Cooperation

message: Questionnaire to find out the needs for co-operation and collaboration in research. No spam - this is a non profit EU project.
--Gerfriedc 21:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Why is cooperation spelled "co-operation" here? RJII 04:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely in favour of 'cooperation' myself. I have no idea why the hyphenated version is being used. Mark Elliott 13:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. The hyphenated form wasn't even listed as a variant in several mainstream dictionaries. Thus, I moved the page to "cooperation". Interestingly, at the time of the move, there were already more internal links to the non-hyphenated version than to the hyphenated version (by about a 10 to 7 ratio). CMYK 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not-hyphenated and hyphenated forms 'Cooperation' and 'Co-operation' 

message: Before I leap in and add anything, would you consider adding a coda to the page? The terms competition and cooperation are studied separately in the West, but from an Eastern perspective they are considered as necessarily interdependent processes, if they are considered at all. There the perspective on interaction is one of synergy. Since wikipedia is for all peoples this might help to link the gulf in perspectives.
______________________
“Cooperation is the antithesis of competition, however, the need or desire to compete with others is a very common impetus that motivates individuals to organize into a group and cooperate with each other in order to form a stronger competitive force.”  
The first clause is refuted by the rest of the sentence which makes it clear that cooperation and competition are NOT antitheses.  And it refutes the first paragraph of the entry which says that “cooperation refers to… working in common… instead of… competition.”  Since both can be together the word “instead” is wrong.  
Do game theory researchers also have the idea they are mutually exclusive?  The animal kingdom is rife with cases of symbiosis, which is cooperation for the purpose of competition.  For humans the ultimate example is warfare where cooperation occurs on a massive scale for the purpose of the ultimate, life or death (presumably Darwinian) competition.  
And something else occurs with the military: coercion.  Where does it fit in?  
It seems to me that there are three, not two, modes of interaction: competition, cooperation, and coercion.  It seems to me that all three are pervasive, operating at the macro level (lions, daffodils), the micro level (germs, blood cells), and at the molecular level within living cells (viruses, hormones).  It seems to me that there are no other modes of interaction.  
Further, it seems to me that of the three competition is paramount, that the other two serve and moderate competition, that competition may occur without the other two but the other two cannot occur without competition being present.  For example you coerce (say, point a pistol) in order to extract something (money, sex) that will give you competitive advantage.  For example you cooperate (say, in a fishermen’s coop) in order to better compete (in the fishing industry).  
I am wondering: Has anyone else made these connections?  
- Pepper 150.203.2.85 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Cooperation vs Competition''' 

message: So is coördination correct? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the 3000-odd usages here or Wikipedia's own article on the diaeresis which describes this usage and even gives the specific example of coöperation, also citing the New Yorker, which still uses spellings like this? It may be an uncommon spelling nowadays, but that's no reason for an encyclopedia to ignore it entirely. JudahH (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: umlaut

message: This article is arguably about a key concept in understanding humans and our societies, and is currently linked to by 345 other wikipedia pages (as of 2012-02). As such, in its current state, it is a rather superficial treatment of the concept of, and understandings around, cooperation (which is all the more unfortunate, since Wikipedia itself, lest we forget, is a cooperatively/collaboratively created project).
Some immediate issues:
- it is noted at the top of the article that This article is about cooperation as used in the social sciences... and this contrasted with the treatment of cooperation in the biological / evolutionary sciences. The two approaches are certainly different in important respects, and this distinction should likely be maintained. However, this distinction is in fact neither observed by the article in its current form (the first two examples in the article are about cooperation in biological systems - cells and ecosystems; and the final section is about Cooperation in animals), nor is the distinction properly argued for vis-a-vis the scope and limits of biological perspectives as pertinent to social science treatments of cooperation (i.e. human cooperation in its various manifestations). So the value and significance of this contrast might be clarified here, links can be given to biological treatments (with relatively short summaries only here, to the extent that they aid the reader in understanding human cooperation), whilst this article devotes most space to human/social science perspectives.
- there is no logical structure to the current layout of the article. The article could be structured via e.g. a cumulative historical treatment of how perspectives on cooperation have developed over time; or e.g. via a survey of the foundational topics in analysing and understanding cooperative systems, and how these feed in to a coherent and inter-disciplinary perspective on human/social-sciences and synthetic treatments of cooperation/cooperative practices (e.g. in political theory/economics/psychology/anthropology/sociology...etc.) Or the article might allow its logical/narrative structure be influenced by elements of both an historical / foundational approach.
- various disconnected and/or dissonant strands and elements have seeped into the article: For example, the last line of the introduction states cooperation can also be accomplished by computers, which can handle shared resources simultaneously, while sharing processor time. Whilst this may be factually correct, what is such a sentance doing here in the introduction? If this is such an important insight into the nature of cooperation, why is it not elaborated (in an appropriately bounded subsection) later in the article? This is intended as a rhetorical question - it is just an example of the sorry state of the article as it currently stands.
I intend to re-arrange the article over the coming days, and add content/stubs of sub-sections to give it some clear structure. Please cooperate in this endeavour! DMSchneider (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Significant Improvements! 

message: *Why We Help: The Evolution of Cooperation.  Far from being a nagging exception to the rule of evolution, cooperation has been one of its primary architects by Martin A. Nowak Scientific American  June 19, 2012  108.73.114.104 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add here after ''Preview'' time ends in a month? 

message: Please have a look and see if there is anything salvageable for use in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[General theory of collaboration]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cooperation. 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/20110929173649/http://129.3.20.41/eps/mic/papers/0305/0305006.pdf to http://129.3.20.41/eps/mic/papers/0305/0305006.pdf
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) 22:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cooperation. 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/20060104034800/http://www.newconversations.net/communication_skills_workbook_summary_and_toc.htm to http://www.newconversations.net/communication_skills_workbook_summary_and_toc.htm
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) 23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is cooperation 2400:1A00:BB20:7C1:601E:2DAE:145F:C406 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepali social