Job sharing Options

[thekohser]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to (currently zero)
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 4:36pm

[Apathetic]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to (currently zero)
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

Just FYI your snide initial edit summary "Creating awesome article that has been deleted 4 times before, even by "Wizardman". Six pages link here, including Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics" looks quite foolish considering the past incarnations of the page. (The most recent non-redirect version of which consisted entirely of the word "poop" and the first two being completely unrelated to the subject and an apparent self-promotional howto essay)

[thekohser]

Just FYI your snide initial edit summary "Creating awesome article that has been deleted 4 times before, even by "Wizardman". Six pages link here, including Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics" looks quite foolish considering the past incarnations of the page. (The most recent non-redirect version of which consisted entirely of the word "poop" and the first two being completely unrelated to the subject and an apparent self-promotional howto essay)

Your "snide" is my "fun". If that's your WP:ABF policy, then you might as well get an RFC underway on my re-banning.

Really, "quite foolish"? That's your key take-away from looking at this article?

[Apathetic]

Just the edit summary. It seems to hold the belief that the "awesome article" was deleted four times, when the "awesome article" didn't exist until you penned it. It was complete tripe (or, as I said, vandalism) before.

First incarnation:

[don't want to recreate possibly copyvio here but it is a cut and paste of the same thing found at http://biowww.net/forum/read/16/2240/2240, with the heading "'''Recruitment Agency, Significance & its Role'''" instead of "Hi Guys" and with the below line at the bottom of the article]

Nawaz is an author for this article. Article Source: http://www.e-cvs.net/cv_articles.html

Second incarnation:

'''Career Job Opportunity, how to get it?'''

[again, potential copyvio redacted but can be seen at http://career-advice.bloghi.com/ and many other web pages. doesn't make any reference to job sharing]

Regards
Nawaz is an author for this article. Article Source: http://www.e-cvs.net/cv_articles.html

(FYI source of the above allows re-posting with a return link, but probably didn't allow release under the GFDL, another good reason for its deletion)

Third incarnation:

poop

Fourth incarnation:

#REDIRECT [[Employment]]

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Tue 30th June 2009, 6:18pm

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

As a disadvantage you missed the part about failing to earn a living wage, and in some cases not being allowed to take a second job on the basis that it might somehow create a conflict of interest (as every other company doing business within the same xx-mile radius, whether we've heard of them or not, is a competitor in vast field of "trying to making money somehow" are they not?).

Sometimes I think it's a conspiracy to keep their workforce barefoot and pregnant—in the looser sense where one is legally employed (thus not part of any embarrassing economic statistic), but not making enough money to buy a pair of house-slippers (nobody wants to spill food on their work-shoes) much less sustain an independent, single lifestyle. I don't think it's always sexism either... I'm sure some guys get stuck in situations like too, just depends on who the company chooses to hire that week. Most are equal-opportunity inflictors of economic co-dependence and unassistable hey-you-got-a-job-so-quit-yer-bitchin' poverty but I digress.

Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the traditional Alice and Bob—"Jimmy and Sue" do strike me as obvious innuendo.

[Kato]

Like it G.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic may be due for a name change …

Maybe Appassionada …

Ja Ja

[Apathetic]

Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic may be due for a name change …

Maybe Appassionada …

Ja Ja

I just figured Thekohser might return to editing and leave his axe at home.

I still don't care whether or not he does =)

[cyofee]

Everyking got desysopped for suggesting he'd do what Apathetic just did, right?

[anthony]

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

Underemployment? The first time I heard about it was in the late 90s, where a married couple on my development team would switch off and work every other day.

As a disadvantage you missed the part about failing to earn a living wage, and in some cases not being allowed to take a second job on the basis that it might somehow create a conflict of interest (as every other company doing business within the same xx-mile radius, whether we've heard of them or not, is a competitor in vast field of "trying to making money somehow" are they not?).

Whether or not that's a "disadvantage" depends on your personal situation, of course, as does whether or not it's a "living wage" (I don't know about you, but most full-time jobs I have held have paid more than twice a living wage).

Like I alluded to above, it's a great deal for a some families with small children. It offers a great choice besides having one parent put their career on hold or leaving infants in the care of strangers.

Sometimes I think it's a conspiracy to keep their workforce barefoot and pregnant—in the looser sense where one is legally employed (thus not part of any embarrassing economic statistic), but not making enough money to buy a pair of house-slippers (nobody wants to spill food on their work-shoes) much less sustain an independent, single lifestyle.

That's just crazy talk. My family of four has lived off of a single full-time salary for years now (instead of both holding part-time jobs my wife and I have taken turns holding full-time jobs). None of us are forced to wear house-slippers, though as I recently admitted on Akahele I do drive an 11 year old Honda Civic.

If we had an opportunity to both work half-time, it'd be great. Unfortunately, no such opportunities have presented themselves. So I'm stuck watching Dora the Explorer for the next 6 months while my career skills atrophy, as I also admitted on Akahele. (Actually, I'm still self-employed for about 10 hours a week, so in effect we've created our own "job sharing" program where the overly regulated employment market has failed, keeping the atrophy to a minimum. Unfortunately, my wife is in an industry where self-employment is not a realistic option.)

P.S. the poverty level for a family of 2 is $14,570. I would guess that the vast majority of "job sharing" arrangements pay at least this much for half-time work. Probably significantly more, since the whole point of job sharing is that you can get part-time work in an otherwise "normal" skilled-labor job - part-time work in a non-skilled-labor job didn't need inventing. If my wife and I wanted to each get a 20 hour/week job at McDonalds we'd have no problem. But that wouldn't be "job sharing", and it'd pay a lot less than one of us working full-time and the other one not working at all.

This post has been edited by anthony: Tue 30th June 2009, 6:27pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic may be due for a name change …

Maybe Appassionada …

Ja Ja

Appalling?
Appendicitis?
Ape?
Aplagueonbothyourhouses?
Auggie Doggie? (Neh, I used to like Auggie Doggie when I was a li'l foal)
Anaconda? (Based on the way he slithers around Wikipedia)
Akira Kurosawa? (Neh, not based on his filmmaking skills)
Anal aperture?

Someone take over, I am running out of ideas (not that I had many to start with).

[Apathetic]

Everyking got desysopped for suggesting he'd do what Apathetic just did, right?

No, that was for some libelous or otherwise inappropriate content. I've only done here the same thing that I would've done had you asked me on my talk page per [[Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles]] (you'll note I omitted the copyvio.)

Thank you for your concern, though.

[thekohser]

Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the traditional Alice and Bob—"Jimmy and Sue" do strike me as obvious innuendo.

I thought that Wikipedians might enjoy finding the little virtual Easter eggs I may occasionally place within a layer of my free culture work.

It seems to hold the belief that the "awesome article" was deleted four times, when the "awesome article" didn't exist until you penned it. It was complete tripe (or, as I said, vandalism) before.

Thank you for agreeing that my article is "awesome" in comparison to the "complete tripe" that preexisted it.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 6:41pm

[sbrown]

Thank you for agreeing that my article is "awesome" in comparison to the "complete tripe" that preexisted it.

Thats just shooting ducks in a barrel. Anyone of Gregs experience and literacy ought to be able to do awesomely better than 50% of the rubbish on wikipeida easily enough. Actually thats too soft a target - 90%.

[thekohser]

I'm awesome!

[thekohser]

Traffic on the article increased 16x once it was created.

[EricBarbour]

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

Well.....the IRS and state agencies have another name for it: tax avoidance by deadbeat employers.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 1st July 2009, 1:16am

[anthony]

Traffic on the article increased 16x once it was created.

Once it moves up in the Google ranking it should do well: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22job+sharing%22%2CMzoli%27s

They sure suckered you into doing way more than you needed to. Didn't you know you could get away with your only new articles being this and this and this?

[thekohser]

I thought now that about 2.5 years have gone by, we should check in and see how much the "crowdsourcing" and "Wikipedia is always improving" processes have been adding to the article I created.

Hmmm... not very much new and helpful has been added to my article, has it?

[Peter Damian]

I thought now that about 2.5 years have gone by, we should check in and see how much the "crowdsourcing" and "Wikipedia is always improving" processes have been adding to the article I created.

Hmmm... not very much new and helpful has been added to my article, has it?

How so? See what Larry said in 2001.

Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121