Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: thekohser

I'm going to http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Job_sharing on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJob_sharing&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= (currently zero)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

Posted by: Apathetic

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)

Posted by: thekohser

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?

Posted by: 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:

Second incarnation:


(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:


Fourth incarnation:

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

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.

Posted by: Kato

Like it G.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Maybe Appassionada …

Ja Ja

Posted by: Apathetic

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

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

Posted by: cyofee

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

Posted by: anthony

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.



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.



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.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

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).

Posted by: Apathetic

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.

Posted by: thekohser

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


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

Posted by: sbrown

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%.

Posted by: thekohser

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=3641857

Posted by: thekohser

http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Job_sharing on the article increased 16x once it was created.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well.....the IRS and state agencies have another name for it: http://www.calbizcentral.com/HRC/News/Articles/GeneralNews/Pages/FedsStateCrackDownonDeadbeatEmployers.aspx.

Posted by: anthony

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_V._Merkey&diff=prev&oldid=54775868 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aria_Giovanni&oldid=236838 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mzoli%27s&diff=prev&oldid=158511192?

Posted by: 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... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&action=historysubmit&diff=407986713&oldid=299622314 has been added to my article, has it?

Posted by: Peter Damian

How so? See what Larry said in 2001.

Posted by: thekohser

I have to imagine that Sanger would retract that statement, knowing now what he knows now.

Posted by: Milton Roe

If it was on a wiki, he'd have to re-edit it.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

Not really--it was true in 2001. Virtually all articles started in 2001 were better in 2002. If you read more of that essay, if I remember right, I believe you'll find that I was positing that Nupedia would work in tandem with Wikipedia as a necessary sort of review mechanism for Wikipedia.

Nupedia was still kicking when I left in early 2002. In November or December of 2001, the Nupedia editorial council had (finally) officially adopted a much simpler editorial structure. It would have made it a lot more feasible for articles to go from Wikipedia to a review process in Nupedia. I was also talking about (possibly writing requirements for--I can't remember) an automatic article submission tool, making it really easy to submit Wikipedia articles to Nupedia. But this never took off because no volunteer stepped up to write the software and Bomis had no money to pay Toan or anyone to code it. If the whole project had started a year earlier, and we had had another year of easy living while developing the Nupedia-Wikipedia tandem, it seems likely to me that Nupedia would still exist (in a much more streamlined form) and that Wikipedia would be very different.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yes, in fact it appears that it got better up until early 2007. Then the Essjay crap happened, and people stopped writing good articles about "serious" subjects. That was when Wikipedia became a Sports-o-pedia and a Cartoon-o-pedia.

And it's getting worse. You'll see.