6 ms·

Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organizati

Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organization. For companies this usually means pushing product cannibalisation and accepting to forgo additional profit in exchange for better long term viability. I think Apple was good at this during most of Steve Jobs's second term. Didn't last long though. Perhaps too much success is the biggest issue ?

hducy4 3y ago
We have this at my work, need to totally gut the main product offering in order to maintain long term viability but nobody will do it because it's the cash cow even though it's slowly dying.
rewmie 3y ago
> Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organization. I'm not sure you noticed it, but the people complaining about "editors" being toxic are actually those who are confronted with these "very clear rules and goals" already specified by the community , and they are calling foul once they see their edits being edited based on these established and time-tested processes. And by the way, wikipedia supports conflict resolution processes which can culminate in articles being temporarily blocked to prevent endless revertions. You just need to flag the article and ask people their opinion. It's strange how this whole debate centers around abuse, offers all kinds of solutions to perceived problems, but not only fails to acknowledge these processes are already in place in Wikipedia for over a decade but also they don't even wonder what content was added by the editors complaining their edits were reverted. I mean, think about it for a second. Do you think wikipedia achieved a notable level of quality because all edits, regardless of their content, remain untouched in place as-is?

hducy4 3y ago

We have this at my work, need to totally gut the main product offering in order to maintain long term viability but nobody will do it because it's the cash cow even though it's slowly dying.

rewmie 3y ago

> Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organization. I'm not sure you noticed it, but the people complaining about "editors" being toxic are actually those who are confronted with these "very clear rules and goals" already specified by the community , and they are calling foul once they see their edits being edited based on these established and time-tested processes. And by the way, wikipedia supports conflict resolution processes which can culminate in articles being temporarily blocked to prevent endless revertions. You just need to flag the article and ask people their opinion. It's strange how this whole debate centers around abuse, offers all kinds of solutions to perceived problems, but not only fails to acknowledge these processes are already in place in Wikipedia for over a decade but also they don't even wonder what content was added by the editors complaining their edits were reverted. I mean, think about it for a second. Do you think wikipedia achieved a notable level of quality because all edits, regardless of their content, remain untouched in place as-is?