User talk:JeffPHowe

Welcome!

Hello, JeffPHowe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Hi, I've read your piece on the crowdsourcing talk page; I'll respond in more detail sometime in the weekend, but I'd just like to quickly say thank you for dropping in and taking the time to comment. The tags on the article are "normal"; they indicate the article needs work, and can typically be found on any article which hasn't yet stablised into a well rounded encyclopaedic article. The best way to help out while also keeping your hands clean is to collate a group of links to pertinent articles and drop them on the talk page as suggested reading for other editors to use to improve the article. Generally, good sources on a wikipedia article lead towards a good article and the tags will drop off when people are comfortable that its not a load of cods wallop. John Vandenberg 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John! Thank you so much for this. I have not been an active editor before (only the very occasional fix) and this is really helpful advice. I'm a little crazed right now, but I'm putting together a list of published resources that I can use. I'm beginning to understand the Talk page and it looks like I'm going about it the right way--propose changes to other editors, build consensus around changes, then let other editors institute. The logic of this has already occurred to me. I had overlooked (duh!) that the section discussing Collective Customer Committment and Mass Customization was under a section heading "Advantages." That indeed falls afoul of neutrality. Again, those ideas really are quite legitimate and the product of serious academic research, but it's equally true that someone (presumably one of the academics, but who knows) is trying to burnish the brand of these terms. I've been in the Web 2.0 buzzword fray for almost a year now, and have noticed that people play hardball, which is all the more reason that I've tried to stay neutral. I figured, if the term "crowdsourcing" took off without me, that was evidence that both the trend and the term were viable phenomena. But I didn't want to be seen as putting a thumb on the scale. At any rate, thanks for the help John and I look forward to hearing from you this weekend.JeffPHowe 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdscourcing reference[edit]

Hey Jeff,

Thanks for your work on the article. Can you also add the link to your latest reference? Thanks! Pdelongchamp 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]