Talk:Cooperative/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooperative. 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/20110706234019/http://www.hohenraetien.ch/HR-Web-2008/web-content/HR-08-Materialien/Viamala_Brief_vollstText.pdf to http://www.hohenraetien.ch/HR-Web-2008/web-content/HR-08-Materialien/Viamala_Brief_vollstText.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Am in process of making few adjustments

Within next few hours I will be able to finish them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Sammallahti (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Accounting

What are the definition, features, advantage and disadvantage of cooperative loan today Ruthy111 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cooperatives for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cooperatives is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cooperatives until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC about scope of article

In the article Cooperative, should the term "cooperative" be taken in a technical & historical sense or a general & natural sense? IohannesChicaginiensis (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing this RFC as part of my push to reactivate the Cooperatives Wikiproject. As part of that, I think that it would help the project along to have a clear discussion and determination of the scope of the article Cooperative (and by extension, the category and the Wikiproject). The problem as I see it is that, at present, the article Cooperative has been built up by editors with what appear to me to be two different senses of the word "cooperative". These are (my terms, not anyone else's):

1. The general & natural sense. In this sense, a cooperative is any type of enterprise, regardless of its historical setting, that demonstrates cooperation between its members, in the most everyday sense of "cooperation".
2. The technical & historical sense. In this sense, the word "cooperative" specifically refers to enterprises developing from the movement started by Owen, Fourier, Raiffeisen, Rochdale, etc.

In my view, the vast majority of the article Cooperative is written in the technical & historical sense and the vast majority of the articles included in Category:Cooperatives uses the term in its technical & historical sense. Furthermore, since I think (gut-feeling though, no evidence) most people searching for the term mean it in its technical sense, I entirely approve this approach.

However, there are occasional moments in this article where the term is used in its general & natural sense, like the first sentence in the Origins and history section: "Cooperation dates back as far as human beings have been organizing for mutual benefits." Also, in the talk archives for this article, you can sometimes see editors using the term in its general & natural sense. See in particular the comment in this thread by Nastyalamb, who criticizes a focus on "white guys in 19th century Europe ... respond[ing] to industrial capitalism" and urges a treatment of "the vast history of cooperation in precapitalist societies throughout the world."

I agree with the desire to see greater treatment of cooperatives in the world. That's why I wrote History of the cooperative movement in China. But when writing that, I was careful to distinguish the history of cooperatives (sense 2) from premodern Chinese traditions of cooperation (sense 1). The Chinese leaders of the cooperative movement were reading Owen and Raiffeisen, and they were drawing on native traditions of cooperation (sense 1), but the did not call those native traditions cooperatives, and neither did I.

That is what I think should be the standard for the Cooperative article, the category, and the Wikipedia project. It should be about cooperatives in sense 2, the technical & historical sense. No, Owen did not invent the idea of people helping each other out, but he did play a leading role in developing an alternative approach to legal organization of a productive enterprise as a response to industrial capitalism, and in doing so gave a new technical meaning to the word "cooperative", which is what the article is about. The pre-industrial history of cooperation (sense 1) is relevant to cooperatives (sense 2), but as a historical precursor, not as the main topic of the article.

I could be bold and make edits that clear things up in this way to Cooperative, History of the cooperative movement, etc. on my own, but I would prefer to seek consensus first, and then act. I hope nothing I've said proves too controversial and a consensus can soon be established. IohannesChicaginiensis (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope we focus on technical & historical, but if there is a need to depart from this it should be elaborated in the article to the extent that exception can be agreed upon in consensus with other WikiProject participants. -- Zblace (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@IohannesChicaginiensis, I was under the impression there was really only one usual definition for cooperative when used as a noun. Can you elaborate a bit more on which of the definitions (if not both) would deviate from that found in a dictionary, e.g. A type of company that is owned partially or wholly by its employees, customers or tenants, and how? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Generally speaking, the question is "What do the sources say?". If the best available sources are generally in agreement that a particular model should be considered a "cooperative", then I see no issue with doing the same in an article. On the other hand, if editors look at something and say "Well, that looks like one to me", but there's not actually reliably sourced confirmation of that, that seems to be treading into original research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I consider that the technical-historical meaning of the word is what should predominate, as it is. And the rest of the related meanings can be included in the text as comments and background of the term.AteneaZ3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As a general rule, I would echo Seraphimblade's point; first, start with sources. However, one point here, I would be wary of conflating cooperation with cooperative. Cooperative implies organisational entities, governance/rule structures (albeit from loosely defined, ad hoc to highly complex) etc. Without doubt there are historical phenomena that sources discuss in the context of cooperatives (eg guilds), but the starting point for me is less cooperation and more organisation (ie organisation for cooperation), so I'm somewhat less concerned about the distinction above as long as the focus is organisational (broadly defined). In solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with all that technical/historical should be the scope, and "cooperation in business or production" is not the scope. Sentences like "Cooperation dates back as far as human beings have been organizing for mutual benefits" should be omitted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, but one here is certainly that it is irrelevant to the much more recent phenomenon of cooperatives (where IohannesChicaginiensis is right to mention Owen, Fourier et al.). — Bilorv (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)