Talk:Wicked problem/Archives/2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Biogeographist in topic "Wicked" as other than "evil"
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wicked problem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Wicked" as other than "evil"
The use of "wicked" to denote something other than evil is well rooted in slang; it has been used as a synonym for "awesome" for decades.
Use of "wicked" in "wicked problem" is actually related to the "evil" sense. The problem is being personified as a tough adversary who is maliciously undermining the problem solver's efforts by moving the goalposts, like a wicked antagonist in a good-versus-evil battle. 206.108.192.2 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- No. In fact the paper that serves as the locus classicus of the term wicked problem, "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (Rittel & Weber 1973), says: "We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent." That is exactly the opposite of what was inaccurately speculated above:
The problem is being personified as a tough adversary who is maliciously undermining the problem solver's efforts
. Rittel & Weber proposed "a meaning akin to that of 'malignant' (in contrast to 'benign')", which, as they explicitly clarified, is different from "malicious". Like a malignant tumor, there is no malicious intent involved. Biogeographist (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Firstly, in spite of claiming that they "do not mean to personify ... implying malicious intent", they in fact chose a word which personifies by analogy with malicious intent. It's like saying, "I don't mean to berate or insult Bob in any way, but he's a complete ass". Secondly, those authors do not control the English language, and do not own the interpretation of every "wicked problem" utterance: what every speaker and writer means by it, and what the listener/reader understands by it. 206.108.192.2 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Outside of Wikipedia, anyone can interpret any word or phrase in any way they want, but on Wikipedia we follow the Verifiability policy and Reliable sources guideline. We don't publish original research, and Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, as the box at the top of this page notes. Biogeographist (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)