Talk:Worldchanging

Could use an illustration of the book's cover

Anyone have one?

Does their book need its own page?

I think this whole article needs restructuring. Clearly it's an important site and deserves real discussion and explanation, but perhaps we need more information, more clearly broken down in sections? And maybe their book ought to be its own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.184.13 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim of word coinage

I have removed the following paragraph:

Finally, "Worldchanging" as a word is now also used as an adjective to describe efforts or plans which combine innovation, collaboration and sustainability, or even as a descriptor of cutting-edge alternative products, groups or people.

The implicit statement here is that the website and/or the book have become so well-known, admired and influential that their name has entered the English language as an idiom. But of course the words "world" and "changing" already existed before the creation of worldchanging.com, and have also been used in connection before.

The statement had been unsourced all the time. Now 71.35.107.237 has tried to provide a reference for it, but the cited source actually indicates sort of the opposite - from http://www.saatchi.com/worldchanging (the page linked there under "To find out more, visit ...") one learns that this "The Saatchi & Saatchi Award For World Changing Ideas" has been given out since 1998 (and a Google News archive search confirms that they had already been using the term "world-changing" for it back then).

This proves without a doubt that the term has been used for describing innovative ideas, products or people before, and if someone seriously doubts that this is just because it's an obvious descriptive choice in the English language, they would be led to the conclusion that Alex Steffen and Jamais Cascio were copying the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency when they picked the name of their web site five years later.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is quite clear: that the term is now widely used to mean the same thing as the web site's usage. This is obviously true, as even a brief Google search will show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.107.237 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To any reader who knows the meaning of the words "world" and "change", the meaning is obvious. Thus there is no need to explain "the web site's usage". Instead, as already said, the statement gives the wrong impression that the usage of this expression is due to worldchanging.com. Dumping Google hits for the expression as "references" into the article doesn't address this issue. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, the meaning of worldchanging in the contemporary usage is not self-evident, as it does not include any attempt to change the world in any direction, but innovation applied to social and sustainability problems, as for instance the Saatchi award shows. Making blanket statements of what you think is obvious is not a form of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.110.124 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the claim that you keep adding to the article ("Worldchanging" as a word is now also used as an adjective...) implies that worldchanging.com coined this usage, and the given reference actually disproves it. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral enough?

I'm actually a big fan of Worldchanging, but I find it a little problematic that there isn't much in the way of criticism in this entry. As it stands, it kind of reads like gushing praise disguised with the restrained tone of an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourchair (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Intending to fix this in coverage of the book reception. Also may add reference to the (polite) altercation between Steffen and Rob Hopkins of the Transition Movement. Arfisk (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversial(?) external link

• Why We Need Government-Run, Universal, Socialized, (whatever you want to call it) Health Insurance (4 stars on YouTube with over 250,000 views) from Andy Lubershane at Worldchanging

OK, what's controversial about showing a well-reviewed, highly popular example of their work, also highly consistent with the .org's POV? -MBHiii (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a) not well-reviewed and b) not popular. How many views does that have compared to, say, Britney Spears being stoned? I've seen plenty of material against health care reform on YouTube and other unreliable places for information. It won't fly because it's not reliable in any sense. It's not notable either. The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

a) 4 out of 5 stars with b) over 250,000 views. If a 4*,250K video by Worldchanging of Britney Spears stoned had anything to do with the purposes of this organization, a link to it'd be appropriate, too. (But, of course, you know that, so stop teabagging i.e. wasting people's time with irrelevant objections.) -MBHiii (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete your previous comment insulting me. Do it right now. Do it or I will report you. The Squicks (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've explained the precise meaning of "teabagging" I intend. Your objections a)&b) are irrelevant, because the reasons I cite appear already above your objections. "Britney Spears stoned" needs nothing more. -MBHiii (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never had another man place his testicles into my face. I don't know why you are obsessed with that activity and I don't care. I demand that you delete your allegation. The Squicks (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care that you (Mbhiii_ were referring to the "political" definition of teabagging; that comment was wholly uncalled for, out of place and most certainly not constructive in the least. Do not do it again. Shereth 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my intention, as it is of others who use the term politically, to point out that people who mail teabags to politicians ("teabagging" they call it), and symbolically throw teabags at TV cameras, are muddying public debate with irrelevancies. -MBHiii (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Mbhiii, and I do not give a damn what yours are. The results are unhelpful. Just stop doing it. Shereth 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

...so is the road to heaven, Shereth. If a result of all this is more clarity, please consider that. -MBHiii (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that has indeed become more clear with your responses is that you are becoming more and more difficult to cooperate with. Are you even listening to what anyone is telling you? Shereth 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be responding if I weren't. WP is a wonder of democracy, but, like other democratic institutions, it can create a blizzard of rules and regs. One advance it shows over US jurisprudence, say, IMHO, is not rigidly enforcing "Ignorance of (or for that matter 'not fully understanding') the law is no excuse," since doing so would interfere with the ultimate goal of making as much reference information readily available, in the least time possible. -MBHiii (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Worldchanging is about "possible solutions to what the editorial team sees as the planet's most pressing problems", but the youtube link is only about the US healthcare problems? How is that relevant (it shows the white house, the American flag, and on the side, the author talks about supporting some upcoming healthcare reform bill)? Just because youtube has 250,000 views means very little, please see WP:BIG or WP:POPULARPAGE. I get how it's relevant to the US, I just don't see how American healthcare is a "planetary" issue. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt the folks at Wordchanging see health care as a pressing issue. The fact that much of what they post is related to the US and Canada may be from living here or that they see the political battle here as being world-changing. I expect both. -MBHiii (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Worldchanging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610045054/http://www.hnabooks.com:80/category/show/169 to http://www.hnabooks.com/category/show/169
• Removed this link as web archive doesn't like it (causes an internal server error). That means the statement was unsupported so I removed that as well. Feel free to re-add if a valid link is found, although I think it a fairly minor point.Arfisk (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Worldchanging/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'd say this article deserves a "B" at most. It's well-written and useful, but also largely also lacks a critical perspective. What is the importance of WorldChanging? Why?

Last edited at 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Details of closure?

So whatever happened to it?

Also, the refs are mostly primary. Notability needs to be more clearly established - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI the organisation dissolved in December 2010. (Grist article ref: http://grist.org/article/2010-11-30-worldchangings-bright-green-contribution/.) Site archive was passed over to Architects for Humanity, which has also shut down. Current status of website is unavailable. Refs do need improving. I will go over them in the next few days, as time permits. Arfisk (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on Impact

The section currently titled Reception Audience, and Impact needs breaking up. The current content would better be titled Reception.

Once the appropriate references are obtained, Impact is an important aspect to cover as WC was among the first forums to present the concept of Bright Green Environmentalism. Prior to this, much of the Environmental movement was transfixed by Malthusian doom and gloom, and was a reaction to exploitation. Will be drafting a paragraph here shortly.

OK About time to tackle the draft for 'Impact':

Impact

Placed in article

refs

• http://bigthink.com/the-evolution-of-enlightenment/a-brighter-shade-of-green
• https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/farewell-to-a-great-web-effort-at-worldchanging/?_r=0
• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=l7e9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375#v=onepage&q&f=false

Book Reception

A more detailed discussion of how the book was critically received would be useful. Will work on a draft section here. Arfisk (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Review references (good and bad, and in addition to the ones already in the article): Arfisk (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225836-000-review-worldchanging-a-users-guide-for-the-21st-century-edited-by-alex-steffen/
• http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/11/16/how-close-to-catastrophe/
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-11-06/no-trees-were-harmed
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-11-04/a-book-for-going-green-a-users-guide-to-the-21st-century-dot (Nussbaum's original ref seems to have gone the way of all old links)
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-10-26/can-design-change-the-world-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfisk (talk • contribs) 07:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• http://www.treehugger.com/culture/worldchanging-book-review.html
• http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8109-3095-7
• http://catalystreview.net/2009/11/worldchanging-a-user%E2%80%99s-guide-for-the-21st-century/
• http://www.core77.com/hack2work/2009/09/19_books_every_design_professi_1.asp

Reception

• Now included in article. Arfisk (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Revised Edition

• Should add reception notes for this (was not nearly as widely received, probably because WC had shuttered prior to release?). Arfisk (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Some reviews:
  • http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/03/the-stuff-of-life-alex-steffens-worldchanging-revised-and-updated/72079/

Content

• Worthwhile adding mention of formative influences (Whole Earth Catalog. Viridian Design) here? Arfisk (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception, audience and impact

• The content might assist notability claims but, to the reader, there is now too much emphasis on the reception (awards etc.) Why were they given? What was the impact of this site? Arfisk (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• The title tries to cover too much ground. Possibly break into sub-sections?Arfisk (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what was meant by audience. What is needed is a greater discussion of impact. To understand that, remember the socio-political landscape in 2003. A sense of doom and gloom in the environmental movement. A presidency actively hostile to environmental issues. A growing sense, gained from rapidly evolving IPCC reports, that climate change wasn't a problem for future generations. Drop into this a newsgroup aggressively showing that a new world is not only possible, but that we already have the means to achieve it. Quite a splash (when the references are lined up, of course).Arfisk (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• 'Bright green journalism' was a tag coined by Steffen. What were the reactions of environmental groups who did not identify with this label? (The Steffen/Hopkins 'debate' is an interesting example of two passionate groups having a polite disagreement over the status of the Transition movement.) NB: there is another page devoted to bright and dark green environmental philosophy. That may be a better place for detailed discussion.Arfisk (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Of further interest is the ongoing legacy (if any) of a website that was shuttered at the end of 2010.Arfisk (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)