Talk:Cooperation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Additional information:
 
Taskforce icon
Ethics

Questionnaire to find out the needs for co-operation and collaboration in research. No spam - this is a non profit EU project. --Gerfriedc 21:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not-hyphenated and hyphenated forms 'Cooperation' and 'Co-operation'[edit]

Why is cooperation spelled "co-operation" here? RJII 04:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favour of 'cooperation' myself. I have no idea why the hyphenated version is being used. Mark Elliott 13:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Me neither. The hyphenated form wasn't even listed as a variant in several mainstream dictionaries. Thus, I moved the page to "cooperation". Interestingly, at the time of the move, there were already more internal links to the non-hyphenated version than to the hyphenated version (by about a 10 to 7 ratio). CMYK 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If your mom is cooperating with you then she is folllwoing the railroad train back to new york city.

Firstly, I have altered the title of this discussion thread.

Secondly, I have added the following text at the Wikitionary entry for 'cooperatiuon':

" form is, now, the unhyphenated form - due, they say, to usage statistics.)

So the problems are two-fold (with one technical point).

The technical point is that the Internet domain name for co-operatives is the unhyphenated form .coop - this form was 'forced' on co-operators when this domain name was created, about ten years' ago. The cited reason for the use of .coop rather than .co-op was that the domain name character set did not include the hyphen (or I guess? any other punctuation marks) - there was discussion, for example at co-opnet, of this at the time. This seems to have initiated, for example, use of the (even more bizarre) use the unhyphenated form 'coop' rather than the phonetically distinct form 'co-op'.

The substantive issues are that:

a) The co-operative movement has always used the hyphen - the global federal is, for example, the (hyphenated) 'International Co-operative Alliance' (ICA - see www.ica.coop ), and - with the exception of US usage and some UK publication style guides from not-co-operatives - co-operators, co-operatives and co-operative organizations all use(d) the hyphenated form.

b) The not-hyphenated form has significantly different meaning (imposed or developed) than the hyphenated form - as the wordnet.princeton.edu definition shows. That imposed/developed meaning has none of the voluntary equality contained in (say) the ICA Statement on the Co-operative Identity, but is, rather, a coercive usage - more akin to 'compliance'.

These matters also have lexical implications - not least that internet searching delivers separate information sets, depending on whether the searcher specifies the not- or hyphenated-forms.

Could Wikipedians or Wikitionary contributors consider these conundrums?"

I continue discussion of the usage point at the talk section, here, titled /* Cooperation vs Co-operation */

Cooperation vs Competition[edit]

Before I leap in and add anything, would you consider adding a coda to the page? The terms competition and cooperation are studied separately in the West, but from an Eastern perspective they are considered as necessarily interdependent processes, if they are considered at all. There the perspective on interaction is one of synergy. Since wikipedia is for all peoples this might help to link the gulf in perspectives.

______________________

“Cooperation is the antithesis of competition, however, the need or desire to compete with others is a very common impetus that motivates individuals to organize into a group and cooperate with each other in order to form a stronger competitive force.”

The first clause is refuted by the rest of the sentence which makes it clear that cooperation and competition are NOT antitheses. And it refutes the first paragraph of the entry which says that “cooperation refers to… working in common… instead of… competition.” Since both can be together the word “instead” is wrong.

Do game theory researchers also have the idea they are mutually exclusive? The animal kingdom is rife with cases of symbiosis, which is cooperation for the purpose of competition. For humans the ultimate example is warfare where cooperation occurs on a massive scale for the purpose of the ultimate, life or death (presumably Darwinian) competition.

And something else occurs with the military: coercion. Where does it fit in?

It seems to me that there are three, not two, modes of interaction: competition, cooperation, and coercion. It seems to me that all three are pervasive, operating at the macro level (lions, daffodils), the micro level (germs, blood cells), and at the molecular level within living cells (viruses, hormones). It seems to me that there are no other modes of interaction.

Further, it seems to me that of the three competition is paramount, that the other two serve and moderate competition, that competition may occur without the other two but the other two cannot occur without competition being present. For example you coerce (say, point a pistol) in order to extract something (money, sex) that will give you competitive advantage. For example you cooperate (say, in a fishermen’s coop) in order to better compete (in the fishing industry).

I am wondering: Has anyone else made these connections?

- Pepper 150.203.2.85 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm in favor of "coöperation".Italic text

umlaut[edit]

So is coördination correct? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I am also all in favor of expunging the spelling coöperation. I have NEVER come across this spelling in English apart some recondite articles about the usage of diacritics in English. Please give links to the usage of the spelling coöperation or ,otherwise, it's better that the coöperation variant should be deleted from here.

How about the 3000-odd usages here or Wikipedia's own article on the diaeresis which describes this usage and even gives the specific example of coöperation, also citing the New Yorker, which still uses spellings like this? It may be an uncommon spelling nowadays, but that's no reason for an encyclopedia to ignore it entirely. JudahH (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs Significant Improvements![edit]

This article is arguably about a key concept in understanding humans and our societies, and is currently linked to by 345 other wikipedia pages (as of 2012-02). As such, in its current state, it is a rather superficial treatment of the concept of, and understandings around, cooperation (which is all the more unfortunate, since Wikipedia itself, lest we forget, is a cooperatively/collaboratively created project).

Some immediate issues:

- it is noted at the top of the article that This article is about cooperation as used in the social sciences... and this contrasted with the treatment of cooperation in the biological / evolutionary sciences. The two approaches are certainly different in important respects, and this distinction should likely be maintained. However, this distinction is in fact neither observed by the article in its current form (the first two examples in the article are about cooperation in biological systems - cells and ecosystems; and the final section is about Cooperation in animals), nor is the distinction properly argued for vis-a-vis the scope and limits of biological perspectives as pertinent to social science treatments of cooperation (i.e. human cooperation in its various manifestations). So the value and significance of this contrast might be clarified here, links can be given to biological treatments (with relatively short summaries only here, to the extent that they aid the reader in understanding human cooperation), whilst this article devotes most space to human/social science perspectives.

- there is no logical structure to the current layout of the article. The article could be structured via e.g. a cumulative historical treatment of how perspectives on cooperation have developed over time; or e.g. via a survey of the foundational topics in analysing and understanding cooperative systems, and how these feed in to a coherent and inter-disciplinary perspective on human/social-sciences and synthetic treatments of cooperation/cooperative practices (e.g. in political theory/economics/psychology/anthropology/sociology...etc.) Or the article might allow its logical/narrative structure be influenced by elements of both an historical / foundational approach.

- various disconnected and/or dissonant strands and elements have seeped into the article: For example, the last line of the introduction states cooperation can also be accomplished by computers, which can handle shared resources simultaneously, while sharing processor time. Whilst this may be factually correct, what is such a sentance doing here in the introduction? If this is such an important insight into the nature of cooperation, why is it not elaborated (in an appropriately bounded subsection) later in the article? This is intended as a rhetorical question - it is just an example of the sorry state of the article as it currently stands.

I intend to re-arrange the article over the coming days, and add content/stubs of sub-sections to give it some clear structure. Please cooperate in this endeavour! DMSchneider (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Add here after Preview time ends in a month?[edit]

General theory of collaboration[edit]

Please have a look and see if there is anything salvageable for use in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooperation. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooperation. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)