Talk:Failure

Problems with the article January 2017

The "article" as it is seems to be a jumble of unrelated ideas. I identify the following problems:

• Loser as derogatory term does not belong within the section it's currently at. Maybe as part of its own section something like "Successful people"/"Winning at life analogy".
• The Thomas J Watson quote is linked to goodreads.com, not a RS.
• There's a source in further reading Sandage, Scott A. "Born Losers: A History of Failure in America." that could be useful in expanding the article.
• The Edge.org reference refers to an article that has a title with an author, it could be properly sourced.
• I would call for addition to "dumpster fire" to the Internet Meme section.
• The science section should explain minimally the scientific method and what failure means in that context. I'm not pretty sure that not confirming a hypothesis is not considered a failure. But problems with the instruments, with the recording of measurements, with methodology in general, can mean that an experiment is a failure. A result that does not serve to tell whether a hypothesis is true or not might also be considered a failure, maybe of improper design.

--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

Change

In science

"If you want to succeed, double your failure rate."

Thomas J. Watson

Wired magazine editor Kevin Kelly explains that a great deal can be learned from things going wrong unexpectedly, and that part of science's success comes from keeping blunders "small, manageable, constant, and trackable". He uses the example of engineers and programmers who push systems to their limits, breaking them to learn about them. Kelly also warns against creating a culture (e.g. school system) that punishes failure harshly, because this inhibits a creative process, and risks teaching people not to communicate important failures with others (e.g. Null results).

to

In science

"If you want to succeed, double your failure rate."

Thomas J. Watson

MIT neuroscience professor Earl K. Miller discovered that the reason why we keep repeating mistakes is because brain cells may only learn from experience when we do something right and not when we fail.

Wired magazine editor Kevin Kelly explains that a great deal can be learned from things going wrong unexpectedly, and that part of science's success comes from keeping blunders "small, manageable, constant, and trackable". He uses the example of engineers and programmers who push systems to their limits, breaking them to learn about them. Kelly also warns against creating a culture (e.g. school system) that punishes failure harshly, because this inhibits a creative process, and risks teaching people not to communicate important failures with others (e.g. Null results). Julienre (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

Failure is FiServ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.137.66 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"List of product failures" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of product failures. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#List of product failures until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)