Talk:Pareto principle
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pareto principle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Example
[edit]This really needs an example.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264717454_Even_birds_follow_Pareto%27s_80-20_rule
https://www.gibraltarfarm.com/amp/2017/07/22/fecal-egg-count-the-pareto-principle
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072611
https://aiam.org.au/resources/Documents/2012%20Workshop%20presentations/Paper%2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.223.208 (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Explanation
[edit]I don't know much about business, but I think the examples of misuse need brief explanations. It's not clear to me at all that the application to employees is either untestable or useless to the firm (if those are the reasons it's a misuse), and I also don't understand why the application to advertising is useless. —JerryFriedman 19:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- For the benefit of the many, let's elaborate on "A clear misuse of Juran's assumption (...)":
- In manufacturing, systems are designed so that everybody contributes a pre-defined amount of work, especially in synchronous settings such as assembly lines. Nobody could argue for applying the Pareto principle there.
- In agriculture and mining, individual contributions are sometimes measurable (e.g. baskets of apples picked per shift). A for-profit organization seeks out the better workers, so the bottom part of the distribution is not be represented at all. Family and community operations often find a way to gainfully employ persons with less strength (e.g. 11-year-old girls) or with disabilities (e.g. blind people), but their number is not large enough to warrant a Pareto distribution.
- Which brings us to the only economic system many readers have experience of: The services sector.
- There is a place for "stars" in fields like moviemaking and advertising. In these fields, moneymaking ability is often modeled as 80:20, and even as 90:10 or 99:1 (think of the distribution of pay for fashion models).
- In other service areas, such as software development, it has been argued (and many influential minds such as Frederick Brooks and Joel Spolsky have devised methods for measuring and quantifying this) that a top designer, programmer, or QA person is roughly ten times as effective as an average one.
- It can be argued that this observation does not carry to other areas of computing such as system administration.
- Finally, the difference between top waiters (or shoe salespeople, mail delivery people...) and average ones may not warrant Pareto analysis at all.
- elpincha 00:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What are the natural phenomena?
[edit]Many natural phenomena distribute according to power law statistics. 2001:9E8:143B:6B00:8EDC:9F02:4D80:BAE4 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto was an avid gardener. He noticed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained a whopping 80% of the overall peas.
- Finding the 80/20 rule in plants led to the observation about 80% of the land being owned by 20%, yet the original finding has been removed from the page, while the land ownership observation has been kept.
- The 80/20 rule applies to species other than plants.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264717454_Even_birds_follow_Pareto%27s_80-20_rule
- https://www.gibraltarfarm.com/amp/2017/07/22/fecal-egg-count-the-pareto-principle
- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072611
- https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/nature/animals/the-largest-earthquakes-ever-recorded-and-the-pareto-principle
- https://aiam.org.au/resources/Documents/2012%20Workshop%20presentations/Paper%2014.pdf
- If there is some political motivation behind scrubbing all the natural phenomena that follow the pareto principle, please reevaluate your moral compass. 47.221.223.208 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- This information is fascinating and improves the article. I support including it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
How is the crime section an argument for anything?
[edit]In January 2022, CBS News reported that a single suspect was "responsible for more than half of all reported hate crimes against the API community in San Francisco last year," and that he "was allowed to be out of custody despite the number of charges against him."[18] 2001:9E8:143B:6B00:8EDC:9F02:4D80:BAE4 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's an example of the Pareto principle. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I added the following:
- In January 2022, CBS News reported that a single suspect was "responsible for more than half of all reported hate crimes against the API community in San Francisco last year," and that he "was allowed to be out of custody despite the number of charges against him."[1]
user: shibbolethink deleted it, and commented, "WP:UNDUE"
What do others here think of this?
Also, I have since come across this New York Times article, and I think it should be cited. What do others think of this idea?
SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and original research since none of these sources even mention the "Pareto principle". The connection is entirely your own, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that neither article mentions the Pareto principle by name. But the basic idea of the Pareto principle is mentioned in both articles. I don't think I'm making a connection or doing original research. I do appreciate your comment. I won't add it back unless other people support doing so. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
literally bullcrap
[edit]The stuff about income is at the very least out of date 50.35.71.203 (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
literally bullcrap business jargon speak thats whole purpose is to justify arbitrary hierarchical organization of groups into "the top performers" and "others". has no basis in actual reality. created by business consultants for the purposes of farming clients for money.
delete this trash article. the fact that it's referenced in an actual scientific article on mathematics is AWFUL and literally makes me feel unsafe reading wikipedia knowing there are editors who literally think this is a notable concept 2600:6C47:A0F0:8390:F0D3:B1BA:CD37:E632 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)