I like Alanna, but I'm struggling to see that personal opinions expressed in a blog post are suitable material for appropedia. One could take issue with several assertions she has made, for a start. Joeturner 11:02, 10 February 2013 (PST)
- I see this as a starting point - it does need to be "Appropediafied" (can we make that a word?) If there's something that we could take issue with, then that area needs to be expanded, have other perspective added... or possibly deleted.
- Many important lessons in development work are "soft" in nature - not technological, not easily subject to scientific study. Mind you, if they're so vague as to be not falsifiableW ("not even wrong"W) then I'd probably agree that they don't belong here.
- I see a place for thought-provoking essays here - as long as they're informed and insightful.
- Re this specific article, I think it does raise important questions and deserves to survive in some form. Perhaps renamed to reflect the focus on long-term commitment vs "short-termism", and definitely rewritten in parts. Rewriting was always the intention - I just hoped that someone else would help :-). --Chriswaterguy 22:14, 10 February 2013 (PST)
Start a discussion about Missionaries and development workers
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Appropedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Missionaries and development workers.
