Talk:Work for the Dole

Out of Date

This article is way out of date, we no longer have a Rudd Government.--MichaelGG (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Work for the dole violates the Australian Constitution.

Edits that reference the Australian Constitution and how work for the dole violates public interpretation of the Constitution have been continually removed by what can only be described politically partisan editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.21.163 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello 123.211.21.163, thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. It is crucial that all statements on Wikipedia are non-neutral (ie: not stating a position or opinion) and anything that does should be quoted and correctly cited. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Chris still learning how to use Wikipedia, being an old fart the page is hard to navigate, have attempted to add references ie Australian Constitution and International Labor Organization, and the opinion is mine. Dr C Rogers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.21.163 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Rogers, I understand, there's a lot to do and keep track of here. Two important things to know up front: 1) Do not continually re-add information that other editors are saying is NOT acceptable content. That will quickly lead to being blocked from Wikipedia. 2) Please always sign your posts by adding '~~~~' at the end of your comment. We can help you cite things, but you should know that your personal opinion, while it may or may not be valid, isn't appropriate content on Wikipedia. You should have a reliable source for everything posted here on Wikipedia.Chrisw80 (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough Chris. For those interested the work for the dole legislation and Australian Constitution Section 51 (xxiii A) are freely available on the internet. Of special interest are the terms compulsory - forced labor - "civil conscription" - and fiscal punishment for non-compliance, these terms can also be readily defined online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.21.163 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for sharing. Personally, I'm just interested in improving quality of articles here on Wikipedia. I notice that Shiftchange is taking a lot of time and doing a great job of fixing up the article with good info and refs. Kudos to him. If you're interested in learning more about editing Wikipedia, I would use his work as an example. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion

I think we should include the recent analysis by the IP editor with the vice.com ref. I will do it if there is consensus for its proper inclusion. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't how reliable vice.com is as a source (I just don't know). My revert earlier was based entirely on it not being cited properly. If the source in question is a reliable source, then I have no objections, as long as undue weight doesn't happen. Thanks for bringing this up Shiftchange. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: At this point with the latest inclusions, there is more than enough in the Criticism section. Any more would push past the bounds of WP:UNDUE, in fact I think it's already there, but I'll leave it lie for now. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, if there are positive assessments they can be added. The criticism may reflect the relative balance of what is found in reliable sources, rather than WP:Undue. Paul foord (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A fair point for consideration. However, it should be noted in any case that a current preponderance of sources for a topic that existed before the current "age" of prolific internet content does not necessarily constitute the reality or balance of all available sources, just what is easy to obtain online. I don't have access to the relevant periodical databases in Australia that aren't online, so I'm not able to research it properly. Please also note that it seems at least some of the sources that are being added recently refer to the current implementation of Work for the Dole, not the previous versions or even the program as a whole - whereas the article is about the program as a whole. So perhaps if people really wish to add content to the already long Criticism section, perhaps they could also give us more background on the program as a whole? The other sections of the article need work, too. Can you see why I, as a completely uninvolved person simply interested in improving Wikipedia, would be a little concerned about the rapid growth of the Criticism section alone? Thank you very much for taking time to have this discussion! Chrisw80 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's all about the wording. Words for section titles like "controversies" and "criticisms" are a no-no. Instead use section titles like "commentator views" or "media views" and add arguments from both sides obtained from WP:RS such as from within articles published by mainstream media outlets. Google, and to an extent news.google.com.au, are great places to fish for them. Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is out of date

This article is out of date, there have been numerous changes made to work for the dole, and events, including a WfD death and numerous injuries, all covered by mainstream Australian media outlets!101.162.145.20 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This article reads like a Centrelink pamphlet and is Bias

This article reads like LNP propaganda, there is NO mention of WftD injuries, safety records, a death on WftD in Queensland. All this information is openly available in Australian MSM. This article has a very strong pro-government BIAS.1.120.108.98 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrasing issues in the paragraph citing Judith Bessant

While cleaning up some awkward phrasing in the section citing Bessant, I noticed that some of the phrasing of that section is a near word-for-word reproduction of a specific passage in the journal article. I don't know the exact Wikipedia policies regarding plagiarism, and I'm certainly not accusing anybody of anything untoward, but perhaps somebody else could go over the relevant section and make a few alterations? It could be as simple as using a few short quotations rather than paraphrasing.

Outdated

I think you will find that these days people over 59 are subject to "voluntary" labor. 106.68.223.145 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)