Talk:Contract theory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contract theory 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: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
April 2023 Edits
[edit]User:Wenbro and 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, please discuss your edits here and try to develop a consensus. Woodroar (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- My thoughts on the dispute: the cited source appears to be reliable and should probably be incorporated into the article. However, there was too much detail for the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article; we normally add content to the body first, and then summarize in the lead if it's a significant viewpoint. In addition, there was too much content cited to a single source; typically a single source can support a paragraph or maybe two, but there were more than a dozen paragraphs. 2601:19E also mentioned a potential copyright violation at User talk:Wenbro#April 2023. That should be discussed if true. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I revdel'd two revisions that were largely copied from Investopedia; nothing else in the other edits jumped out at me from a copyright perspective. DanCherek (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, DanCherek. Going forward, Wenbro may want to read the guidelines re: copyright violations and supporting content with WP:RELIABLE sources. As Woodroar noted, the lede was jammed with multiple definitions of what a contract theory is, and some of the tone wasn't encyclopedic, so there were multiple red flags. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I revdel'd two revisions that were largely copied from Investopedia; nothing else in the other edits jumped out at me from a copyright perspective. DanCherek (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Incentive Theory
[edit]I conjectured that the subject of the subsection of the Incentive Theory was the actual "goal" mentioned when the article instead connected the word "goal" to the title of the whole section (Contract Theory) in his sentence. I might have been wrong--if so, someone must let us know how the entire goal of Category Theory seems to be incentive design for employees. 74.123.17.233 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Set up to Fail
[edit]If there is an analysis of either Principals or Agents who create contracts wherein the other is "Set Up to Fail", it seems to me that in light of the present White House all of whose occupants have made a career of it would be highly appropriate. 74.123.17.233 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)