Open main menu



Modern PerspectiveEdit

To get one modern perspective, try to find a book called Sabotage in the American Workplace, I think from AK Press. It's just about a hundred stories summarized from interviews with real people about why they had (and in only one case, had not) done things at workk that they weren't "supposed" to do, everything from breaking equipment to get a break, to stealing supplies, to spitting in the soup. --JohnAbbe

Kirkpatrick Sales' 1996 book "Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and their War on the Industrial Revolution" London: Quartet Books is worth a read. It concentrates on Luddites and touches on Neo-Luddites. For the insights of scientist looking at his work and the potential harm it may hold (esp. nanotechnology) take a look at: Joy, Bill (2001): "Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us" URL (as printed in 'Wired' magazine). To examine other views on nanotechnology see ch4,5, and 6 within same site address. --RichardSeabury

Background sectionEdit

The first paragraph of the background section feels a bit out of place and reads almost as if it's responding to comments we haven't heard. The second paragraph is more clear and relevant. If the first paragraph's information needs to be in the article, it might be best to start with an explanation of what the context in that era *was* before addressing what it *wasn't* (the way the paragraph does now).

It also feels that the background section contains information that is less important and less relevant than subsequent sections; I wonder if it would be possible/wise to put the background section lower down, after some of the more relevant information.

Maybe other editors have some thoughts on these issues or would care to edit to rectify them? SM-Mara (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

this article reminds me too much of zeitgeist or the venus project, i guess it should be deleted now.Dotogfoaton (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical Precedents sectionEdit

Does anyone else think the tone of the "Historical Precedents" sections isn't very fitting? To me the tone just doesn't read like something out an encyclopedia.

I can edit it to make it more tone appropriate, but I'd like to know if anybody else has this opinion as well? Mt.Delta (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luddite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Luddite" page.