Talk:Boondoggle

Move to the wiktionary
This is really a definition of the New Deal expression, not a description of depression-era activities that might be characterized as a 'boondoggles'. I suggest we move this to the wiktionary/merge it with the existing def. there. Jbgreen 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above suggestion; it's far too long for a dictionary entry. The examples are essential for understanding IMO. It needs fleshing out with more examples rather than contracting to dictionary length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swylie2 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree with the distinction made between boondoggle and fraud.
IMO a boondoggle may well be known by its proponents to be meretricious from the outset, though that isn't necessarily the case. The true purpose of a boondoggle is to transfer public funds to other hands through a spurious project, as in fact was the case in the original example. The boondoggle may or may not be outright fraudulent. The key issue is that a boondoggle is useless. In a fraud false claims are made as to the properties of what will be produced; the boondoggler may only make unrealistic claims as to the usefulness of what is produced, claiming a false public benefit. The Concorde would have become a fraud if they had at some point realised that it would not achieve supersonic speed, but had carried on regardless, deceiving the sponsors. It would still also have been a boondoggle. Swylie2 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree with Concorde being a boondoggle
It seems to me POV (or just wrong) to call Concorde a boondoggle. Surely there must be better examples of boondoggles than this to illustrate the word. The fact that Concorde initially made a loss is not enough, IMO, for it to be termed thus. Very many projects are subsidised, but I think it would be a dilution of the term to call them all boondoggles. Using this logic, we would have to apply the term to many national railway systems, most national road networks, any subsidised car industry, the Apollo moon program, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.153.47 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalized Healthcare
People have referred to Obama's socialistic healthcare system as a boondoggle, I don't suppose that deserves a mention under the examples? Invmog (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, if it's a boondoggle or not is prognostication ... while the existing examples are things where the money was spent and after the fact the operators realized it was never going to work long before the operations and expenses were stopped. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed personal analyses
I'm moving the following paragraphs out of the article for the time being. They're unsourced and while I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "wrong", they read like a series of personal definitions of the term that are redundant and wordy. It's not easy to fix this kind of material, other than to find real sources on the subject, and rewrite everything from scratch drawing from those sources.--Father Goose (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Boondoggle also refers to government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure; at some point, the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions" – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.

A distinguishing aspect of a boondoggle, as opposed to a project that simply fails, is the eventual realization by its operators (long before it is shut down or completed) that it is not going to work as intended. This is not the same thing as fraud, a criminal enterprise in which the proponents know in advance that their idea has no merit.

While cost overruns are a common factor in declaring a project a boondoggle, that does not necessarily mean the project has no benefit. The project may have unseen benefits that overshadow its initial problems. For example, the cost of construction of the Sydney Opera House ballooned over 1400 percent, but the building has since become an icon for the city and for Australia."

German link
I would like to link the article (in the left frame of the page, "languages") to german article "Investitionsruine". But I'm not sure, weather this is right. Maybe somebody could help and check this. Thank you! --Impulsiv. (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Another source
--evrik (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hubble as boondoggle?
Can the Hubble space telescope really be considered a boondoggle? It was launched, a defect was discovered, the defect was repaired as well as possible, and since it's been a huge scientific success. That doesn't seem to fit in with the definition of "a project which is being dragged on long after its failure became clear."

Opinions? --Syzygy (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)