Citizendium Forums
July 24, 2008, 11:08:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: The WatchKnow Board is for general public discussion of WatchKnow issues.  You need not be a Citizendium member to participate on this board. 
Click here to return to WatchKnow home page
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Editorial Council Resolution 0003: Eduzendium  (Read 2667 times)
Larry Sanger
Administrator
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 1421



WWW
« on: June 13, 2007, 05:48:42 PM »

We are now discussing Resolution 0003, which would establish a new program, called "Eduzendium."  Please offer your feedback!

See below for the initial comments from Editorial Council members.

=====================

From Anthony Sebastian:

I worry a little about the project tying up for several months - the
semester lock - many topics that workgroup members have already begun
working on, either on the wiki or offline.  On the other hand, those
workgroup members can get back to the topic after the semester lock.

Some articles written by graduate students might require a fair amount of
editing by workgroup experts.  Students should clearly understand the wiki
collaborative concept, otherwise they might sow discouragement among future
students entering the program.

I present mostly potential problems, no solutions.  I support the project
and can see its great promise for CZ.

[Separately:]

A thought:   While still keeping the 'semester lock', why not allow free
discussion on the article's Discussion page, so that others might comment in
helpful ways - suggesting reading (including sending PDFs via private
email), pointing out omissions, etc.?

===========

From Raymond Yee:

I don't see any reason to object.  Sorin Adam Matei seems to be
qualified for the task and if he wants to do it-- all the more power to
him!

(Is there anything more to this issue that I'm missing?)

============

From John Moffett:

Eduzendium is an excellent idea. It may be hard to implement, but if it
works, it will make a huge difference. It may be a good idea to have each
existing editor and author who works at a university to make announcements
through the dept. chairs if possible.

Could we offer some type of university level credit for published work? That
would go over well with doctoral candidates.

============

From Martin Baldwin-Edwards:

Whereas I agree that recruitment of contributors and materials is a good
idea, I have several serious reservations about this proposal.

First, it seems to give carte blanche powers. What exactly will the
coordinator be empowered to do? and what will be the nature of
collaborations with professors and students?

Secondly, my own experience as Founding Editor of an academic journal was
that initially we did not have a big enough reputation to attract enough
high-quality articles -- even though all major libraries of the world
stocked my journal even before it appeared. My co-editor and I recruited
articles, and we got into a terrible fight which nearly destroyed the
journal: certainly we both left it. This was because he insisted on
publishing second-rate papers [which frequently I had to rewrite, not merely
edit] allegedly to fill the journal, but in reality for personal gain. The
journal had become a career-advancing game, with favours handed out
[guaranteed publication] and returned favours were clearly visible to me.

I am concerned that you are asking the Editorial Council to cede control
over the policy about content, without our being clear about the nature of
this new structure. This is not to cast doubt on the intentions or abilities
of the personnel, but I really think some limits and rules are needed. As
things stand, I am unlikely to support the resolution.

===========

From Hassan Aref:

I believe the restriction to "research one" universities is somewhat
arbitrary and too restrictive.  First, the classification into
research tiers among universities shifts somewhat over time.  Second,
excellent work of the kind that can generate Citizendium entries is
also done at institutions that are not "research one", e.g., at elite
liberal arts colleges.  Third, as a matter of principle, the quality
of Citizendium articles ought to be judged a posteriori by the merits
of the articles and their authors, not a priori by the affiliation of
the authors.

=============

From Regina Bouillon:

Dr. Mattei’s suggestion is the first step towards recruitment. I cannot see anything wrong in the basic ideas of eduzendium. As I understand it, eduzendium member do not have any influence on citizendium decisions. The editors still have the last word. I appreciate the idea of eduzendium.

==============

From Nancy Sculerati:

I think that
Eduzendium as it is proposed would fit beautifully with Citizendium if
there was a modification made to the structure of the wiki. Partition it.
That is- there could be a group of pages that are off the general
Citizendium wiki and called the Eduzendium that have this rule: any
professor in an accredited college or university in the English speaking
world can put up articles on the Eduzendium, which is a service sponsored
by Citizendium. The accredited colleges and Universities must be
recognized by USA. Canada, Britain, and...these are chosen to represent
the English speaking world of accredirted Universities, the sort of
seconadry school education that the governments of these countires will
lend money to attend, or otherwise recognize in a real way- a way that
they have a stake in. That way, we can avoid the "fly by night" group, and
also avoidf amending our rules for approval on Citizendium. Any of these
articles could be noiminated for approval by a Citizendium editor in a
pertinent workgroup- but being published on Eduzendium is a separate
thing. It should also attract those expert authors who would prefer to
work off the wiki. I'm suggesting this because I think it has the
potential to make Citizendium better without compromising it and also to
make Eduzendium fly.

===========

From Gary Giamboi:

My comment on resolution #3 is also that we need some more guidelines. I
like the concept. However, here are some issues that come into my mind:

a) If students contribute an article to citizendium as part of their course
work, how can what we do with the article not affect the student's grade.
For example, if one student's article is accepted as is without any
modifications and another's is rejected for whatever reason, can we believe
that this will not have some effect on the student's grade? Will that in
turn affect how we will view those articles and thus the quality of
citizendium?

Keep in mind that our standards for acceptance are not the same as the
standards for grading at academic institutions.

Do you remember how I had my article on I Liq Chuan removed by a constable
for seemingly valid reasons which I believe I showed were totally wrong. I
had my article removed for plagiarism from Wikipedia and the subject's home
page, but, I wrote the Wikipedia article and had permission to copy anything
on the subjects home page from its owner? Yet, if I were a student, my grade
may be in trouble (as it is, I'm just annoyed at someone acting without the
facts and then finding a way to justify his actions and making it too much
trouble for me to comply with his re-submitting requests).

So perhaps the articles can be submitted to citizenium after the paper is
graded (or however it is judged). In order to provide some incentive, maybe
the papers can receive some extra credit for acceptance as unapproved and
some more extra credit for approval. Indeed, this way the professors can do
some editing for us.

b) instead of tying articles into course work, does anyone think that an
on-campus citizendium club or society whose purpose is to write and submit
articles can actually attract members?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 05:54:54 PM by Larry Sanger » Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Roger Lohmann
New Arrival
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2007, 10:21:11 AM »

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Logged
John Moffett
New Arrival
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2007, 10:54:48 AM »

Hi All,

I like Gary's ideas. I think that as long as articles go through the editorial process it should not matter what University they come from.

Eduzendium or Citizendium clubs on campuses would be nice, but again, the main issue is attracting good articles that are well written, well referenced, and accurate. It would be good if we could come up with some types of incentives. But I see the main issue being getting the word out to those who might be good candidates.

John
Logged
gheuer
New Arrival
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2007, 10:59:09 AM »

I think I understand and agree with Dr. Sculerati, quoted in the initial response area. I say Go For It while monitoring and see how it pans out. If it fizzles, quality articles can be migrated to the general Citi side, right?
Logged
andrew8
New Arrival
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2007, 11:03:09 PM »

Excellent idea.

The principle can be applied to the non-academic realm, by getting private industry to write articles . . . providing they are generic, i.e. not centric to the product(s) or service(s) they sell.

There are a lot of 'white papers' in the marketplace which are useful education tools.

Andrew
Logged
Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 817


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2007, 06:13:18 AM »

I am inclined to support the idea put forward by Nancy -- that of a partition. (In my experience, it is a serious mistake to offer guaranteed publication to anyone, even to Nobel laureates.) There should then be a quality control process, such that some, but not all, of the Eduzendium articles could be migrated to the CZ structure. I realise that this weakens the incentive for potential collaborators, but think about it another way: what respect would these professors and graduate students have for an academic journal which did not have proper quality control? The corollary for CZ is: what respect would the general public have for CZ if this proposed framework were enacted and, post hoc, subject to intense public debate? There is a balance yet to be struck, between encouraging formal collaborations, maintaining independence and also maximising quality. This will not be easy...
Logged

Russell Potter
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2007, 07:06:44 AM »

I don't see any need for partition -- in fact, I think it would be a strong disincentive.  We'd be inviting people to be second-class Citizens, and that's hardly a very attractive proposal.

The "regular" Citizendium has many contributors who, as Authors, have very modest life experiences and credentials, but the vast majority of them have done a great job.  If Eduzendium involves graduate students, you already have a major bump upwards in strength of credentials, background and so forth.  Admission to a US graduate program requires a Bachelor's degree in the appropriate field, good scores on the Graduate Record Exam, and letters of recommendation -- at many schools it's highly competitive.  My sense would be that these articles would likely be of a very high quality indeed.

Citizendium isn't a refereed journal, it's an encyclopedia.  It needs to grow, and maintain high quality of entries, and Eduzendium seems a worthy idea to try.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 07:08:30 AM by Russell Potter » Logged

Russell A. Potter, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Rhode Island College

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Russell_Potter
Nancy Sculerati
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2007, 08:15:51 AM »

I agree with you that having castes is not good. I was envisioning the question of protected articles, and perhaps that is not even required by the Eduzendium. In other words, if "the Eduzendium" puts up articles authored by the students on the unpartitioned CZ, they would not remain in their submitted form for any length of time unless they were protected. Maybe that is not an issue, maybe the proposal is to simply publish them on CZ without any period of protection. For some reason (maybe just a plain mistake on my part) I thought that was not the case, I assumed that the articles were to be left "as is", at least for a while.   If they were protected, then they would essentially be approved, and that would entail two different approval processes- so that we come back to two classes again, now in how one can get an article approved: (1) either by having a professor of a class clear it, or (2) our own approvals process. IF and only if, publication of the Eduzendium articles on CZ are as protected pages that are off the wiki, do I propose that there should be a partition- in this , additionally, the problems of topics would also be solved. Eduzendium articles could have the same titles as Citizendium articles. Also, any author could import a Eduzenium article onto Citzendium and start working on it there. IF the Eduzendium articles can be changed immediately by anyone as soon as they are submitted, then this suggestion of a partition is withdrawn, I made it strictly because I thought that the Eduzendium required a frozen version of the article.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 08:21:30 AM by Nancy Sculerati » Logged

Dan Nachbar
New Arrival
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2007, 08:17:36 AM »

(The following was moved here from the discussion page on the wiki.)

Why be so narrow in the use of student products? Not every topic (e.g. elephants) is so sophisticated as to require a graduate student to write the prose.

Why not have undergraduate students in expository writing courses write or expand CZ articles on a specific topics? Likewise, why not have students in a variety of courses write articles relevant to their particular course. Either set of students could work collectively or individually? With course instructors acting as a screening mechanism one should be able to ensure that the products are of sufficiently high quality. With a little organizational creativity one could have an army of undergraduates fleshing out CZ.

Perhaps this "wider net" would best be handled as a parallel project from Eduzendium.

Dan Nachbar 11:07, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

    I offer that there is an expectation of what subjects that students of certain educational levels would produce. Example: it is doubtful that a high school student would produce an article on quantum properties of light, unless there was an exceptional student. For undergrads, would there be an expectation that they might produce a physics-related article? Possibly. Would they produce an article based on statistic theory or geology? --Robert W King 11:19, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Certainly some topics are going to be too high level for undergraduates. But not all knowledge is nuance and detail.  CZ is going to need a great many general interest articles. I see no reason why (if guided properly) undergrads couldn't produce excellent general interest articles. -- Dan Nachbar
Logged
Pat_Palmer
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 98



« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2007, 09:35:43 AM »

Seconding the idea of a partition...but I think there needs to be a way, eventually, to merge the finished products from Eduzendium into the main wiki.

I was alarmed, looking at the sample, on how many pages were proposing to be locked for several months.  If some of the pages I've slaved over were to be locked by others, I would not be happy.

So, assuming a partition could happen, could we then eventually "merge" the outputs of Eduzendium efforts into the main space?  In the case of really good articles, we could outright replace or copy over.

As a professor of both undergraduates and graduates in computer science, I can say that many students do not write well.   They may be very knowledgeable about their specialties, and just know tons, but only a few of them can express their ideas in a form that is accessible by a less specialized readership.  It think that's one of our goals in Citizendium--to be expert, but to allow less expert readers a way in.

I've had grad. students write papers before, and I would not want the majority of them automatically to appear on Citizendium without further editing.  I can even say the same for professors.  In engineering and computer science fields, many "experts" do not become expert communicators.

So, having said this, I support the idea, given partitioning and a way to merge the (likely very useful) outputs into the main.  I think our regular editors and authors could do that.

And a major benefit would possibly be that the students and professors would end up liking the idea of Citizendium and come in as authors or editors themselves.
Logged

Russell Potter
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2007, 11:06:51 AM »

Reading the proposal more carefully, I have to say I can no longer support the Eduzendium idea as originally proposed.  I'm sorry that I didn't read the fine print sooner.

This notion of locking away articles for a semester is mind-boggling -- and absolutely unnecessary as well.  Such locked away entries would be not an asset to CZ, but a liability.  Sorry, the article you have called up is not in service!  Sorry, the article in which you (if you are a CZ expert editor) have found a serious error cannot be corrected by you; it belongs to Professor X and graduate student Y.  What a nightmare!

Why not just have the graduate students work, exactly as would any other contributor to the Citizendium wiki?  If they are getting some credit toward a course, that's fine -- it could be assessed by numbers of edits and articles originated, contributed to, etc. 

The graduate students, in any case, would not get any worthy experience of the wiki world by writing in a protective bubble.  Like the "cone of silence" in Get Smart, such a partitioned space would make them deaf to the real sound of collective editing and improving.

What's more, while a semester is only one small part of a graduate education, it's a very long time in the world of online wikis.  Locked content would stunt our development in the locked areas for 3-4 months at a shot.  We need to grow, grow quickly, and grow effectively, and I do not see how this proposal would contribute to that, not as it is currently constituted.

If Eduzendium were to work on articles with the *same* titles, so much the worse -- one can only imagine the battles that would break out over accepting one or another apparently duplicated content, evaluating which is better, or having to do enormous amounts of editing to merge content (shades of DNA!)

By the way, I am not at all concerned about grad students' not writing well -- or at least they would be no more inclined toward "academese" than their professors. In fact they would seem to me to be ideal citizens of this project.

Would someone tell me why this idea of locking away/partitioning content is so vital to "Eduzendium", and why it would not be infinitely better to have these same contributors simply interact freely with the Citizendium as a whole?



« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 11:11:59 AM by Russell Potter » Logged

Russell A. Potter, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Rhode Island College

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Russell_Potter
Nancy Sculerati
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2007, 11:10:12 AM »

Looking back over:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Eduzendium

Yes, there would be locking. The Eduzendium would involve some kind of password so that only students in the class could edit articles. and then would entail a frozen version approved by the professor. Again, I think this is an excellent idea- but only in addition to   the Citizendium wiki as it stands. otherwise (see my previous post above) there is a 2-caste system for approvals. Additionally, this Eduzendium could allow for professors to write articles in their field, if that modification was agreeable. There have been some arguments in discussion that this should not be limited to acedemia- if the Citizendium does not renounce its fundamental policy of being expert reviewed information, then the article must be reviewed by an expert. That should apply to all Eduzendium articles, the professor who is sponsoring the class must either be an expert in the field or have the article reviewed by an expert. Unless the entire basis of CZ is now felt to be a mistake. A high school teacher may or may not be able to vet an article on elephants, under our current qualifications for editors, he or she would be very unlikely to meet those standards. I also second what Pat says - many great experts are poor writers, and that is another reason that the partition is important.

-Russell, I wrote the above before I read your post. If we could do it technically, why wouldn't having CZ just as it stands along with a partner project be ok? It would generate articles that could then be moved over.  It would allow some experts, especially those who would like to write about controversial subjects or write collaboratively with just one or two or five others -do so. Why does it all have to be only one way? Only radical open collaboration? Again- especially because the partitioned articles could then be used as a basis for others, who prefer the open wiki, to move over to CZ. I agree with you, having Eduzendium as envisioned without a partition makes CZ worse, but having both would be good for Eduzendium, and good for CZ. That's my opinion, anyway.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 11:20:37 AM by Nancy Sculerati » Logged

Gary Giamboi
New Arrival
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2007, 02:02:30 PM »

On Partitioning:

I am opposed to any separation of Wikis. Citizendium is what it is. If we can have junior or distant relation Wikis under our home, why should we limit them to students and academia? After all, there are many real world experts who are truly expert at something, and yet, do not possess any other criteria for writing a wiki page. And so they don't. Our authors must live up to our standards. If we eventually find out that our standards are too high, we can always lower them later. I believe we should let the authors try to come up to our standards first. In the case of students (or those hidden real world experts), they will eventually have to learn how to communicate their points of view. If they can't, they will only be limiting themselves and those who could be helped by their knowledge.

As for multiple authors writing articles on the same subject, the real world dictates the early bird gets the worm. If a student isn't quick enough, someone else will write the paper and get the credit. Once an article on a subject is written, the subject isn't closed. It can always be edited with additional information. Indeed, if handled properly, this editing can result in an article so rich in information that no one person could have written it. If not, I admit it can end up with articles which are unreadable at best and confusing or dis-informative at worst. Again, I think we should go for the Gold now; and decide to accept less later if we must.

Or better yet, perhaps someone has some ideas on how to handle the immense amount of editing which may result from a large group of students being given the same topic at the same time. Perhaps one way may be to have the professors to require that all submissions as part of course work be submitted and approved by him first. In the case of multiple papers on the same subject, the editing of them into one cohesive entry could be another class or student assignment.

The same process can apply to a subject which already has an approved article. All proposed edits can be treated in the same way (for the articles) I described above.

In order to give the institutions and professors more incentive, perhaps we should have Eduzendium articles list the institution and professor, as well as, the author(s). After all, if we are truly what we say we are, it should be prestigious to have many articles or edits successfully accepted by Citizendium/Eduzendium.
 
Logged
Aleta Curry
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 875


« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2007, 10:55:51 PM »

On Partitioning:

...After all, there are many real world experts who are truly expert at something, and yet, do not possess any other criteria for writing a wiki page. And so they don't. Our authors must live up to our standards....In the case of students (or those hidden real world experts), they will eventually have to learn how to communicate their points of view. If they can't, they will only be limiting themselves and those who could be helped by their knowledge.


Yes, exactly.

I'm finding some of the sweeping generalizations being made rather disturbing.

Pat Palmer makes a point about the calibre of some students (and profs!) and I'm not discounting that.

What's troubling me is the idea that it is only certain institutions that could possibly house individuals capable of producing the quality product that CZ is looking for.  I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my (very capable and brilliant) brother.  He used physics as an example and said that the rules of physics don't change whether you go to MIT or the closest state college to you.   What you learn is essentially the same.  What's different is a) the resources available b) the contacts you make.  I would add, judging by the comments here, the cachet of the particular institution.

I'm also worried about the suggestion that "The accredited colleges and Universities must be
recognized by USA. Canada, Britain, and...these are chosen to represent the English speaking world of accredirted Universities,...." Now, I may be completely misinterpreting what Nancy is saying (apologies if that's the case) but look:  I have met people from (in no particular order) Ireland, Uganda and India...could probably think of others, but those are the first three that popped into mind...with high school educations that put some of those from their counterparts in the US to shame.  In some cases, these people have skills that rival or exceed those of some college-educated Americans (I kid you not.)  Does someone have in mind a plan for ensuring that the wide diversity of English speakers on the planet is represented?  There are a few Little Red Schoolhouses outside of the USA that have produced scholars of note.

Having said that, I like the idea of Eduzendium very much.

Lastly, I am opposed to Gary's idea of Eduzendium clubs.  That much time and energy (that required to put out excellent quality articles) should be spent on schoolwork.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 11:03:36 PM by Aleta Curry » Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Aleta_Curry

Don't sweat the small stuff: "...that page I stress over today could become slashdotted or PoEd into a cesspool of speculation and subtle vandalism tommorow" - Shanya Almafeta
Joe Quick
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 470



« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2007, 12:21:13 AM »

I'm with Russell on the idea of having students simply contribute as normal authors on the wiki.  It makes the grading process a little harder, but professors need only look at the article histories to see what their students have done.  Some students might run into issues with other authors while other get really great help from authors and editors, but again, a professor should be able to see what has happened by glancing over the history and talk page and grade their students accordingly.  If there arise serious issues with other authors, then the constabulary will step in.

If it is important that students produce work that is untarnished by others, then I suggest we follow the example of one of my professors: She was visiting from Macalester, where the Educational Studies department has set up a website that hosts students' term papers that may be downloaded by visitors to the site. The site is here (and an underdeveloped paper of mine on Web 2.0 will be appearing there soon :-).

If we do something similar with the Eduzendium initiative, there are a few obvious benefits:
       1) The public gains easy access to some really great resources (even if those resources are of varying readability)
       2) Those same resources are available to CZ authors in the development of our articles
       3) Students get their work out in the public eye (and will probably work to make the quality of that work even better).
Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!