Citizendium Forums
April 19, 2014, 01:49:35 UTC *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: POSTING RULES FOR MAIN CZ BOARDS: (1) The CZ Forums are Citizens-only (a "Citizen" is a Citizendium member). Non-Citizens may use only the "Non-Citizen comments" board, but still must register before posting (it's easy!). Non-Citizen posts elsewhere will be summarily deleted. (2) All must use their own real names. To edit your displayed name, click on Profile > Account Related Settings. (3) Citizens must link to their CZ user pages. To edit your signature, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Click here to return to the wikiE-mail support
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: My ideas on presenting consistently high quality content  (Read 20508 times)
Peter Hitchmough
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 107


Not short of things to do


« on: October 07, 2006, 21:09:48 UTC »

We have to reconcile a number of factors when designing Citizendium.

I'm thinking of the combined effects of the following:
  • Signifying approved, edited content.
  • Encouraging expert editor participation.
  • Encouraging wide author participation
  • Ease of use, trust and clarity of information.
  • Minimising workload on editors.

The Citizendium will be dynamic, but not everything written will be good enough. If we are going to edit: let's edit!

Consider a scenario where a user can be sure to see the content judged best by the editors, but full dynamic cut and thrust changes can be going on behind the scenes. This could be achieved by serving up the latest "approved" version but offering an on-page link to the frontier country which is undergoing live edits.

- To those users who demand quality - they have it effortlessly.
- To authors demanding a vibrant shared experience - it's there for the taking.
- And updates to the main pages take place more at an editor's pace. This reduces the need to "babysit" precious pages.

This is how fast-changing software releases are managed. The customer always gets a recent release. The developer gets to play with unproven material.

-Peter
Logged
Kim van der Linde
Non-Citizen
***
Posts: 141


Just me


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2006, 21:28:35 UTC »

This is actually closer to my ideas than the original CZ proposals....
Logged

Retired
Zachary Pruckowski
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2006, 21:39:13 UTC »

This is actually closer to my ideas than the original CZ proposals....

And almost a carbon copy of the /draft idea.  I guess we haven't fully buried it... :-)
Logged

Peter Hitchmough
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 107


Not short of things to do


« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2006, 22:32:52 UTC »

I haven't buried it. It's a softer version though. I have a lot of respect for the ideas Kim vd Linde put together.
But who am I? Chopped liver?

I perceive Larry's vision as built on the experimental search for knowledge. Several sources compete for assessment and the assertions are tested. The result is an optimal gain in knowledge. I'm sure Larry has a great philosophical foundation for the vision, and I think he needs to hear us.

It's similar to a scientific experiment where a treatment (action that may cause a specific effect) is applied to a situation. The experimenter looks at what responses come from the situation.

I suppose the opposite of experimentally researched knowledge is revealed knowledge. I stop here because my philosophical brain cells aren't up to the task.

I contend that: we want a rich and varied input of knowledge to CZ, but we want editorial decisions to be applied to the results. That means we should take reasonable steps to stop a good article from rotting away.

Not my decision though. Just my 2c.

KvdL - good to see you here.

-Peter

Edited for typo
Logged
Kim van der Linde
Non-Citizen
***
Posts: 141


Just me


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2006, 23:08:03 UTC »

I want to say just one thing that might highlight the differences between me and Larry. I come from the work floor, as an expert in evolutionary biology with 9000+ edits at WP, including a substantial number of edits at a large number of really controversial pages. Larry comes from the other side, the facilitator of projects, the large scale of things.... I think continiously about what a proposal will do for me as an expert editor....
Logged

Retired
Zachary Pruckowski
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2006, 23:34:33 UTC »

I never accused you of burying anything, nor did I mean to call you "chopped liver", I just noticed how similar it is to earlier ideas.  It seems that several of us are looking at the same problem and seeing similar solutions, which suggests it deserves a look.

I certainly intended no disrespect or offense, and I apologize if it came out that way.
Logged

Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2006, 01:35:11 UTC »

Let me clarify how I understand Peter's proposal.  At least, the way I've described it here, it's one I might want to get behind.  It is certainly better than relegating editable versions to a /draft subpage.

(1) In the content development space, an installation of MediaWiki allows work to proceed more or less the way it does on Wikipedia; i.e., there are no frozen pages, and everything is dynamically editable.

(2) Some feature of the software allows editors to bless certain versions.

(3) All of and only the most recent blessed content appears in a separate web of pages.  This, then, works as follows: the approved of an article appears just as that version of the article does in the development space, except: if an article has links to X, Y, and Z, and approved versions of only X and Y exist, then the "blessed articles" web version of the article links only to X and Y; there is no "red link" to Z, and no link to a version-in-progress of Z.  (We can invite readers to look at the most recent development version of the article to view links to not-yet-approved articles.)

Actually, this is quite similar to the system I helped plan out for the Encyclopedia of Earth.  The difference is that we do not use any sort of "draft" namespace, as EoE does (well, that wasn't my doing Wink), but instead simply use metadata (of some sort: be creative) to mark the approved articles.  I can imagine that, in the development space, on those articles that have some approved version, contributors would see at the top of the article: "An approved version of this article exists.  _View_differences_."  This helps keep the development area simple and easy to work in--which is very important.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 06:16:15 UTC 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.
Daan
Guest
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2006, 06:30:33 UTC »

I like these ideas.
Logged
Jason Sanford
Forum Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2006, 17:11:34 UTC »

I also support these ideas.
Logged
Peter Hitchmough
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 107


Not short of things to do


« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2006, 17:20:01 UTC »

I never accused you of burying anything, nor did I mean to call you "chopped liver", I just noticed how similar it is to earlier ideas.  It seems that several of us are looking at the same problem and seeing similar solutions, which suggests it deserves a look.

I certainly intended no disrespect or offense, and I apologize if it came out that way.

Sorry - irony failure on my part. I was trying to be self-deprecating. You are welcome Zach. Words failed me. Again. Smiley

What I meant was I have no "status" on the project - I just want to get my twopennorth in (Queen's English) I was "casting my bread upon the waters" seeing what might come back.

All is comfy and warm here, no offence taken, none meant. (We'd never make a band of pirates would we? We're too nice to each other. (mostly))

Yours chilled,
-Peter
Logged
Peter Hitchmough
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 107


Not short of things to do


« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2006, 17:39:16 UTC »

(1) In the content development space, an installation of MediaWiki allows work to proceed more or less the way it does on Wikipedia; i.e., there are no frozen pages, and everything is dynamically editable.

(2) Some feature of the software allows editors to bless certain versions.
Absolutely behind these two points. 100% No contest. Bingo.

Quote from: Larry Sanger
(3) All of and only the most recent blessed content appears in a separate web of pages.  This, then, works as follows: the approved of an article appears just as that version of the article does in the development space, except: if an article has links to X, Y, and Z, and approved versions of only X and Y exist, then the "blessed articles" web version of the article links only to X and Y; there is no "red link" to Z, and no link to a version-in-progress of Z.  (We can invite readers to look at the most recent development version of the article to view links to not-yet-approved articles.)

Not what I meant.

I would say that:
(3) There is always a best version of a page. Blessed pages are always in play. If there is a link to an unblessed page it can stay there, but we flag that page as crap not so good.

(4) To bless a page, it should link only to blessed pages. We could make that a technical constraint. An editor blesses it - why would they allow links to crud anyway? This eliminates problems in (3). Also, blessed pages could be updated at a comfortable pace by the editors.

(5) The adventurous could go to a special "web space" where the "tip revision" of all the pages are linked and visible. This is useful when authoring and for kooks, cranks and ne'erdowells. Wink

(6) The public user sees CZ at its best - crisp, clean and unsullied.

Does that help?

-Peter
Logged
bubeluf
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2006, 11:50:54 UTC »

(2) Some feature of the software allows editors to bless certain versions.

Are the blessed versions frozen?
Logged

/Göran Wallin
Zachary Pruckowski
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2006, 14:40:54 UTC »

(2) Some feature of the software allows editors to bless certain versions.

Are the blessed versions frozen?

The blessed versions are historical versions.  They are frozen until someone blesses another version.  If you try to edit the blessed version, you'll be lead to the current version.  It could be just like the WP history system (it is still MediaWiki), so if you click history, we can probably toss some pretty icon (a diamond maybe?) next to blessed versions.  The page would default to the latest blessed version (or the latest version if there is no blessed version)
Logged

Peter Blake
Forum Member
**
Posts: 47


Librarian and Amateur Game Designer


« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2006, 22:28:02 UTC »

It could be just like the WP history system (it is still MediaWiki), so if you click history, we can probably toss some pretty icon (a diamond maybe?) next to blessed versions.

I like the diamond idea, but here is why I don't think it's the right choice:

CZ = Citizendium
CZ = Cubic Zirconia

See?
Logged
Zachary Pruckowski
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2006, 01:36:27 UTC »

It could be just like the WP history system (it is still MediaWiki), so if you click history, we can probably toss some pretty icon (a diamond maybe?) next to blessed versions.

I like the diamond idea, but here is why I don't think it's the right choice:

CZ = Citizendium
CZ = Cubic Zirconia

See?

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not.  Fine, how about a ruby?
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!