Article drive strategy!

[Larry Sanger]

Here's an idea inspired by a conversation with Lee Berger, who thinks our top problem is lack of content on core topics.  I agree that this is a top priority problem to solve.  Now, suppose we go with my variant on Lee's original suggestion, i.e., we give people credit for first drafts on a special (CZ: namespace) page.  Then we can simply do a press release, and use this as a recruitment hook for posts to external mailing lists: "The Citizendium is now ready to give credit to you for contributing a first draft of an article.  Here's where you'll be credited (give URL).  We need articles on many different topics (they're listed on the page).  Join us and add the article, or simply send us the article and we'll upload it."

This requires no effort on the part of editors (other than what they want to exert) and is totally bottom-up.  Could work!  We could also make a bit of a game of it.  If you write n words of an article that is on the list, then you get a point (or, you get whatever number of points specified by an editor).

I don't have time to organize this sort of thing myself, with everything else I'm trying to do.  But if you (Lee, or anyone really) wanted to work on something like the above, here's what I would suggest.

Two things, before I begin.  IF you're interested in being the point person for this, designing the page and mailing workgroup mailing lists, etc., please e-mail me and we'll work together on it.  Also, IF you think there's a more effective idea we might pursue, please speak up now!

(1) Create [[CZ:Core Articles]] - done, but needs expanding: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_Articles .  This is one big long page, divided into sections, one for each workgroup, each section in three columns.  For a format example, see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:The_Big_Cleanup/Signup .  However, make sure the columns break after each workgroup.  (So each workgroup header is in one column which spans all three.)

(2) Each workgroup nominates 100 topics.  Exceptions are Biology, Health Sciences, History, Geography, and Business, which may nominate 200 topics.  Total number of articles on page: about 4,000.  So it's a big page, but that's OK, it's not too big.  All topics must be either completely unwritten, a micro-stub, or status=4.  Each workgroup may award ten points for the five most important articles in the group, and five points for the ten next most important.  The rest are worth a point apiece.

(3) Each line of a workgroup's section begins with # so that the entries are numbered.  Most important (highest point value) entries come first.  Format of a line evolves like this:

Original entry, says "French painting" is worth 5 points:
# [[French painting]] (5)

I say I have written this article (fat chance):
# [[French painting]] (5) - [[User:Larry Sanger|]]

Someone confirms that I have written n words (you decide on n):
# [[French painting]] (5) - [[User:Larry Sanger|]] - OK

(4) To collect the entries, the article drive organizer(s) mails workgroup mailing lists, asking people to go to the wiki, or simply to post on the list, their ideas of the 100 most important topics in their fields.  This is a fairly simple, straightforward thing to prepare.  Volunteers (i.e., anyone enough motivated) compiles the answers.

(5) The article drive organizer(s) identifies the most motivated editor, for each workgroup, to make the point determination.  If no editor can be found :-( then the most qualified and motivated author issues the points.

(6) NONE of these articles may come from Wikipedia, if you want it to count.  In fact, if you want, you can entirely replace a status = 4 Wikipedia-sourced article with a new CZ article.

(7) We do not track first draft authors on the talk page or the metadata page of an article, but only on [[CZ:Core Articles]].

(8) We keep track of author point tallies on a separate page.

(9) Optionally, I do a press release.  We say that we are open to submissions from the general public, and we will credit the named members of the public (not pseudonyms) for articles we receive.  They just must realize that they are being credited only with the first draft, and that we are going to feel free to edit them mercilessly.  Submissions are sent to submissions@citizendium.org, a brand new mailbox checked by trusted volunteers, author or editor.

Feel free to suggest subtly and brilliantly better versions of this.

To make anything like this happen, somebody is going to have to pick up this ball and run with it.  I will support you of course.

[Argyriou]

There is still http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:High_priority_articles_for_pilot - many of which have not been started, though there are some cases where the article has been started with a slightly different name.  I also copied the Wikipedia list of basic articles to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony_Argyriou/WPbasicarticles1 so that we could check ourselves against Wikipedia's standards. Interestingly, we're doing better on the WP list than the CZ-pilot list.

[Larry Sanger]

There is still http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:High_priority_articles_for_pilot - many of which have not been started, though there are some cases where the article has been started with a slightly different name.  I also copied the Wikipedia list of basic articles to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony_Argyriou/WPbasicarticles1 so that we could check ourselves against Wikipedia's standards. Interestingly, we're doing better on the WP list than the CZ-pilot list.

Wouldn't be bad places to start, indeed.  I still think that there would be more general community buy-in if the lists were massaged by our editors.

[Argyriou]

Certainly! Even though the high-priority articles list did have some changes made already, I see them as starting points. There are some items on each which I disagree with, and for the WP list, there is quite a lot of discussion about the contents which might be worthwhile reading.

Two questions - should the lists include already-created articles? And should those articles count against the quotas you've proposed?

I'd argue that they should include already-created articles, just so people don't see the list and say "Where's Einstein?".

[Larry Sanger]

Certainly! Even though the high-priority articles list did have some changes made already, I see them as starting points. There are some items on each which I disagree with, and for the WP list, there is quite a lot of discussion about the contents which might be worthwhile reading.

Two questions - should the lists include already-created articles? And should those articles count against the quotas you've proposed?

I'd argue that they should include already-created articles, just so people don't see the list and say "Where's Einstein?".

You've got a good point.  Yes, they should include already-created articles that are at a similar level of importance.  But those articles shouldn't count for the competition.  :-)

[Lee R. Berger]

I like the concept - two thoughts come to mind - 1) to attract high end authors, we should probably have a submission situation where we can assess submitted articles off of live space (sounds anti wiki, but bear with me).  If we just open the space up on these priority topics, then anyone could just go through submitting "first" for the credit and we might not end up with the "best" article - although even as I write this I realize my argument is weak but I think it should be out there for discussion and if what I say next is adopted it would become irrelavent anyway...

Larry's concept of a point system might be slightly extended to the idea that by contributing to an existing article you could also move into the "credited" space, thus becoming a co-author.  This will be important to assure motivation for visiting authors to contribute to existing core articles or add new articles (even those that are not core).  Thus, lets take for example my article on "Primate" and I submitted it for this purpose (or it appeared on the 100 core article list in biology or anthro).  I end up somewhere as credited with starting the article at the "developing" article stage and garner say 10 points.  Some bright young author comes along, sees a way to dramatically improve the article and adds significant an important text etc.  Editors are, of course monitoring this and after a couple of days award say 6 points to the new author on this separate point page.  A couple of other authors, editors etc. weigh in all receiving "points" for their work awarded by editors in the topic area (in this example - anthro and biology) and eventually we reach a state where the article is "developed" and ready for approval. The two managing editors simply look at the points and assign authorships and co-authorships on Larry's far away page.  There would probably be a system where you had to garner at least, say, 6 points to have your name on the credit and they would always appear in order - highest points to lowest.  In this way, we not only motivate people starting an article (for the 10 point development credit), but we ALSO motivate editors and authors to chip in and join the approval race - so to speak.  I could readily envision such a system having starting authors falling behind contributing editors and authors who "make" an article happen by writing, editing and driving a topic towards approval.  The "prize" is having your name attached (which from previous discussions you all know that i feel this is a strong motivator for academics) - the long term motivation for tending an article is to keep your points up on its "author" page and advance your position in the authorship rankings - thus, everyone stays motivated to continue to develop and evolve even approved articles.  This also solves the problem of existing articles - there would be healthy competition to move these towards approved status -get on the author list and thus add to core content. We start with only the top 100 priority topics but as one of those get approved, we can add another to the list - thus "core" content forever expands.

Other points:

I like the idea, if we go with something around Larry's suggestion of having a press release and mass mailing.

If we are going this way, I would like to formally suggest we open a "Paleontology" Workgroup - we can't leave out dinosaurs after all!

I will volunteer to work with some editors to create Anthro's top 100 core article needs and, I would be willing to troll through existing core articles in our area and begin to rank authorships if you go that way.


As an added thought - editors in great need to have a single section of an important core article completed (lets say we were struggling with the "forensic anthropology" sub-section of the core article "Anthro" could advertise "bonus" points for completing that section - which might be the only thing standing in the way of final approval and thus motivate someone to contribute?

[Joe Quick]

Larry's concept of a point system might be slightly extended to the idea that by contributing to an existing article you could also move into the "credited" space, thus becoming a co-author.  This will be important to assure motivation for visiting authors to contribute to existing core articles or add new articles (even those that are not core).  ....  I could readily envision such a system having starting authors falling behind contributing editors and authors who "make" an article happen by writing, editing and driving a topic towards approval.

This is what I was trying to get at the last time we had this conversation.  I don't know how I feel about giving out points, because it seems to open the door for the creation of a lot of low-quality content that is written only for the points and possibly unhealthy competition, but I'll admit that this risk is much lower if the system is patrolled and directed by editors.  In any case, if we implement a point system along these lines, I think Lee's suggestions are extremely important.

[Larry Sanger]

Well, would anyone like to take the lead on this project?

I think the idea of giving points for moving us toward approval might be a good idea, one to test out if this one works.

Lee, you've got an interesting proposal there.  But, and I don't want to come across as dogmatic as I say this, but I am going to continue to resist compiling lists of article contributors, for reasons I've outlined before--which no one has ever really responded to, as far as I can recall.  Maybe someone can respond to this point, which I'll make again, perhaps in a slightly different way.  The one thing that keeps this project going, the fuel that makes any genuine strong collaboration run, is the sense that we are all equally empowered to work on any article.  To put my cards on the table, I have had some experience--with the Encyclopedia of Earth--designing a system in which contributors are credited.  I wish I could give you a report based on more recent experience (I'm no longer associated with that project), but as far as I can ascertain, the result has been that project never really generated the sort of mutual excitement that comes with strong collaborations.  We are typically happy and impressed when others edit our articles, and the sense that we're working on something much greater than any one of us could create makes a huge difference to the degree of motivation people feel to write.  My worry is that, if we start crediting all the collaborators of an article, and especially if we are selective about which collaborators we credit, we will set up a system where others, who aren't on the list, will feel they have to get permission from those who are on the list, if they are to do anything with an article.  I am fairly sure, based on my experience with different wiki systems, that this is the case.

I doubt we'll have this problem if we credit people only with the first draft, and if the credit is given on a special page, separate from the article itself.

If we were to credit all Citizens who have made the slightest little change to an article, I think that might be all right.  But I'd still be, quite frankly, worried about the slippery slope problem.  Already I think that our contributors (just as on Wikipedia, to be fair) sometimes feel a bit too much personal ownership over articles they are creating--they sometimes "shoo away" people who arrive to help.  This doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.  Authors who see other people, whose contribution to an article wasn't nearly as significant as their own, getting "equal credit" in an alphabetical list (or a list by order of first edit), will in time feel that they need more distinct credit, if names are named at all.  I can even see people starting to resent the contribution of newer people, as it dilutes their own personal credit.

I could be wrong on this.  I haven't ruled all sorts of credit schemes, certainly.  But I'll tell you--it makes me nervous when people say, "I want credit for my work," because it is one quick step from "my work" to "my article," and one quick step from there to "not your article--hands off!"  And then we're dead in the water.

To further help understand my resistance to lists of contributors, look at my comments about other online encyclopedia projects in this presentation: http://www.larrysanger.org/scholar_pub.html

[Aleta Curry]

Larry's concept of a point system might be slightly extended to the idea that by contributing to an existing article you could also move into the "credited" space, thus becoming a co-author.  This will be important to assure motivation for visiting authors to contribute to existing core articles or add new articles (even those that are not core).  ....  I could readily envision such a system having starting authors falling behind contributing editors and authors who "make" an article happen by writing, editing and driving a topic towards approval.

This is what I was trying to get at the last time we had this conversation.  I don't know how I feel about giving out points, because it seems to open the door for the creation of a lot of low-quality content that is written only for the points and possibly unhealthy competition, but I'll admit that this risk is much lower if the system is patrolled and directed by editors.  In any case, if we implement a point system along these lines, I think Lee's suggestions are extremely important.

I share Joe's concerns about unhealthy competition here.  Really, boys, it's not a race.  I'd hate to see us having "Lists of top 100 Editors by number of edits...points..."

Lee, anyone who will listen knows I'm solidly behind 'giving CZ credit where it's due'.  However, I'd like to point out that it is much easier to edit an article than it is to actually start (a substantive) one.  For this reason, I'm coming around to Larry's idea of first draft author credit (first draft beyond a stub), regardless.  For me, at least, there's a big difference between a) working with a couple of paragraphs, an outline, a thesis sentence... or even just a couple of probing questions, and b) staring at a blank page thinking, okay, I need a plan...or a muse....  I'm starting to think that the person who actually gets off his duff and makes a start deserves recognition for that, even if the original contribution is eventually eclipsed by others.  And, by the way, what's with the "bright young author"   from my point of view this should read "bright and crabby old authors"...

Larry, I don't think we can even get close to implementing any system based on workgroups assignments until we've solved the problem of the workgroups.  What has happened to The Great Workgroup Cleanup Committee? 

[Matt Innis]

Lee, anyone who will listen knows I'm solidly behind 'giving CZ credit where it's due'.  However, I'd like to point out that it is much easier to edit an article than it is to actually start (a substantive) one.  For this reason, I'm coming around to Larry's idea of first draft author credit (first draft beyond a stub), regardless.  For me, at least, there's a big difference between a) working with a couple of paragraphs, an outline, a thesis sentence... or even just a couple of probing questions, and b) staring at a blank page thinking, okay, I need a plan...or a muse....  I'm starting to think that the person who actually gets off his duff and makes a start deserves recognition for that, even if the original contribution is eventually eclipsed by others.  And, by the way, what's with the "bright young author"   from my point of view this should read "bright and crabby old authors"...

Hey, don't forget, we need articles Approved.  I think we need some editors whose sole purpose is to push some articles through to completion.  We have hundreds that are developed that just need a little push.  If a point system works, I'm all for it.

[Aleta Curry]

Well, Matt, some need a little push and some need a major shove.

The paragraph you quote was me supporting the first drafts credit, which I now think I support regardless of what is or is not done re points.

Still, the point I really need to make is that we need to cleanup the workgroups before we go adding in a point system--and Lee, I realise this is not a problem for Anthro, but there are some issues with other areas--there's a page somewhere with needed changes and updates.  That Antro workgroup page *does* look fab, by the way.

[Chris Day]

That Antro workgroup page *does* look fab, by the way.

Yes, good work Joe and Lee (and others) it is defintitely good to layout the big picture the way you have done it there. I think it will catch on.

[Joe Quick]

Lee, anyone who will listen knows I'm solidly behind 'giving CZ credit where it's due'.  However, I'd like to point out that it is much easier to edit an article than it is to actually start (a substantive) one.  For this reason, I'm coming around to Larry's idea of first draft author credit (first draft beyond a stub), regardless.  For me, at least, there's a big difference between a) working with a couple of paragraphs, an outline, a thesis sentence... or even just a couple of probing questions, and b) staring at a blank page thinking, okay, I need a plan...or a muse....  I'm starting to think that the person who actually gets off his duff and makes a start deserves recognition for that, even if the original contribution is eventually eclipsed by others.  And, by the way, what's with the "bright young author"   from my point of view this should read "bright and crabby old authors"...

I won't try to deny that the person who "gets off his duff" deserves a lot of credit.  Such credit will also help us, I think, because it will serve as an incentive.  BUT, crediting the first author and not crediting subsequent authors will equally be a disincentive.  I'd rather start a new article and get credit for it than add to an existing one and not get any credit.  This might actually be to our advantage at first, because we lack any coverage for most subjects, but it will also slow down approvals such that our real value in comparison to existing online resources won't shine through until long after it should.

[Larry Sanger]

Larry, I don't think we can even get close to implementing any system based on workgroups assignments until we've solved the problem of the workgroups.  What has happened to The Great Workgroup Cleanup Committee? 

I know you're going to have difficulty believing this, but it's in the pipeline.  I want to make a whole bunch of governance initiatives started all at once, starting in about 10 days.  It should be fun.  The Great Workgroup Cleanup Committee is one of them.

[Larry Sanger]

... BUT, crediting the first author and not crediting subsequent authors will equally be a disincentive.  I'd rather start a new article and get credit for it than add to an existing one and not get any credit.

I'm not sure I see that.  The lack of an incentive does not necessarily create a disincentive.

Besides, we want people to create articles on these articles in particular.  By giving an incentive to create them, we solve an important problem, viz., the lack of these articles.  It isn't part of the original purpose of this proposed initiative, as conceived by Lee and I anyway, to motivate people to work on CZ, period.

This might actually be to our advantage at first, because we lack any coverage for most subjects, but it will also slow down approvals such that our real value in comparison to existing online resources won't shine through until long after it should.

Right on both counts.  Well, what's more important for us in the near term: many approved articles (on perhaps relatively obscure topics), or many basic but unapproved articles?  I'm thinking having more basic articles will be more effective at helping to attract people.  I mean, it's hard for some people to take us seriously if we have an article about adipocytes (no offense to Gareth and Anthony, I hope), but none about--wait for it--cells!!!