Brainstorm! How to ramp up writing, recruitment, retainment, and approval?

[Larry Sanger]

All,

Let me give you a little insight into how I think of our little endeavor.  When I first announced CZ in Sept. 2006, I thought, "We have an opportunity.  Let's see what we can make of it."  I was skeptical whether anything significant would come of it.  I thought probably something would, but I was very prepared for disappointment.  So I am actually pretty happy that not only are we surviving, we've been accelerating, and it looks like we can start 2008 with a bang, if we play our cards right.

Note, I say, "If we play our cards right."  Here's another bit about how I think: a little exercise I like to put myself through occasionally, to keep myself thinking creatively, is this.  For a moment, try to forget our accomplishments, trajectories, and plans.  Imagine that this is the first day of a new CZ.  Imagine you had come into exclusive control of the project.  That would be a pretty exciting prospect, no?  I mean, if you could develop it further, or change some things, and then all sorts of things would be possible, right?  Right--that's what I say.  It's just a matter of hitting on the right policy change, the right initiative, the right words of encouragement, etc.  It merely requires creativity to think of new (or insufficiently realized) possibilities--and then the judgment to pick the best, and the hard work to make them realities.

In that spirit, I ask you now for up to three new ideas about how to improve CZ.  We want to ramp up writing, recruitment (both editors and authors), retainment of new recruits, and approval of articles.  What are the most effective things we can do, in your opinion?

I am not really interested so much in debate about this right now.  I am much more interested in getting as many good ideas as possible.  I don't mind if your idea is one that has already been out there...we've had many good ideas that we haven't had the time or motivation to act on, after all.

So, please...brainstorm!  Throw out some ideas.  And don't read other people's ideas before you come up with your own, please.  As you might guess, I have plenty of ideas of my own.  But I prefer not to state mine, because my doing so might unduly influence what you say.  So maybe write out your top ideas separately, and then paste them here when you're done.  THEN read what others have said.

[Hayford Peirce]

Off the top of my head, here are my Big Three:

1.) Change the name from Citizendium to almost *anything* else. That was the first proposal I made when I first joined last May and I *still* haven't changed my mind on this.

2.) Make it *absolutely* clear, in BIG LETTERS if necessary, what the difference is between Editors and Authors. And make an *absolute* distinction between the two! Sure, an Editor can also be an Author -- BUT, if he/she's an author on an article, he/she ABSOLUTELY cannot then act as an Editor on that same article. No more de haut en bas edicts: "I'm the Expert here and I will not permit you to change my sacred prose!"

3.) Get one or more of our tech experts to figure out a means of sending a mass email to all the millions of idiots fine folk who have contributed to Wikipedia, with a message that says, more or less, "Tired of having your wonderful contributions vandalised and mindlessly destroyed by idiots, cretins, third-graders, crazies, Soup Nazis, and other intellectual lowlifes? Join Citizendium, where you will be able to.... etc. etc. etc."

Three reasons why I'm not in charge of this project, I suppose....

Hayford

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Well, I shall content myself with some technical proposals.

(1) Let's make a clearer list of what editors are supposed to do, so that newbies can rapidly pick it up. This includes better links to some existing guides, as well as writing some new pages.

(2) A better procedure for the Approvals process. We need to put pages into categories in relation to this. I am inclined to suggest that we need to change the entire structure of Article statuses to accommodate this. For example:
0=Approved
1=nominated for approval
2=suggested as possible nomination for approval
3=developed
4=deveoping
5=stub

(3) Rethinking of why so many editors have registered and then done nothing. Some emails asking them, for example. A procedure to slowly remove moriibund persons, which might bring back a few to life...

[Anthony DiPierro]

OK, here's three.  Not necessarily my top three, though.

1) Provide an open unmoderated mailing list.

2) Add a development namespace where information about a topic can be added which isn't in article form.  This would differ from the talk page most significantly in that content in this namespace is expected to be unsigned and edited mercilessly.

3) Promote collaboration more strongly.  Have little sessions of 3-10 people all working together on the same article over a relatively short period of time (maybe one or two weeks).  At least one person would be knowledgeable in the topic (not necessarily an expert, but at least familiar with the topic).  At least one person would be knowledgeable in creating articles on Citizendium (could be the same person as above, or someone different).  And then 2-8 people would be there to help create an article and learn about the topic simultaneously.  Advertise the sessions on a wiki page linked from the [[Main Page]].

Finally, this one's so simple I'm not going to count it as one of my three: Add metatags to mark Citizendium content as CC-BY-SA, so it gets included in free content searches.  (For instance, see http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=29508)

[ASweeney]

Right, the way I see it, the two biggest "logjams" we have at the moment are a) article approvals, and b) new authors not contributing.  So my ideas are:

1) Streamline the approval process somehow; perhaps, without sacrificing standards or quality, make the approvals process less arduous.  Perhaps have someone driving approvals - spotting articles that would be good candidates, matching them to editors.

2) Recruit more editors: Identify what areas/workgroups have lots of good articles and look to specifically recruit editors for those areas.  A well-targeted mail to a list or professional body?

3) Some initiatives are already underway, such as the volunteer "wikifying" project and the instructional videos; but for some there is still a steep learning curve, especially in creating new pages with subpages, it seems.  Perhaps some more/better help pages, "how to" guides and a couple of targetted videos with the areas people seem to find most difficult (which I would say are creating pages with subpage clusters and adding references/citations).

[Robert_W_King]

Right, the way I see it, the two biggest "logjams" we have at the moment are a) article approvals, and b) new authors not contributing.  So my ideas are:

1) Streamline the approval process somehow; perhaps, without sacrificing standards or quality, make the approvals process less arduous.  Perhaps have someone driving approvals - spotting articles that would be good candidates, matching them to editors.

2) Recruit more editors: Identify what areas/workgroups have lots of good articles and look to specifically recruit editors for those areas.  A well-targeted mail to a list or professional body?

3) Some initiatives are already underway, such as the volunteer "wikifying" project and the instructional videos; but for some there is still a steep learning curve, especially in creating new pages with subpages, it seems.  Perhaps some more/better help pages, "how to" guides and a couple of targetted videos with the areas people seem to find most difficult (which I would say are creating pages with subpage clusters and adding references/citations).

There's a solution to #3, which is making it easier to use.

[Aleta Curry]

1.  [shouting]  Give credit where credit is due.  (Yeah, yeah, I know, one can read the edit history.  Boulder...bolder...bollder-dash!)

2.  Design some online courses.  (Yeah, yeah, I know--you DID say brainstorm, didn't you?  This is *moi* wish list and I can say what I want!)

3.  Fix the #$%^&*(+ workgroups!

Look, everybody, for all our success, something very basic is not working.  I think we just haven't struck that definitive point that distinguishes CZ from the gadzillion (and increasing every day) other options out there.  Why the &*(*^$** should people pick *us*??  Answer that and we're done!

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Don't be shy, Aleta. Don't hide your lights under a bushel [in case it catches fire].   

[Aleta Curry]

I know, Martin, I really do have to learn how to speak up!   

[Larry Sanger]

... I think we just haven't struck that definitive point that distinguishes CZ from the gadzillion (and increasing every day) other options out there.  Why the &*(*^$** should people pick *us*??  Answer that and we're done!

Well, on the one hand, if we simply continue to accelerate, the answer to that question will be obvious.  On the other hand, I get your point, Aleta.  We can make what makes CZ great more active and obvious.

[Stephen Ewen]

Become more Newb-friendly and user-friendly:

1. Revamp "How to Get Started as an Author" keeping the utter noob in mind, and  "How to Get Started as an Editor" to better emphasize that "gentle" part of things.  Also, revamp {{awelcome}} and {{ewelcome}}.
2. Overhaul certain elements of MediaWiki to make it much easier to use.  If it were extended to use html forms it would be amazing what we could accomplish, and quickly.  As a corollary, why don't we have a formal Technical Team Workgroup where stuff is talked about and done on the wiki and people can better and more easily get involved in that way?  Frankly, I'd like to replace MediaWiki, but....
3. "New-user advisers".  Remember how in college all freshman are assigned an adviser?  Well, the top twenty actives on the wiki might like to do this.  The job?  Just be available to answer questions!  This ought not be just the constables' job.

 

[Kjetil Ree]

1) Redesign the user interface. We currently look like a cheap Wikipedia clone. We should get an identity of our own.

2) Inactive editors: Give them the boot and get new ones.

3) Find ways to make approval easier. It has been two months since our last approval, not exactly impressive.

-Kjetil

[Denis Cavanagh]

1) Accelerate the Citizendium Republic, or save a flagging Editorial Council by elected positions for authors. Even one representative in there would be a nice boost, and everyone likes a good election  I think sometimes it would be nice if someone who doesn't have a chazillion college degrees is allowed a chance to formally air his/her two cents!

2) The Approval system needs to be given greater emphasis. Personally I think its what will seperate us from the mob over at wikipedia in the future.

3) Keep the faith! If I, for example, were to type in 'The Battle of El-Alamein' I will be inundated in a google search by wikipedia. Wikipedia is unfortunately the first stop for knowledge online (And this will only get worse if the rumoured Google takeover of Wikipedia occurs - though I cannot see that happening) Its about time people had a credible and more advanced alternative. Wikipedia and Citizendium can certainly coexist - I'd rather read an article on Eric Clapton over there than here - On the other hand, I'd rather a rundown of the US Civil War on Citizendium. I think we need to accept this.

Merry Christmas!

[Aleta Curry]

Larry said, and I quote:  I am not really interested so much in debate about this right now.  I am much more interested in getting as many good ideas as possible. 


BUT--can we say if we agree with something someone else has said?  How about can I say if someone's post is making me lose bladder control?  Can I can I please please huh huh?

[Joe Quick]

How about can I say if someone's post is making me lose bladder control?  Can I can I please please huh huh?

Aleta, I'm worried.  That seems to be happening a lot recently.  Maybe you should see a doctor?

---------------

My top three:
1) Work out a better system to encourage authors and editors to move articles toward approval.  The more approved articles we have, the better we look and the more people will want to get involved.

2) More fun ideas like the geogra-thon for those who are already here.  We apparently give off the impression that we "take ourselves too seriously," so let's shed that image and come up some more creative ideas.

3) I hate to re-re-open this can of worms, but we should work out a system to give credit to authors.  I think this will help to convince experts that we deserve their attention and I think it will increase work on the wiki -- everyone likes to see their name in writing.