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

[Larry Sanger]

Thanks to everyone so far...anyone else?  There are many more active people who haven't contributed their thoughts.

I promise aggressive development on several fronts, and soon, but let's get our best ideas of what the fronts are, first.

[Thomas Mandel]

Seems that everyone, Phd's in particular, are concerned with the up-to-date state-of-the-art story, but consider the casual observer who has no idea whatsoever is going on. To dive into the middle for him would be a daunting task, even if he or she is inclined to do so. What we need, and what every article needs, is a good introduction. I cannot emphasize the
"good"
and the
"introduction"
adequately. Or let me put it this way, the good introduction should reflect what is good about CZ, it should be so well written that the casual observed will be propelled forward, probably to read about his or her's favorite subject.

Keep in mind that it is the reader that matters most and is the sole purpose of what we are doing. Assuming that a reader attracted to what we do is perhaps more intelligent than those who would accept any kind of writing, he or she is quite adept at reading between the lines.

So maybe we should be asking the new readers what they think? Why did you come here? Did you find what you were looking for? Why not?

[HasanMurtaza]

1) A very close analogy can be made between wikis and software development's CMM (Capability Maturity model.)  Basically, software development is graded on a scale from 1 to 5.  Wikipedia operates like a Level 1 organization, and the Citizendium should try to copy the practises from higher levels. 


Level 1 Initial
Level 2 Repeatable (Managed)
Level 3 Defined
Level 4 Quantitively Managed
Level 5 Optimizing

The description of a Level 1 organization (from the wikipedia page on CMM!) fits Wikipedia perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model#Level_1_-_Initial

"At maturity level 1, processes are usually ad hoc, and the organization usually does not provide a stable environment. Success in these organizations depends on the competence and heroics of the people in the organization, and not on the use of proven processes. In spite of this ad hoc, chaotic environment, maturity level 1 organizations often produce products and services that work; however, they frequently exceed the budget and schedule of their projects.

"Maturity level 1 organizations are characterized by a tendency to over commit, abandon processes in the time of crisis, and not be able to repeat their past successes again.

"Level 1 software project success depends on having high quality people."

Wikipedia's approach to software quality is still utterly simplistic: if you see a mistake in a page, just go ahead and fix it (even anonmously.)  Now some organizations still develop software this way, and the result is that their products are always a "work-in-progress", just as wikipedia is.  When I wrote high quality radio communication software for Motorola, I had to follow a completely different set of rules: if you saw a bug, you had to go through a defined process to change a single line of code--even a comment.  The result: people could track changes to the system, there were no surprises, no events hapenning under the radar, and most importantly--people could make assumptions about the state of the software at any time since the changes were known to everyone who did a query on it.  These small things make a big difference in how you think about software...but they can only be possible in a stable environment, which Citizendium is trying to become.


2) The user interface should make it easy for people to get up to date with the CZ process.  Quality partipation will require quality tools.  Getting information on stuff like who has deleted your months of hard-work on an article, where the controversy of the week is, and who else will be making changes to a section which you are working on, are the type of things which CZ will have to offer.

CZ must be able to allow people to open a page for a few months if necessary, and let it sit on their desks while someone slowly types out his opus, before submitting it with a flourish and letting another set of editors worry about how to merge it in to the article.  Once done, the writer should be informed whenever anyone who ever changes his words, so that he can respond personally if he wants.  This will encourage long-term participation in the project, as well as lend stability and quality to the whole process.

Wikipedia has no way to let you do this today. 

Wikipedia is all about a single user making a change to a single copy of the article.   

3) The editing model should be as feature-rich as standard software configuration management tools, which allow multiple users to edit the same file *at the same time*, merging them and using them simultaneously without interference, indefinitely.  So if you forked off an article to edit it, you could make you changes, share them with your students, have them all contribute and in theory--never merge it back to the "main" article ever again.  If you did, it would have to be done by following a proper process etc.  I can't emphasize enough how interesting this change will be. 

That's all for now.

[Nat Makarevitch]

Our major problem is money.  CZ needs costly resources: servers, network 'bandwidth', system administrators and especially developers seriously developing code enforcing CZ specific approaches...

Most adequate people don't like to do some needed part of such tasks, especially during long periods, therefore won't tackle them without being paid for it.

Larry: this 'Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!' mention in your signature, for example, is necessary because no one hacked this forum's code to establish a single sign on (oops, WP link... can't find an adequate article on CZ and WP is often OK for IT technical matters) with the accounts used in the wiki. No one then added some programming in order to automagically sign here (this is neither very creative nor interesting). Therefore you request it explicitly. Many newcomers, even not IT experts, will notice such a request (or the lack of hacks to Mediawiki (potential tasks: enforcing CZ-specific processes, being more newcomer-friendly, extending/packaging/documenting of tools (probably OOo and CPAN -based) enabling easy injection of variously (MS-Word! HTML!) formated existing documents...), or the lack of real distinctive user interface, or the lack of a clear marketroïd-but-honest presentation of the approach ("what are the 'editor' mission and rights?") ...) and will think "ok, this is just another immature/do-it-yourself project. Let's come back later to see if it can offer useful and pleasant tools for me to jump in". Someone may step in and hack those example projects during the next few days, maybe weeks. But seriously tackling each and every long-term tasks implies a fair and constant amount of work, often impossible to distribute among volunteers.

Even Wikipedia, first kid in town which benefited from the prime interest of good hackers, now pays (or get as a gift) talented people (sysadmins, Mediawiki hackers, MySQL specialists...) work.

Fund-raising is difficult. Look at the running ones: CZ's asked for 1500 USD and got ~1300 (stuck there for at least a few days). Look at Wikipedia's: no more than ~10000 USD (from ~30000 to 40000) during the last weeks. A single adequate database 'writer' (replication master) server and storage costs approx 8000 USD. A serious setup implies at least two of them in each site and two sites (locations). And so on (servers for DB read, pictures, webservers, caches... network equipment... hosting fees... admins in stand-by duty... developers...). Wikipedia spent approximatively 3 million USD last year, and now plans spending 4.5. How will they obtain 4.5e6 USD while not being able to raise 5e4 thanks to their main (if not unique) way to obtain money? (By the way I think that this Google "Knol" thing is only a way to progress towards a 'merging').

Even authors are looking for reward. Some now want credit for their contributions, and many experts NEED it because their reputations are their main assets. Gaining reputation and a few bucks from time to time thanks to a good CZ article may attract some. On the long term one may think that experts will earn significant, if not decisive, amount of money thanks to their online publications... is it pertinent for CZ? Or, to put things as they see it, is CZ pertinent? Giving prominent credit is not a problem. Money, on the other hand... (Google's project solves both problems, and they don't have any problem related to development nor server hosting).

Let's offer:

• an adequate approach (in my opinion CZ has one, and Wikipedia hasn't -- beware document written in French)
• efficient and pleasant tools
• credit and reward to authors

Many experts will come.

Is there a way to find money or to alleviate the need for it (reforming society, obtaining some grant...)? That's our major problem right now.

[ADMIN NOTE: I edited post to fix broken links]
(thank you!)

[Aleta Curry]

Dear Hasan and Thomas,

Would you be kind enough to link to your user pages in your signatures so that we can learn who you are?

Thank you

[John Williams]

My ideas relate to what I perceive to be the critical success factor for CZ: quality of articles.  People satisfice.  We (the Internet-using global population) all know that Wikipedia is vulnerable to various quality-reducing factors, yet in day-to-day experience it is incredibly useful.  Why would I look up, say, Goedel's theorem or the History of Colonial India on CZ in preference to WP?

The problem is that people who are expert and qualified to write good quality encylopedic articles are often very busy and less than computer literate.  They know how to use Microsoft Word (kinda) and that's about it. (A gross simplification and generalisation, I know, but I hope you get the point.)  So:

1. Make it incredibly easy to submit articles.  The technical process should be so simple that someone who has never used a wiki before (and doesn't really know what one is) can use it with ease.  This may mean allowing submissions in proprietary formats and then converting them.

2. Don't compare to WP.  Compare to Encylopedia Britannica (or whatever).  The fundamental concepts are very different.  A free EB online is the appropriate comparison, not a better WP.

3. Make the peer review process clear to people who decide whether a CZ article will count toward various academic definitions of publication worthy to count toward promotion. Is it as good as a peer-reviewed conference paper?  A book chapter?  An article in a journal?

As you can see, I'm an academic.  So I'm biased.  But hey, this is a brainstorm and anything goes :-)

Good luck Larry,

John

[Stephen Ewen]

(By the way I think that this Google "Knol" thing is only a way to progress towards a 'merging').

Of course, Yahoo! appears to already do with Wikipedia some of what you are talking about in the link, see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_announces_Yahoo_support

[Nereo Preto]

We need to attract quality authors. But quality authors are busy elsewhere, because, well, they can provide quality, which is valuable stuff. So my proposals are:

• 1. Find a way to reward authorship. E.g., by crediting individuals. The other great idea I endorse is, make it clear there is a peer review process, and lay it down clearly. More: call it "peer review".
• 2. Eduzendium works. It yields hi-quality articles (I'm referring to the contents) which style might improved later. We might become a service for those University teachers who want to take advantage of our peer-review system (but we need to state it clearly), and we'll get great contents back.
• 3. Try to find professional editors and place them in key positions.
• 4. Study the editorial policies of web-oriented scientific journals (e.g., PLoS - but Nature and Science might work as well), and get inspired.

This is brainstorming of course. Ignore me if I look too... well, I don't know what. Greetings. Ciao.

[Zunaid Parker]

1. Bootstrap on Wikipedia's success:
a) Import ALL Wikipedia's Featured Articles and Good Articles and edit/approve them post-haste. They are very solidly referenced thus any information in them can be easily checked for accuracy. They give comprehensive coverage of the topic under discussion explaining all sides of the issue both positive and negative. They contain a good selection of external links. I highly doubt Citizendium could do better by starting from scratch on these topics, certainly not for a few more years yet, by which time a few thousand more articles would have reached Featured or Good status. If we do this we can focus our efforts more on the topics that Wikipedia does not do justice to. We don't need to tie up Authors and Editors by re-inventing the wheel.
b) Make all our citation templates (if not the navigation and infobox templates as well) work in exactly the same way e.g. our {{cite web}} template does not parse all of the parameters that Wikipedia's does thus leaving out information and/or resulting in ugly looking citations.
2. Change the name Citizendium to something with the word Encyclopædia or Knowledge somewhere in it. Think of the layman, what the hell is a Citizendium any way? Something with Encyclopædia in it for example is more likely to pique the interest of the casual web surfer. We need to draw people in, not make it hard for them to find us. While we're at it, change that name Constable to something like Moderator or Sysop. It is both whimsical and at the same time officious and over-bearing.
3. Bots and automation: let new authors get on with the business of writing and don't burden established Citizens with having to {{subpages}} and [[CZ:Live]] tag these raw articles. Why not build this into the software by default whenever a new page is created?
4. Make the place more newbie friendly. There are a staggering amount of rules to read through, not to mention the vagaries of wiki markup to learn. As has been suggested, accept emailed articles in e.g. Word format and make a PROMINENT link for people to email articles in. Accept emailed photos (as long as the copyright info is clearly stated). We should also punt VERY STRONGLY that newbies need not worry about making mistakes ("Ignore All Rules"). There should be a huge "Create new article" button on the main page, which could be supplemented by the following:
5. An Article Creation Wizard for people who know wiki markup and have progressed from sending in Word documents. Step 1: fill in the text of your article. Step 2: fill in your References. Step 3: fill in any Bibliography/Further reading. Step 4: fill in any External Links. Step 5: etc. as needed. Step N: Click "Submit" and you're done.

[Andrea Attilio Grilli]

Hi I'm a new author (or I joined like author, but i have still to write).
So these are my ideas, simple and perhaps simple too.

1. change design of CZ
because it's to similar to Wikipedia, to attract new people i think we have to change our dresses. Are we different? Perhaps the words are not enough to differentiate us. The Web is also design, also eyes. I see, I watch... so where is the difference between CZ and Wikipedia (beyond to the project CZ)

2. more language
language could be a firewall to join to the project. we have to start with others language more speaking (France, Spanish, German, Italian). If we want a universal encyclopedia we need more language, more language more people.

3. controintuitive alliances
partnership with a little university that probably they are more motivate to write contents. Wikipedia is cool, but if we give a little university to write a new and more correct encyclopedia, perhaps their students write more and with great motivation

bye
andrea

[David Goodman]

I can tell you at least how to remove the factors that  inhibited me from being more active after a start.
1. Relationship with wikipedia. Critically, the uncertain ability to use content across both wikis (now fortunately removed--and that should make a real difference to me). But also the reluctance to use their good content. In the fields I know, most of it is at least a suitable start to an article and sometimes all or almost all that would be required.  We should encourage import (& upgrade) of content. Zunaid Parker said this well.
1a.  This will avoid the depressing effect of the missing articles. We could fill them in very quickly with a different attitude towards wikipedia. But this view was rejected a year ago, and I decided not to press it to avoid being asked to leave the project.
1b. This will also avoid the problem that in many subjects, we simply do not have enough starting content to attract active editors or writers to attain any real momentum.
2. We need greater acceptance of diversity, to overcome the feeling of OWNership in both writing and editing. OWNership is a wikipedia concept, but it applies here, together with the tendency of articles to reflect POV-- or to downplay academic disagreements. It's easier to disagree strongly in Wikipedia, where you don't actually know  the other editors. We have the opportunity here to sum up arguments and show the true diversity of academic opinion, not just give a standard consensus. I initially disagreed  strongly with the view of a prominent editor in my subject about what constitutes a good article.  But I found I did not want to hold up progress in approval by challenging everything. In Wikipedia, I'd have simply worked on another article, but here I decided not to proceed where I thought I would not be appreciated.  I'm trying again, and I've just challenged the consensus on some  articles. Let's see what happens.
  
 

[davidstodolsky]

It's easier to disagree strongly in Wikipedia, where you don't actually know  the other editors. We have the opportunity here to sum up arguments and show the true diversity of academic opinion, not just give a standard consensus.

We can get this by requiring real names, but allocating a cover name to each person that can be used when desired. This gets us closer to the academic model of peer review and makes it more likely that we indeed get that quality of output. (I assume here we allow signed articles, also absolutely essential to get new academics.)

An earlier proposal above including allowing non-academics to act as editors. This can be achieved by allowing credit for good articles (those that editors find are almost ready or merely need formating). And to allocate even more credit for those who catch errors, again as determined by an editor.

Both of the above were proposed earlier in a different format:

Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus journals: Invitational journals based upon peer review. _The Information Society_, _11_(4).

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19

[Regina Bouillon]

Encourage small-scale PR

We have become quite a big community and everyone of us can contribute to Public Relations. I suggest that we write a page how to do this:

1. We can all place a link on our personal website
2. We can announce Citizendium actions like Geogra-Thon in all kinds of calendars of events, forums etc.
3. We can write and publish articles about our experiences with Citizendium in blogs or whereever

There are certainly more ways. Those initiatives should be encouraged and people must be invited to join them.

Regina

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

[Jacob.Roecker]

I've let everyone else have the floor for a couple of days now, and I can finally contribute a thing or two of what I'd like to see.  I certainly agree with A LOT of the comments that have been made.  Here are a few of my suggestions:

FIRST:  People that can create good content are everywhere.  It doesn't take a doctorate to be able to do a good write-up.  Encourage professors teaching undergrad students to contribute to the project. 

I'm doing that with one of the wiki's I've started.  "Communication" is so broad a topic that neither citizendium, nor wikipedia give it the proper representation.  It does function as it's own discipline separate from English, sociology, philosophy, and psychology--though it sometimes borrows concepts and theories from each.  The comm wiki (http://www.nancytobler.com) posts student's articles and recognizes they're student articles.  If the entire write-ups aren't up to par, certainly sections of them are.  At some point when the community at the comm wiki grows I'll be able to implement a more formal review process.  In the meantime though search google for "Bona Fide Group Theory" and you'll find that an undergraduate student write up (mine) is among the top five results.  It's been reviewed by the professor the paper was written for and considered a good write-up.  Sure google doesn't result credibility, but it does illustrate how an undergrad student found a void and filled it.



SECOND:  This point goes back to what others have said about acknowledging authors.  Giving credit will fuel more contributions at any level.  Others have commented that those at higher levels of educational standing look for this as a serious influence.  The appeal to undergrads is slightly different.  What if I could use the CZ as a resume bullet on my grad school resume?  "Contributed to over 40 articles on the CZ."  I just need a way for the person reading the resume to verify that I have done what I say.  This could fuel good articles from undergrad students.  In the communication discipline (because it's so broad), undergrad students have been  known to generate new and significant contributions to the discipline.

THIRD:  PR, PR, PR.  Larry (or someone) brought up the idea about making a video of what we're about.  This is one small portion of the PR vehicle that needs to be built in order to get this thing going.  The problem is that PR has to be done FIRST, LAST and ALWAYS. 
   ALWAYS:  If CZ starts implementing some of these changes it should be listed in press releases etc.  These should be ongoing, and placed in a prominent spot on the homepage.
   FIRST:  Creating a video of "who we are" needs to get done immediately, but it will also be instantly out of date should any of these suggestions be implemented.
   LAST:  Once changes have been made the introductory video will need to get re-done.

Recognizing how big a project it is to create these videos I haven't been able to volunteer--and this is the one area where I could significantly help.  I can't do it alone.  Such a video should involve testimonials from different professors, narration by Larry, a well reviewed script etc. etc.  Larry's involvement (because he so busy) should be nothing more than reading the text into a headset.  Getting the project to the point where Larry does nothing but read is a bit too much for me this semester.  But hey, I'll volunteer to help whatever committee plans on putting it together.  I can definitely do the Camtasia screen recordings.

If the CZ doesn't have a full-time "non-Larry" PR guy they certainly should appoint someone--but the time involved in doing it right requires someone having a full time job, and I don't think we've raised enough money.

MONEY ISSUES:  There's a good extension for mediawiki that allows for a google site search.  I would recommend that this be added to the CZ.  Revenue generated from the ads might help offset some of the costs of functionality.  Recognize that I'm suggesting this without any knowledge of CZ's public or private statements regarding funding, selling online advertising, etc. etc.  It may already be a "no-go" due to a policy I do not know.


This is all IMHO.  But this is brainstorming--we can do this.

-Jacob Roecker
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Jacob_F._Roecker

[Robert_W_King]

We should copy that Wales fund-raising video that seems to be de-headlined a few weeks ago. 

We could have Larry giving a speech about the importance of sharing information with countries that have large impoverished areas, and cut to shots of his eyes and then one of his hands rubbing together... then maybe another shot of the eyes and a tear rolling down, like that famous "crying indian" ad.