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

[Louise Valmoria]

Hi all,

I'm more of a background administrative type here at Citizendium, but I'll try to be more active (or active, period!) in the forums; if I'd been following this regularly then I'd have known there wasn't going to be a Write-A-Thon today, for example ... my own fault, though.

Some brainstorming:

1) Some way to generate active cross-disciplinary focus groups--whether officially organised or just initiated by authors (and the latter might mean that they are more spontaneous/enthusiastic)--might generate deeper interest in a topic. These might spring up from somewhere ad-hoc or could be organised into a collaborative space if there are authors who enjoy researching bibliographies and actively trying to fill the gaps of what they don't know about their topics, by specifically asking similarly multidisciplinary minds. For example, I am working on an article about Albrecht Durer, but am not familiar with his mathematical works--would like to recruit an art-history-oriented mathematician who might have gone through his works to explain that, as well as support from more experienced art historians.

While core content will give the lay reader what they are looking for, perhaps one of the ways we can improve what Citizendium has to offer, as well as much more information on the subpages, is a richer learning experience by deliberately crossing over disciplinary boundaries (if it's possible). I don't know how far we can travel on that edge without falling into the 'no original research' category, though.

2) Encourage more use of the resources that we already have--but perhaps also provide some clearer lines as to where things should be discussed? As an administrative type who has just dipped into the writing pool, I still get confused as to appropriate areas to discuss topics; on the topic talk page, on my talk page (admittedly, I check this first), on a workgroup talkpage, on a mailing list ...

Granted, I should have been pushing use of the mailing lists a lot more visibly and actively as at the moment I have been solely focused on setting them up and maintaining them since May--I had hoped that a lot more editors in the initial launch would step forward to 'own' the group mailing lists, thereby being able to set a direction and generate more internal interest in moving workgroup discussions and initiatives forward. Some lists have managed to self-organise just fine, others have been inactive since day dot. This is partially due to a drop in list subscription levels, or a lack of active editors--will try to run through some quick numbers over the next couple of days so I can clarify this.

Mailing list subscription numbers could stand to improve for quite a lot of lists, but I think if we pushed 'ownership' and collaboration within those workgroups any activity there could support workgroup activities and hopefully breed some internal initiatives.

3) One of the things I like about one of the other sites I contribute to, Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders (and its European counterpart) is that they have 'topic' months, where various projects to be worked on are highlighted as 'belonging' to a certain monthly initiative. Maybe as part of our initiatives we can introduce something similar--a 'Europe Week' or 'Astronomy Week' or, if that seems to general and mixing it up like the above focus group suggestion appeals to multidisciplinary sorts, themes like 'Art in Science' or 'Physics in Sport' so that people can contribute to a theme week/theme month without being left out due to their field.

4) A mentoring kind of service would be really useful for undergrads and other students--I actually see CZ as a really excellent opportunity to be able to communicate with some really active minds in their respective fields, a good learning opportunity, and any corrections that have been made to my articles so far I've found really useful because they had introduced things I haven't come across in my own research (and would thereby be more inclined to ask said editors for more advice next time I have a question, etc.). This does, however, take up a bit of time, and probably a bit of initiative on the part of both authors and would-be mentors (experienced authors and registered editors alike) ... but that's why we need to be bold, and all ...

Hope these thoughts may be of use?

Regards,
~Louise

[Zachary Pruckowski]

I hate dial-up internet with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

My suggestion (and I'll do more later and reply to other people's) would be a "corrections" system for readers.  Since it's non-trivial to get an account (never underestimate lazy people), we need a "see a mistake?  Click here to let us know" button.  As far as I'm concerned, that could be "corrections@citizendium.org" email.  I'll even volunteer to help track it when I get back to college.

My idea is that this will help readers get involved.  Not as easily as the "click to edit" of Wikipedia, but we can safely bin any correction emails that are vandalous.

[Supten]

This is not a great problem for me. From my academic point of view, CZ is an editorial and PR experience which (that?) is valuable as long as the contents that are produced are good.
I don't need to be rewarded by having my name appearing among authors. My best reward is the articles I am working on as editor reach approval and are made of great content.
This requires greater editor-author interaction and more editors working together on articles, in a way similar to what editors and referees do in scientific journals.

Since I'm rather late in joining this thread, I couldn't follow Larry's advice of not going through the other mails first!
I fully agree with Nereo that the job satisfaction of an "Editor" lies in seeing the "best" of articles see the light of the day.
Since I come from an inherently multi-disciplinary background, I find it very difficult to get more authors and editors on the topics that I want to get approved.
Just as "satisified employees" refer their friends to join an organization, "rewarded authors/editors" are more than likely to bring in more of their kind and help in achieving the high quality targeted by CZ. However, simplifying the approval process might help in doing that better.
Sorry for not being able to offer any "original" ideas here!

[Aleta Curry]

I hate dial-up internet with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

Just think how you'd feel if you were stuck with it!

I know I'm going to regret asking, but did something specific bring this up?

[Robert_W_King]

I think it's one of those school<- ->home issues.

[Louise Valmoria]

Another idea I had yesterday:

There might be writers who have specialised interests as well as qualifications in other areas. Maybe there could be some kind of author focus search implemented so that people can list their focus interests, so that if people working on an article know that they have a gap in their knowledge they can seek out other authors and ask for their advice/possibly a contribution?

I know that when writers associate themselves with a workgroup this makes them easier to track down by looking at the workgroup page, but some workgroups have heaps of people and there might be authors who feel they're not qualified enough to actually put a 'topic workgroup' tag in their profile, but quietly chip away at articles in fields of their interest anyway.

Right now I am looking for mathematicians with an art history bent or an art historian with a mathematical bent and am patiently clicking through user pages (and picking up a lot on other authors whom I might pester with questions/collaborations in future ) and just realised that a) I am spending a whole lot of time on this task than intended and b) if there were a quicker people search function maybe I wouldn't have to, so I can focus on writing.

That might help in the way of getting quality articles written, too--rather than the caution that some may take in 'stepping in other people's articles', if there's a channel for seeking out other experts directly (as opposed to just putting out a general request for help on a workgroup page or a mailing list, which not everyone may check) it might encourage more focused collaborative work.

[Denis Cavanagh]

Another idea I had yesterday:

There might be writers who have specialised interests as well as qualifications in other areas. Maybe there could be some kind of author focus search implemented so that people can list their focus interests, so that if people working on an article know that they have a gap in their knowledge they can seek out other authors and ask for their advice/possibly a contribution?

I know that when writers associate themselves with a workgroup this makes them easier to track down by looking at the workgroup page, but some workgroups have heaps of people and there might be authors who feel they're not qualified enough to actually put a 'topic workgroup' tag in their profile, but quietly chip away at articles in fields of their interest anyway.

Right now I am looking for mathematicians with an art history bent or an art historian with a mathematical bent and am patiently clicking through user pages (and picking up a lot on other authors whom I might pester with questions/collaborations in future ) and just realised that a) I am spending a whole lot of time on this task than intended and b) if there were a quicker people search function maybe I wouldn't have to, so I can focus on writing.

That might help in the way of getting quality articles written, too--rather than the caution that some may take in 'stepping in other people's articles', if there's a channel for seeking out other experts directly (as opposed to just putting out a general request for help on a workgroup page or a mailing list, which not everyone may check) it might encourage more focused collaborative work.

I think thats an excellent idea. The History Workgroup, for example, could have a place for different enthusiasts to sign their names. We could have people focused on Military History and others focused on Social History. As time goes on we could concentrate more on people who focus on American History, or Welsh History etc. etc.

[Joe Quick]

Another idea I had yesterday:

There might be writers who have specialised interests as well as qualifications in other areas. Maybe there could be some kind of author focus search implemented so that people can list their focus interests, so that if people working on an article know that they have a gap in their knowledge they can seek out other authors and ask for their advice/possibly a contribution?

I know that when writers associate themselves with a workgroup this makes them easier to track down by looking at the workgroup page, but some workgroups have heaps of people and there might be authors who feel they're not qualified enough to actually put a 'topic workgroup' tag in their profile, but quietly chip away at articles in fields of their interest anyway.

Right now I am looking for mathematicians with an art history bent or an art historian with a mathematical bent and am patiently clicking through user pages (and picking up a lot on other authors whom I might pester with questions/collaborations in future ) and just realised that a) I am spending a whole lot of time on this task than intended and b) if there were a quicker people search function maybe I wouldn't have to, so I can focus on writing.

That might help in the way of getting quality articles written, too--rather than the caution that some may take in 'stepping in other people's articles', if there's a channel for seeking out other experts directly (as opposed to just putting out a general request for help on a workgroup page or a mailing list, which not everyone may check) it might encourage more focused collaborative work.

I think thats an excellent idea. The History Workgroup, for example, could have a place for different enthusiasts to sign their names. We could have people focused on Military History and others focused on Social History. As time goes on we could concentrate more on people who focus on American History, or Welsh History etc. etc.

I second that!  This is an excellent idea!

[Matthew C. Woods, Jr.]

1: Make a Priority of Priority Articles

While there's been some discussion as to what we should focus on first, we should make this sort of discussion a front-and-center sort of topic (like this brainstorm here).  It should be emphasized that "priority" doesn't mean "work on other articles at your own peril."  Additionally, each citizen offering suggestions regarding what to write should explain why a particular category of topic would be good to prioritize (e.g., creating a niche, draw attention to Citizendium, etc.).

2: Blog-based Proactivity

(Wow, this looks like something out of Buzzword Bingo...)

I feel it's safe to assume that some citizens here are highly active in commenting on blogs.  The simple act of linking to Citizendium instead of Wikipedia should spread awareness of our project.  Since the problem here is that the relevant article might not be in Citizendium, citizens could anticipate what's likely to be asked in their blogs of choice and create articles based on that.

3: Unanswered Questions Box

I've asked straight questions of online sources that didn't get me straight answers.  (e.g., "How many silver pieces was a gold piece worth?"  "What is the oldest language?"  "How much will doubling metabolic rate raise body temperature?")  A place to post such questions -- as well as answers, sources, and how the answers and sources were found in the first place -- should give numerous article ideas for citizens.

[Joe Quick]

3: Unanswered Questions Box

I've asked straight questions of online sources that didn't get me straight answers.  (e.g., "How many silver pieces was a gold piece worth?"  "What is the oldest language?"  "How much will doubling metabolic rate raise body temperature?")  A place to post such questions -- as well as answers, sources, and how the answers and sources were found in the first place -- should give numerous article ideas for citizens.

I was just thinking about how cool it would be to have an "Ask the Experts" forum attached to each article.  I doubt that we would be able to keep up with that kind of thing yet, but it would be great for the future.  Imagine if you could open your paper encyclopedia, read an article, and then ask it questions:

"I think I understand a linear regression now, but why would someone use it on this particular type of data set?"

OR

"How come ice floats in water?  Aren't things supposed to be denser when they're solid than when they're liquid?"

OR

"I heard that the Maya think the world is going to end in 2012.  Is that true?"

[Derek Harkness]

1. The user interface needs revamped. We have complicated the process of starting a new article by adding checklists and sub pages and other stuff that is not immediately understood to the newbie user. We need to make starting a new article, including all the templates, as simple as one click. We also need to get the sites skin done. I asked for suggestions before on this and beyond a suggestion that we should use a beige colour instead of the current blue, there hasn't been much input.

2. We need more editors. Without the editors we won't get the authors. We will also begin to loose credibility if we maintain our current 1% approval level. The two key things that make us different form the competition are that here you should be able to work with experts in the field and that our articles are approved and so more reliable than wikipedias. At present, I see little difference between us and wikipedia since we have neither the team of experts or a body of approved articles.

3. Make small stubs officially allowed. Or at least have more stub-weeks. The more articles we have (even short articles) the more times we will appear in searches on google and yahoo and so the more people will read and participate.

[Larry Sanger]

(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

You know, if this is true, in some ways it makes matters easier than if Knol were to compete with Wikipedia.  Wikipedia+Knol would still be an inferior model to ours.

[Larry Sanger]

Another idea I had yesterday:

There might be writers who have specialised interests as well as qualifications in other areas. Maybe there could be some kind of author focus search implemented so that people can list their focus interests, so that if people working on an article know that they have a gap in their knowledge they can seek out other authors and ask for their advice/possibly a contribution?

I know that when writers associate themselves with a workgroup this makes them easier to track down by looking at the workgroup page, but some workgroups have heaps of people and there might be authors who feel they're not qualified enough to actually put a 'topic workgroup' tag in their profile, but quietly chip away at articles in fields of their interest anyway.

Right now I am looking for mathematicians with an art history bent or an art historian with a mathematical bent and am patiently clicking through user pages (and picking up a lot on other authors whom I might pester with questions/collaborations in future ) and just realised that a) I am spending a whole lot of time on this task than intended and b) if there were a quicker people search function maybe I wouldn't have to, so I can focus on writing.

That might help in the way of getting quality articles written, too--rather than the caution that some may take in 'stepping in other people's articles', if there's a channel for seeking out other experts directly (as opposed to just putting out a general request for help on a workgroup page or a mailing list, which not everyone may check) it might encourage more focused collaborative work.

I think thats an excellent idea. The History Workgroup, for example, could have a place for different enthusiasts to sign their names. We could have people focused on Military History and others focused on Social History. As time goes on we could concentrate more on people who focus on American History, or Welsh History etc. etc.

I second that!  This is an excellent idea!

I've only read this through quickly, so I probably just don't understand.  But there is a place for different enthusiasts to sign their name: you simply add [[Category:_______ Authors]] to your user page.  No?

[Denis Cavanagh]

Yes, but more specifically within workgroups would be nice. More could be done to make workgroups a hub of activity. For example a list of people interested in writing more specifically for certain types of articles within the workgroup.

[Larry Sanger]

I think we can sort various suggestions about our priorities into several categories.  When I did so, I discovered the following results (this includes some suggestions from the Executive Committee).

Personnel motivation, incl. help pages and design
11   - Make MediaWiki easier to use (e.g., one-click article starting)
8   - Crediting authors
8   - Recruitment
6   - Revamp help/introductory/community pages
2   - Redesign wiki skin

Content priorities
7   - Approval
7   - Core articles/increase article number
2   - Import Wikipedia's approved articles

External relations
3   - User feedback
2   - Partnership ideas

Governance
3   - Dispute resolution
2   - Revamp Editorial Council

Other
2   - Fundraising
2   - Change name
2   - New languages
2   - Eduzendium
17    - Other mostly idiosyncratic proposals

While I don't propose simply to act on this collected data uncritically, there does seem to be a collective wisdom at work here.  Far and away the most important priority are personnel motivation and content matters--more than external relations, governance, or anything else (such as fundraising or changing the name).

The community says that the top priorities in order are:
11   - Make MediaWiki easier to use (e.g., one-click article starting)
8   - Crediting authors
8   - Recruitment
7   - Approval
7   - Core articles/increase article number
6   - Revamp help/introductory/community pages

Can our intermediate goals be usefully simplified any further?  I think so.  Contributors want a simpler, clearer system (17); they want more contributors (16); and they want more (good) articles (14).

Keeping all the collected data and ideas in the back of my mind, I now want to ask: what *should* our top general priorities be?

Briefly: our goal is to increase the overall amount of work done on the project.  Now, what are the main means to this end?  Increasing the number of contributors, and getting them to work more, and to work more efficiently.  In other words:

(1) Increase the number of people who know about us
(2) Increase the motivation of those who know about us to participate
(3) Increase the efficiency of their participation

Actually, (3) isn't nearly as important, except insofar as it affects (2): if contributing seems difficult and inefficient, that will cut down on participant motivation.

So, while I will be trying to do many other things, I am going to encourage us most of all to focus on (1) and (2), or in English: get the word out, and maximize excitement.

--Larry