Caesar Schinas
Forum Communicator
Posts: 155
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2009, 12:58:25 AM » |
|
Well, I like the concept, but which individual author gets credited? The one who has contributed most? Personally I prefer the idea of just crediting the workgroup (or subgroup). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Quick
|
|
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2009, 07:47:33 AM » |
|
Well, I like the concept, but which individual author gets credited? The one who has contributed most? Personally I prefer the idea of just crediting the workgroup (or subgroup). I would be okay with letting people put their names in if they want to list their contributions on a CV or resume or if someone had a good reason to single out one contributor for some reason but I would also prefer to credit the workgroups only when citing an article for any other reason. I do really like the idea of crediting the workgroups though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shamira Gelbman
Forum Participant
Posts: 115
|
|
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2009, 08:21:40 AM » |
|
Not to be the party pooper, but don't most (all?) citation styles call for citing unsigned encyclopedia articles with no author at all?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Anthony.Sebastian
Forum Communicator
Posts: 179
By words the mind is winged. —Aristophanes
|
|
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2009, 02:25:04 PM » |
|
Well, I like the concept, but which individual author gets credited? The one who has contributed most? Personally I prefer the idea of just crediting the workgroup (or subgroup). I would be okay with letting people put their names in if they want to list their contributions on a CV or resume or if someone had a good reason to single out one contributor for some reason but I would also prefer to credit the workgroups only when citing an article for any other reason. I do really like the idea of crediting the workgroups though. The idea: let anyone who feels she/he has contributed an article cite it on her/his CV/Resume with her/his name first followed by the Workgroup name, in the way I suggested. But only on her/his CV/Resume. If one were to cite the article in a journal article, book chapter, etc., just go with: Citizendium Workgroups in Health Sciences, Healing Arts, and Classics. (2009) "Hippocrates". Full-Text: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Hippocrates. I just wanted a citation citation style for individual contributors to credit themselves as contributor when they report to their superiors or seek employment. An alternative: Schudy W. (contributor) and the Citizendium Workgroup in Physics. (2008) "Electricity". Citizendium Online Encyclopedia. Full-Text: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Electricity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Drew R. Smith
Forum Communicator
Posts: 178
|
|
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2009, 09:14:31 PM » |
|
Why can't we show the names? Research papers can have many many authors, usually with the biggest contributors name first. Why can't we have people add their names? For Hawaiian Alphabet it would look something like this |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hayford Peirce
Administrator
Forum Regular
Posts: 1332
|
|
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2009, 09:24:03 PM » |
|
I don't know whether it's in this thread or not, but a year or so ago there was a long, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about this and the order in which people would be listed, the number of people that would be listed, whether a computerized formula could be developed that would count the words of each contributor and then, maybe, extract a percentage of words created within the article. Etc. etc. and so forth. I don't think that any two contributors could agree upon *anything* except that *maybe* it would be good to show names, but, of course, there were those who disagreed about that also....
In other words, I think that this is rehashing an old, old, *old* argument that is probably never, ever going to be agreed to by anyone involved....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Drew R. Smith
Forum Communicator
Posts: 178
|
|
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2009, 09:28:56 PM » |
|
You're probably right that we'll never agree on *how* to do it, but from what Ive seen (albeit from only a month of observation) people do seem to agree that crediting authors is a good thing.
Perhaps we could have a subpage that lists the contributors?
And I know we haven't gotten to this point in the discussion, but if we end up counting words or letters to determine positioning, we should only count the DISPLAYED text in an infobox, not the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hayford Peirce
Administrator
Forum Regular
Posts: 1332
|
|
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2009, 11:07:22 PM » |
|
You're probably right that we'll never agree on *how* to do it, but from what Ive seen (albeit from only a month of observation) people do seem to agree that crediting authors is a good thing.
No, you're wrong on that count. Many, *many* Citizens do not agree that crediting authors beyond what is already available in the History of each article is a good thing thing. Generally speaking, however, I would say from my own observation that they are not as much concerned about this as those on the other side of the question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Russell D. Jones
|
|
« Reply #68 on: August 02, 2009, 03:34:14 PM » |
|
I think there is a very easy way to credit authors and that is that approval of an article must also included approval of the article's citation. There should be a discussion and consensus reached about the citation, just as there is discussion and consensus reached about the content. Whenever a new draft is submitted for re-approval, a new (or revised) citation must also be agreed upon. By the workgroup or subworkgroup editors, of course, in both cases.
This is not a problem. And the metadata could easily accept such a change.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Drew R. Smith
Forum Communicator
Posts: 178
|
|
« Reply #69 on: August 02, 2009, 08:04:33 PM » |
|
Ok, let me see if I understand you.
Under your system people would make a "to cite this article...Beychock M....Citizendium..." section, place it on the article, and when it comes to approval the editors would check to see that, yes, Milton Beychock is indeed the largest contributor to this article, and approve the article and add the citation to the metadata?
If that's what you're suggesting, it sounds ok to me. The only problem is we don't approve articles very often. Since I've been here I can't recall a singe article being approved. Of course, this is another problem for another day.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Quick
|
|
« Reply #70 on: August 02, 2009, 08:32:23 PM » |
|
Since I've been here I can't recall a singe article being approved. Since you've been here, we've approved or re-approved six articles. It's not an overwhelming figure to be sure, but it's not nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Drew R. Smith
Forum Communicator
Posts: 178
|
|
« Reply #71 on: August 02, 2009, 09:41:09 PM » |
|
Really? Six? We really should have some sort of announcement or something, at least while approval is still semi rare. I had no idea that anything had been approved. I stand (or rather, sit) corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aleta Curry
|
|
« Reply #72 on: August 02, 2009, 10:45:46 PM » |
|
I don't know whether it's in this thread or not, but a year or so ago there was a long, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about this and the order in which people would be listed, the number of people that would be listed, whether a computerized formula could be developed that would count the words of each contributor and then, maybe, extract a percentage of words created within the article. ...
In other words, I think that this is rehashing an old, old, *old* argument that is probably never, ever going to be agreed to by anyone involved....
Hayford, you little Pollyanna, you! --She has returned |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Schmitt
|
|
« Reply #73 on: August 03, 2009, 03:20:32 PM » |
|
I don't think that it makes sense to demand lengthy credits to individual contributors.
There are several reasons:
- Whoever joins such a project should be aware (from the beginning) that it is collective.
- Many-authored works usually are cited "First author, et al."
- Users will usually not read long lists anyway (and may be annoyed).
- In many (most) cases there will be no fair way to determine contributors
(but all articles should be treated in the same style) -- some contributors
may not appear in the history, but only on the talk page.
BUT:
- Whoever is interested in contributors can always check the history.
- Authors can document their contributions on the user page or elsewhere.
Thus, I think, the simplest credit is the best: Citizendium -- only.
(not even the workgroup is necessary -- it is given by the topic).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hayford Peirce
Administrator
Forum Regular
Posts: 1332
|
|
« Reply #74 on: August 03, 2009, 04:52:50 PM » |
|
You see, Drew, not everyone agrees that it is A Good Thing. Peter has perfectly summed up all the lengthy arguments that have been made in the past about why we *shouldn't* have signed articles.
I happen to agree with him 100 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
