NYT: "Wikipedia to Add Layer of Editing to Some Articles"

[Shamira Gelbman]

I thought others here might be interested in this article that a friend just forwarded to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html

[Hayford Peirce]

So they're finally grasping the nettle. If they carry it through to its logical extreme, that will mean the end of Citizendium.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

So they're finally grasping the nettle. If they carry it through to its logical extreme, that will mean the end of Citizendium.

Not necessarily, since it appears that the role of the Editor there will be more fact-checking; there's nothing to suggest that they will change the everything-must-be-sourced rule.

I think several of us see Citizendium, perhaps dimly, as synthesis- and expert-oriented, with strong navigation. I've had a couple of discussions, which a fellow Editor described as not unlike academic review, to break some of the Approval logjam by accepting qualified outside reviews, presumably sent to the Approvals Manager and used for guidance by an Editor who is generally knowledgeable but not an expert in the exact topic.

Apropos of the navigation, I've been working, recently, to put in a great deal of even short articles on influence groups (avoiding Shamira's list) and individual policy influencers. At some point, I would hope that someone who knows more about interpersonal/interorganizational relationship tracing tools than I do could suggest a next step beyond Related Articles -- which are already becoming immensely powerful.

[Peter Schmitt]

The system is explained here.
The German page contaiins more information: A kind of Karma system gives the right to flag articles.
This only means "no obvious vandalism". A second type of checking has not yet been implemented.

[Joe Quick]

If they carry it through to its logical extreme, that will mean the end of Citizendium.

I don't think so.  It looks like the changes will be accepted/rejected by pretty much whoever comes across them first.  It might be someone with some knowledge of the subject or it might not.  Lots of absolute crap sounds pretty reasonable if you don't know better.  In principle, at least, our system ensures that the people approving our articles are in the know.

[Joe Quick]

I've had a couple of discussions, which a fellow Editor described as not unlike academic review, to break some of the Approval logjam by accepting qualified outside reviews, presumably sent to the Approvals Manager and used for guidance by an Editor who is generally knowledgeable but not an expert in the exact topic.

I've been wanting to test run something like that but I still want to set up a citizendium.org email address for the Approvals Manager before starting.  With a dedicated email address, I can actually keep an archive of official correspondence along those lines.  Without it, you all just have to take my word for it.

[Hayford Peirce]

I've been wanting to test run something like that but I still want to set up a citizendium.org email address for the Approvals Manager before starting.  With a dedicated email address, I can actually keep an archive of official correspondence along those lines.  Without it, you all just have to take my word for it.

Well, cher ami, I'm sure I've heard you say this before, and I'm sure I've said that there's a Friendly Neighborhood Kop somewhere (wink, wink) who would approve your account request. So why don't you do it? Or do you need something more complex than just another CZ account?

[Paul Wormer]

The new policy will not improve  WP's science articles at all.  WP has a number of  "experienced editors"  that have a marginal understanding of science and who have one aim: rewrite the science articles so that they themselves think that they understand them. Very often these editors remove facts that contradict their preconceptions and simplify difficult arguments so  that the articles become wrong, or at least miss the point.

On the other hand, I have seen many "flyby" contributions by anonyms  (with IP's very often from renowned universities) that were high-level and exactly to the point.  In the new policy the former get the power and the latter are barred. It may be fatal for WP's quality that the former don't recognize the value of the latter's contributions;  many of the "experienced editors" simply lack the knowledge to distinguish between good and flawed scientific contributions.

[Matt Innis]

It looks like it's just for biographies of living people, or BLPs.  Of course, everyone will think that this means that ALL articles have this oversite, so they will get some positive PR from it, but they will still lack the oversight on all other articles, including science.  I imagine it has more to do with trying to keep from getting sued for liable.

[Arne Eickenberg]

The German test run provided oversight for all articles, not just BLP. I think it's a step in the wrong direction for WP. I prefer the CZ model… approval process etc. Much better.

[Joe Quick]

I've been wanting to test run something like that but I still want to set up a citizendium.org email address for the Approvals Manager before starting.  With a dedicated email address, I can actually keep an archive of official correspondence along those lines.  Without it, you all just have to take my word for it.

Well, cher ami, I'm sure I've heard you say this before, and I'm sure I've said that there's a Friendly Neighborhood Kop somewhere (wink, wink) who would approve your account request. So why don't you do it? Or do you need something more complex than just another CZ account?

I think it's more than you're allowed to do.  I need an email account, which requires someone to do something or other on the server, I think.  I suppose I could set up a gmail account and then eventually transfer the contents, but I feel like an email that actually comes from citizendium.org carries a lot more weight. I've asked Larry a number of times but he's busy with other things.  I figure I'll just bring it up again and again until I finally get his attention...

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

The new policy will not improve  WP's science articles at all.  WP has a number of  "experienced editors"  that have a marginal understanding of science and who have one aim: rewrite the science articles so that they themselves think that they understand them. Very often these editors remove facts that contradict their preconceptions and simplify difficult arguments so  that the articles become wrong, or at least miss the point.

On the other hand, I have seen many "flyby" contributions by anonyms  (with IP's very often from renowned universities) that were high-level and exactly to the point.  In the new policy the former get the power and the latter are barred. It may be fatal for WP's quality that the former don't recognize the value of the latter's contributions;  many of the "experienced editors" simply lack the knowledge to distinguish between good and flawed scientific contributions.

At least in some of my specialty areas, I can tell, with a high confidence level, who probably wrote something, simply from the topic and writing style. I might recognize a "flyby", although that might be narrow a range not to be useful. From that idea, however, I wonder if we could explore a variant of both flyby and our mechanism of allowing submissions as word processing documents: allow a variant where the  flyby author sends the content to a CZ member colleague and then drops out of the picture, never having to have had to sign up. This could, in some cases, simply be a permission to edit and reuse, or a note to a trusted colleague. The CZ member is ultimately responsible.

[Paul Wormer]

I agree with Howard. As a matter of fact I have tried several times to seduce colleagues to write a piece that I then would add to CZ under my own name. Apparently, I'm not seductive enough, I never managed more than that a colleague read once a  CZ article of mine.

[Hayford Peirce]

Joe, Larry just corrected a typo deep in the works that only *he* could do, so he's still around. Keep after him! And I'll email him myself on your behalf....

[Joe Quick]

There's a blog post from "The Ethicist", also in the NY Times about anonymous posting that is very apt for Citizendium: http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/is-it-ok-to-blog-about-this-woman-anonymously/