Would you contribute more if the wiki were blank?

[Tim McKenzie]

First, let's see whether we ought to blank the wiki for contributors; then, if we decide to stick with the non-fork, we can decide whether also to display WP's articles to readers.

That sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks for considering my suggestion.
<><

[Stephen Ewen]

I think CZ as an interface to read WP articles would be no more popular than other sites that carry outdated versions of the the articles. It just ain't gonna be very attractive when you can go get the "greatest-latest" in just a few keystrokes.

[Larry Sanger]

I think CZ as an interface to read WP articles would be no more popular than other sites that carry outdated versions of the the articles. It just ain't gonna be very attractive when you can go get the "greatest-latest" in just a few keystrokes.

Well put, Stephen.  That's a thought we've been dancing around that hasn't really come out articulately.

[Tim McKenzie]

I think CZ as an interface to read WP articles would be no more popular than other sites that carry outdated versions of the the articles. It just ain't gonna be very attractive when you can go get the "greatest-latest" in just a few keystrokes.

But CZ won't just be an interface to read WP articles, even if they are there. If publicity is handled properly, then the public will know that CZ isn't just an interface to read WP articles. What should attract people is the promise of better articles than WP, since experts are given more authority. That's what attracted me.

The comparison you should be making is this: will CZ be more popular as:
1. a random collection of a small but slowly growing number of good articles
or
2. the same good articles, with gaps filled in by other articles?

If you choose the former, then someone with my inclinations might initially try to use CZ as a resource. They'll search for an article on a particular topic, not find it, and then go to WP for the information. After repeating this half a dozen times, without finding anything they want to know on CZ, they'll give up and just go back to WP as the default, forgetting about CZ altogether. If you choose the latter, performing the second step for them by looking up the WP article, then you're much more likely to keep them interested in reading CZ, and perhaps contributing, too.

If you're worried about your reputation being tarnished by mirroring WP articles, then make sure that readers know which ones are mirrored. You could even give them the option of "turning off" the WP articles. Heck, you could even give contributors the flexibility to turn them on and off, but perhaps have them off by default, if it turns out that it will indeed encourage more contributions.

Tim
<><

[Larry Sanger]

The comparison you should be making is this: will CZ be more popular as:
1. a random collection of a small but slowly growing number of good articles
or
2. the same good articles, with gaps filled in by other articles?

We are not making the decision about whether to fork based on whether CZ will be more or less popular.  We are making the decision based on what will result in a more vibrant community in the long run.  A separate decision may then be made, on separate grounds, whether we want to go to the quite considerable technical wrangling to create a user's area and a contributor's area, etc.

[Nancy Sculerati]

Technical question: will the citizendium workgroup pages, none of which currently have a [[Category:CZ Live]] template be blanked out?

[Zachary Pruckowski]

Technical question: will the citizendium workgroup pages, none of which currently have a [[Category:CZ Live]] template be blanked out?

My understanding is that we're talking articles only, so anything with a Something: in front of it will be fine (Citizendium_Pilot:, User:, Category:, Template:, and all Talk pages).

[Tim Chambers]

I raised this issue early in the project. I'm pleased that others have added comments to this thread supporting the cc-nc. A defining characteristic of this project is that articles can be traced to authors in the real world. No content should be authored anonymously. The cc-nc then gives those authors protection.

On the subject of multiple licenses and custom licenses -- please, let's use one standard license. The GFDL shouldn't be an issue if we start blank. Authors at CZ should write from their own basis of expertise, and no question of authorship should taint CZ. Dragging content into CZ from WP taints authorship.

Finally, the worst thing CZ could do would be to create Yet Another License. The folks at creativecommons.org have put considerable thought and effort into what they do best -- writing copyright licenses. Let's leverage what they've done. Don't try to reinvent it.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

I raised this issue early in the project. I'm pleased that others have added comments to this thread supporting the cc-nc. A defining characteristic of this project is that articles can be traced to authors in the real world. No content should be authored anonymously. The cc-nc then gives those authors protection.

On the subject of multiple licenses and custom licenses -- please, let's use one standard license. The GFDL shouldn't be an issue if we start blank. Authors at CZ should write from their own basis of expertise, and no question of authorship should taint CZ. Dragging content into CZ from WP taints authorship.

Finally, the worst thing CZ could do would be to create Yet Another License. The folks at creativecommons.org have put considerable thought and effort into what they do best -- writing copyright licenses. Let's leverage what they've done. Don't try to reinvent it.

I agree with all of those points entirely.  However, I'd like to see broader rights granted to the Foundation, in the event that we need it.  Not unlimited rights, and certainly not ownership, but I don't want us to find ourselves hamstrung by a licensing provision.

[Stephen Ewen]

I too heartily agree with Tim, but am certainly wiling to listen to arguments about why a CC-nc might be inadequate.

Tim, I'd like to read what you wrote referencing "I raised this issue early in the project". Can you point me to the links?

[Versuri]

I have never heard a good argument in favor of GFDL in encyclopedia.

[Larry Sanger]

(admin Matt Innis removed comment from deleted user)

Another encyclopedia is not "reinventing the wheel."  Was every new version of Britannica a new wheel?  Every general encyclopedia that came after that--World Book, Encarta, Americana, etc.?

And it is laugh-out-loud funny to say that by not forking Wikipedia, we are creating a society that is separate from everyone else; Wikipedia is very very far from "everyone else."  It is its own insular community.  I sincerely hope that in fact we will be more inviting to everyone.

[Larry Sanger]

I have never heard a good argument in favor of GFDL in encyclopedia.

Tim implies one good argument.  How good, I don't know, but it's definitely worth considering.

1. We want to use some Wikipedia articles.
2. WP articles are available only under the GFDL.
3. We should employ exactly one license.  (This is the premise I borrowed from Tim.)
4. Therefore, we should employ the GFDL.

If we limit ourselves to a CC license (and I don't prejudice the question now which one), then either we employ more than one license, or we re-release WP-sourced content under the CC license.  This latter is something we are told over and over again the GFDL forbids, but which I know for a fact that Larry Lessig is trying essentially to have reversed, somehow.

I'm curious, Tim--how would you suggest we avoid this conundrum?

[Zachary Pruckowski]

1. We want to use some Wikipedia articles.
2. WP articles are available only under the GFDL.
3. We should employ exactly one license.  (This is the premise I borrowed from Tim.)
4. Therefore, we should employ the GFDL.

As it stands, some of our articles in progress are based off WP articles.  They would need to be dropped and rewritten if we switch licenses.  So what I'm saying is that this impacts current development as well as future development.  I'll show you some examples where I'm the only contributor so far (and will relicense to whatever gladly).

Let's look at Dead link.  That's a fully rewritten article, and thus probably can be relicensed (as it now contains no GFDL bits), whereas another article I've work on, Personal Computer has large chunks of GDFL'd material.

If we switch to CC-whatever (or MIT, or anything not GFDL), I would have to stop working on Personal Computer, dump the article, and start from scratch.  I don't mind starting from scratch, but I feel like we need to work that out soon.  There are articles people have spent more time on than I have (like Mark Rust on Nuclear Chemistry) that may not be completely rewritten, and we need to make sure we don't lose too much work in a license change.  Therefore, we should resolve the license issue as soon as possible.

[Larry Sanger]

Zach, you're right of course.  Yes, I'd like to have this well resolved within a matter of weeks, or even days.  I'm still very curious what Tim C. has to say.