Citizendium Forums
September 22, 2014, 00:09:57 UTC *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: POSTING RULES FOR MAIN CZ BOARDS: (1) The CZ Forums are Citizens-only (a "Citizen" is a Citizendium member). Non-Citizens may use only the "Non-Citizen comments" board, but still must register before posting (it's easy!). Non-Citizen posts elsewhere will be summarily deleted. (2) All must use their own real names. To edit your displayed name, click on Profile > Account Related Settings. (3) Citizens must link to their CZ user pages. To edit your signature, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Click here to return to the wikiE-mail support
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Would you contribute more if the wiki were blank?  (Read 87927 times)
Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« on: January 17, 2007, 06:50:59 UTC »

I have a simple, "dangerous" question: would you contribute more if the wiki were blank?  That is, if we hadn't copied over all those Wikipedia articles?

I just asked myself that question and I had to admit that I would in fact contribute more to the wiki--I would feel more motivated to do so--if there were wide swathes of open space.  One thing that I think I didn't realize sufficiently, when writing about this question a few months ago (at embarrassing length, before the pilot project was well under way), is that the very presence of fair-to-middling articles from WP is actually a strong disincentive for people to get to work.

It's like this: when you get down to brass tacks, it's no fun to clean up the mediocre work of Wikipedians.  It might be a hell of a lot more fun to start over from scratch.

As you can see, I am willing to revisit my old decisions and, if necessary, admit that I was wrong.  For me, as project leader, my top priority is to make sure that people are motivated to get involved.  I have been wondering why we have had only 10-20 (very) active people out of 500 accounts created.  I think we can do much better, and I think there might well be a huge amount more activity on the wiki if, basically, we could go where our fancies took us, starting over and doing it right from scratch.

I say all this without having revisited my own arguments against the position I'm suggesting here, and without considering other arguments in favor of the position.  It's just one point that I think has tremendous force:

We will work much more on the wiki if we have to fill it up with content according to our own standards, instead of the much duller task of cleaning up mediocre Wikipedia content.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 06:53:17 UTC by Larry Sanger » Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Nicholas Kaye-Smith
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 115


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2007, 07:32:03 UTC »

How about allowing contributors to blank Wikipedia articles they want to work on from scratch?
Logged

Zachary Pruckowski
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2007, 07:45:31 UTC »

My immediate concern is that we'd be re-inventing the wheel in many cases.  There are thousands of articles that could be blanked and rewritten to be better easily, but the entire WP database isn't pure crap.

How about allowing contributors to blank Wikipedia articles they want to work on from scratch?

If you want to completely rewrite an article, there's nothing stopping you from doing so already.
Logged

Joe Quick
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1530


« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2007, 07:50:33 UTC »

Me might work harder to fill empty space than to modify mediocre content, but to blank everything out is to dump a lot of good content. 

I doubt that, as a group, we have the expertise to write from scratch many of the good articles that are already on Wikipedia.  I doubt that we would even think to write a great many of the articles that are there, and mediocre coverage is generally better than nothing at all.

On a tangential thought, it might be good to have authors and editors tag articles that migrated from Wikipedia which they find to be complete and not in need of revision.  For example, I feel like the "Boy Scouts of America" page could hardly be improved and the same is true of many of the other Scouting pages.  I know that the original plan was to continue to use the Wikipedia content until someone makes an edit here, but if we think about throwing out Wikipedia content altogether, there are a few pages we should probably hold onto.

Perhaps a grading system for Wikipedia pages is in order so that we can alert the community to where the most work is needed.  If a page gets an "F" or a "D", then we might as well dump the content and start over.  If it gets an "A," then we keep it.  If it gets a "B," then we just touch it up a bit.  A "C" might go either way, depending on the ambitions of the author(s).
Logged

Nereo Preto
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2007, 08:46:37 UTC »

If you want to completely rewrite an article, there's nothing stopping you from doing so already.

This is true, of course, and I actually did it once. But people that see a page already filled might think they shouldn't screw all up by blanking it.
Perhaps we should stress, in the "instruction for authors" (or whatever is the name of it, I forgot), that starting over from a blanked page is ENCOURAGED, if the author thinks is a good idea, so people feels it safe to do it and may contribute more often?

I'm not for blanking all non-live pages, however, because WP is a great source most of the times.
Logged

David Tribe
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 122


« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2007, 08:50:01 UTC »

I think the question should be how can we be most productive.

Two counter aspects

We can take very good WP articles and quickly improve ans approve them ( eg Barbara McClintock)

and take mediocre but important one ( like Cell (Biology)) and fairly quckly get them right.


In working on existing article I keep on finding a need to create new wikis.

In short total blankness is counterproductive.


Logged

My User page  where you will find more:

"http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User:David_Tribe"

but more useful is my talk page:

"http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Tribe"

See you there
 :0)
Konstantin Tchernov
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 5


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2007, 08:55:53 UTC »

Wikipedia does have a lot of good content, I have seen some pretty amazing Featured Articles.  I don't think it would be wise to disregard that just for the sake of getting higher edit #s.  It is much easier and faster to clean up an article, than to write one from scratch.  Especially since most Wikipedia articles have already been written and discussed by many different authors (even if not nearly as many experts as we have here) - to include many different points of views and details that one person probably would not come up with.  It would have some benefits to write everything from scratch, but I don't think there would be a future in that.
Logged
Versuri
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 11:25:14 UTC »

As English is not my language, I don't have much to do, but if it was in my language I would contribute much more and if it was for "non-commercial" purposes (CC-BY-NC), I would contribute with much much more pleasure.
Logged
Celia Chazelle
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2007, 13:35:08 UTC »

Dear Larry, I have been looking closely at a range of Wikipedia articles in my fields of expertise, medieval studies. I actually think they are not bad. They are not badly written or structured and although they all have points where I disagree, this is true with any encyclopedia article. Every historian has a different take on the issues; if I were to write such an article others would raise legitimate disagreements.

A major value of Wikipedia is that since it is the product of so many, it has incredible volume. It covers a huge number of topics, far more than does any other kind of encyclopedia. A select group of specialists cannot match the quantity and it is not clear - at least in the articles in my field - that the quality would be significantly higher. Moreover, these are not research articles, the  kind of work where we can argue for new theories based on our own investigations of frequently obscure evidence. (In medieval studies, a lot of the evidence on which I would draw is unpublished or consists of untranslated primary sources that other historians have little studied.) So I don't think it's worthwhile investing a lot of time into editing the Wikipedia articles. I think a much more useful contribution would be to the bibliography: providing more extended lists of secondary literature, both peer-reviewed online publications and printed ones, that would be appended to the existing articles. Experts know this material much better than do many of the Wikipedia authors. These works would ideally be in all languages and the lists could be kept up to date, with additions made as books and articles appear. The interested reader who wants an expert opinion would be directed to those works. The Wikipedia article could then be left alone to be edited in the usual manner. 

Logged
Laurent Vermeersch
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2007, 14:22:30 UTC »

If one feels he or she could work more by starting from scratch, that's possible. Anyone can start writing an article on any subject. When that's finished, the community or the editors of that specific field, can easily compare it with the one from WP and take the best of both versions. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of WP alltogether...

Of course we have to adress the lack of activity from our dear contributors (I plead guilty!). I think we have to get the word out to more people, for starters. Beyond that, I believe people are a bit frightened by the idea that 'we' have to do better than WP (the pressure!). People are often not sure if it is possible to do better, so they just don't do anything. Anyway that's my feeling. It is obvious that in most fields, truth is so subjective that it is impossible to please everyone. We should accept that and start working!
Logged
Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2007, 14:44:12 UTC »

How about allowing contributors to blank Wikipedia articles they want to work on from scratch?

They already can, and this is something we've actually encouraged in some cases.  Our first approved article, "Biology," was blanked.

My immediate concern is that we'd be re-inventing the wheel in many cases.  There are thousands of articles that could be blanked and rewritten to be better easily, but the entire WP database isn't pure crap.

Me might work harder to fill empty space than to modify mediocre content, but to blank everything out is to dump a lot of good content. 

I'm not for blanking all non-live pages, however, because WP is a great source most of the times.

In short total blankness is counterproductive.

Wikipedia does have a lot of good content, I have seen some pretty amazing Featured Articles.  I don't think it would be wise to disregard that just for the sake of getting higher edit #s.

There is a pattern here Smiley and the point sounds quite solid: why would we delete (or ignore) enormous amounts of perfectly good content?  When you put it that way, that does sound counterproductive and unwise.  But let me remind you of our aim, which is for us to produce a credible, expert-guided (but not experts-only!) free encyclopedia.  No matter how good the content on Wikipedia is, if people were significantly more motivated to work on our project if they were always encouraged to start from scratch, then why shouldn't they start from scratch?

We do have a healthy number of contributors, and with more recruitment (and openness) we will get many more.  So this is not a make-or-break case, it is what we used to call in high school debate a "comparative advantage" case.  Would CZ be better off without all the WP articles?  I am leaning toward saying yes, for the simple reason that the community would be more vibrant and motivated.  If the main response, as the above quotes indicate, is not to deny my point, but just to say that we would be getting rid of tons of great content, this simply raises a question:

What's more important for CZ: a significantly more motivated and thriving community, or tons of great content on which we have not yet worked?

I know my answer.  If we don't value our community over Wikipedia's content, then what are we doing here at all?

Besides, a thriving CZ community can create tons of content, and far better content, than WP.  And I suspect that we'll do it faster than WP did.  Instead of 20,000 articles in our first year, we might very easily have more like 50,000 or 100,000.  I suspect the total number of approved articles would be much higher if we started from scratch.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 14:47:04 UTC by Larry Sanger » Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
PeterNeuhäusler
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2007, 15:47:16 UTC »

I know that this question does not really fit here. But is it possible to "copy" information or add information to an existing Wikipedia article if you know that this information is true, cited and so on? I mean, it is possible that someone doesn't have that much information about a topic but knows a lot about a specific subtopic. Is he then able to just add his specific info to the Wikipedia article and leave the rest untouched so that it becomes a "LiveArcticle".

If this is possible I don't think that the information from the Wikipedia articles should be deleted. There's too much of information that just needs to be verified and there would be no need to write a hole new article.

If it is not possible then the former Wikipedia information has to be deleted anyway, if someone begins editing an article. If this is the case, there could be really more motivation if the Wiki were blank.
Logged
Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2007, 16:13:40 UTC »

I used to dismiss the non-forking option as contrary to the purpose of CZ: https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-September/000483.html

See the section "Why fork Wikipedia?"  I'm going to reply to what I wrote there here--just to see if I can. Smiley

(1) I argued that academics are increasingly motivated to improve on Wikipedia, so we should give them a fork of Wikipedia to work on.  But I see now that this is a non sequitur.  I mean, the research community generally is increasingly motivated to work on a free wiki encyclopedia--but it might turn out that they would be less motivated to work on a project if it were already exhaustively worked out, than if they could start over from scratch.

(2) I argued that Wikipedia's content would help us bootstrap the CZ community into existence.  More articles to work on, I argued, would attract more people to work on them.  I now see that this prediction (because it was a prediction, you know) was probably incorrect.  The mere presence of a set of articles from WP on CZ doesn't act as a special incentive to work.  In fact, I now think they may be a disincentive, as I will explain below in more detail.

(3) WP is "the only game in town," I argued, and so people we would try to recruit would say: "Well, that [CZ] is a worthy effort, but Wikipedia is what people are using.  Why can't we try to improve that?"  In other words, I thought that people would be demoralized about working on CZ if it weren't a copy of WP, because work on CZ wouldn't seem to matter.  Well, I now have a different perspective.  In fact, it's precisely the work that we do that is distinguishable from WP that matters, because, to have value, our work has to be different from Wikipedia's.  More on this below.

My main error was in thinking that all-at-once forking would have special attractions and motivations for people.  I was wrong.  I suspect that we should see whether, in fact, not forking at all would lead to more motivated contribution
Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2007, 16:19:32 UTC »

A major value of Wikipedia is that since it is the product of so many, it has incredible volume. It covers a huge number of topics, far more than does any other kind of encyclopedia. A select group of specialists cannot match the quantity and it is not clear - at least in the articles in my field - that the quality would be significantly higher. Moreover, these are not research articles, the  kind of work where we can argue for new theories based on our own investigations of frequently obscure evidence. (In medieval studies, a lot of the evidence on which I would draw is unpublished or consists of untranslated primary sources that other historians have little studied.) So I don't think it's worthwhile investing a lot of time into editing the Wikipedia articles. I think a much more useful contribution would be to the bibliography: providing more extended lists of secondary literature, both peer-reviewed online publications and printed ones, that would be appended to the existing articles. Experts know this material much better than do many of the Wikipedia authors. These works would ideally be in all languages and the lists could be kept up to date, with additions made as books and articles appear. The interested reader who wants an expert opinion would be directed to those works. The Wikipedia article could then be left alone to be edited in the usual manner. 

Hi Celia, thanks--well, perhaps we disagree about the merits of Wikipedia.  Having gotten our hands dirty with various Wikipedia articles, I think our editors and authors have found that they really aren't all they're cracked up to be, and if we really roll up our sleeves and get to work, we find that we can do a much, much better job than the Wikipedians have done.  I'm told by a few different people that it's often more productive simply to scrap an article.  Combine that insight with the fact that people are much less likely to work on the article at all if a mediocre but usable article is in the database, and one has to wonder whether more damage is being done by keeping the WP articles around.
Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Nancy Sculerati
Guest
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2007, 16:42:22 UTC »

I was just e-mailed and asked to reply to the question: would you contribute more if the wiki was blank? I don't know, I contribute a fair amount as it is and I have never hesitated to cut whole sections or whole articles. For me, like in [[Snake venom]], I often keep what's there (in this case an excellent, but truly ancient -1910 or 1920, article) around to use the concepts raised as notes for the new work in progress. I cut as I go. In [[Biology]] I was oppressed by the density of the style and so I cut everything and started fresh. In my mind, none of us need permission to blank out anything from Wikipedia, after all the Wikipedian version is always available on Wikipedia and so I guess I don't understand the question.

In Citizendium, by the way, where we are dealing with named authors who are fellow workers in the enterprise,I  always accompany major changes with explanations of my view in the talk page of the article and make a note as I saved the new article version as well. That kind of communication has been key on those articles where many authors have been involved and not only have led to 'making friends' instead of enemies, but led to the writing of a citizendium article being a great learning experience.

As CZ live articles increase, it may come up that I -and others - am confused about WP holdovers- this did happen in [[Wheat]] as you will see from the discussion page. In other words, where there was confusing language in a CZ Live article that had received extensive CZ work, there was hesitation by any of us to revise language that we didn't understand, probably because we figured somebody who knew what they were talking about had put it there! Then it would finally turn out that nobody understood it and it was a "WP holdover" So maybe blanking is a good idea. Wink
« Last Edit: January 30, 2007, 00:46:41 UTC by Nancy Sculerati » Logged
David Goodman
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 247


« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2007, 16:52:11 UTC »

In starting articles, I ignore the WP version on CZ and use the current one. I could do this just as well if there were no WP version. Selected ones could be brought in by putting them iin CZ live, just as we are doing now with   many hundred articles.

Perhaps the WP sitting there has a psychological effect, but I do not think that is the primary problem. The primary problem is that there are many WP articles we might choose to consider out of scope--everyone will have heir own list, but I would start with high schools, radio stations, and subway stations. It would be easy enough  to say, for these topics, go to WP instead of having the WP articles appear under our banner--no matter how distinctive we made the headings, they would be taken for ours.

There is one major problem. If they were all removed, we would have an immense number of red links in our articles, unless there were some way to redirect them to the current WP--I think this might be technically possible. If this cannot be done, or some other solution to this found, then the WP articles have to stay in.

I am also
Logged

Nancy Sculerati
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2007, 16:56:15 UTC »

I don't agree, David. As a matter of fact, those red links would prompt the new articles we need and spur work! The author of the new article can always open a second browser window and pull up the Wikipedia version to refer to, if stuck. Eventually, we would have a full palette of working links  Grin (Unless, of course, they refer to high schools, subway stations etc.)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 16:58:11 UTC by Nancy Sculerati » Logged
Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2007, 17:11:41 UTC »

The only trade-off I'd go for is, if blanked, then the Project should be CC-nc.
Logged
Scott Young
Forum Member
**
Posts: 22


« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2007, 17:14:03 UTC »

I prefer the flexibility of using the WP article as a starting point if I so desire. In many cases, I had contributed to them in the past and only eliminated some of the "fluff" once moved to the CZ.  In others, I am accumulating ideas and will probably extensively rewrite (essentially blanking the WP article), hopefully in a pre-planned collaboration with others with similar interests.
Logged
Nereo Preto
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2007, 17:17:00 UTC »

No matter how good the content on Wikipedia is, if people were significantly more motivated to work on our project if they were always encouraged to start from scratch, then why shouldn't they start from scratch?

Hy Larry,
I see your point, is about the psychological effect of having the pages blank (am I right?). It might work in fact.

How would it look like? All pages now in WP but without the contents, only the title? Or not even the titles? Which means only live articles will exist. I'd like the second one, titles in WP are sometimes odd and I still have to learn how to change titles!

A way to save the good (good?) effects of having the page blank and take advantage of the good contents in WP might be to have blank pages, and an easy-to-use "Retrieve article in WP with the same title" button.
I would agree with a solution as this one, and probably would contribute some more, but I am just speaking for myself. Perhaps people will like to start over from scratch. Or, maybe, they will see a CZ with so much empty spaces, that they will set a "CZ is not important" mode in their minds. Hard to tell for me.
Logged

Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2007, 17:20:49 UTC »

The only trade-off I'd go for is, if blanked, then the Project should be CC-nc.

I agree.  That's an advantage.

I prefer the flexibility of using the WP article as a starting point if I so desire. In many cases, I had contributed to them in the past and only eliminated some of the "fluff" once moved to the CZ.  In others, I am accumulating ideas and will probably extensively rewrite (essentially blanking the WP article), hopefully in a pre-planned collaboration with others with similar interests.

There's a way to finesse this.  Nancy got it above.  If someone goes to edit a blank page, above the text box, we place a link to the Wikipedia edit page: _View or import the Wikipedia article on this topic_
Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Nereo Preto
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2007, 17:23:05 UTC »

There is one major problem. If they were all removed, we would have an immense number of red links in our articles, unless there were some way to redirect them to the current WP--I think this might be technically possible. If this cannot be done, or some other solution to this found, then the WP articles have to stay in.

Right.
Let's admit we decide to blank WP articles. Would it be possible to have blue links (to CZ), red links (broken) and, say, purple links (to WP)? That would made it, I suppose.
However, red links is a real problem in my view. Besides more substantial facts, a page full or red writings is ugly...
Logged

Ori Redler
Forum Member
**
Posts: 19


« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2007, 17:24:06 UTC »

Larry, First to answer your question: yes, I would do more with a blank CZ (this is what I thought we should have done in the first place) but I'm not sure that is what we should have. Instead of a 'blank' CZ we should have a clear view of what we want to have in CZ.

I think that the lack of activity by most authors and editors is understandable: they simply have neither the authority nor the ability to do anything useful, and there are too many distractions.

Celia Chazelle is quite right to point that most of the articles in her field of expertise, medieval studies, "are not bad." They are indeed not bad because they are almost invariably stuff copied or summarised from good books, good online content or a good encyclopaedias. They should be at least "not bad."

The articles that require some more knowledge, the BIG articles, are very bad for the same reason: they are compilations of such summaries.

But those "not bad" and bad articles are a distinct minority. About 80 percent of the articles are simply not encyclopaedic articles in any meaningful sense of the word. It is a vast universe of lists, almanac items, trivia, more lists, copyright violations, semi-copyright violations, more trivia, stuff copied from IMDB, some more trivia, and so on.

As I see it, CZ has three options:

A. Peel off the non-encyclopaedic articles and create a more traditional encyclopaedia with about 200,000 articles. This will attract many of the people who came here initially to do just that, but will deter using CZ as a jack of all trades and deter many who want to be with jack.

B.  Peel off the non-encyclopaedic articles selectively by merging articles and creating sub-encyclopaedias for the less traditional stuff, with a less restricting approach to contributing to those (e.g., a "films repository" or "Albums and Music"). This will help many 'live' with the non-encyclopaedic stuff more easily, but still keep the stuff within CZ.

C.  Keep the non-encyclopaedic articles but label them as "data articles". This will enable writers to safely state that this and that article is not an encyclopaedic article, but still keep it within CZ for its content value.

D. Do nothing (i.e., keep it all, don't change status of anything) and hope that 1,500,000 articles will somehow be edited and "encyclopaedised" by 500 authors.


The effort, it seems to me, was to frame a reasonable framework of policies, procedures and standards within which those 500 would be able to work. This is a good thing, but it doesn't work so well if while working out those policies, procedures and standards people are basically 'on hold' and cannot do much, because doing involves working according to some agreed upon principles with regards to this major issue of what to do with the WP stuff.

For myself, I felt a bit discouraged, because after editing about 120 articles I felt unable to do anything useful with the stuff I've edited: I could neither delete it, nor label it as "data", neither relegate it to somewhere else -- those are undecided matters, and remain undecided.

In other words: we should have a clear picture of what we want to have at the end, with specific reference to what we should do with what we have.

Logged

Ori Redler
-------
My CZ account: My CZ user page: http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Ori_Redler
Larry Sanger
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1830



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2007, 17:24:38 UTC »

No matter how good the content on Wikipedia is, if people were significantly more motivated to work on our project if they were always encouraged to start from scratch, then why shouldn't they start from scratch?

Hy Larry,
I see your point, is about the psychological effect of having the pages blank (am I right?). It might work in fact.

Exactly.  Thank you Smiley

I'm composing a long (ugh Smiley) explanation of the psychology of it.

Quote
How would it look like? All pages now in WP but without the contents, only the title? Or not even the titles? Which means only live articles will exist. I'd like the second one, titles in WP are sometimes odd and I still have to learn how to change titles!

A way to save the good (good?) effects of having the page blank and take advantage of the good contents in WP might be to have blank pages, and an easy-to-use "Retrieve article in WP with the same title" button.
I would agree with a solution as this one, and probably would contribute some more, but I am just speaking for myself. Perhaps people will like to start over from scratch. Or, maybe, they will see a CZ with so much empty spaces, that they will set a "CZ is not important" mode in their minds. Hard to tell for me.

It is always hard to tell and I must remind myself of my ignorance of these matters, and that I am merely speculating.  It's true, because we are in unchartered waters.

How would it look?  No titles, no nothing.  A blank wiki that we can fill up and make our own.  Of course, we'll save all the CZ Live articles.
Logged

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
Please link to your CZ user page in your signature, too!
To do that, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Tim McKenzie
Forum Newcomer
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2007, 17:25:35 UTC »

One thing that no-one seems to have (directly) addressed yet is the usefulness to the general public. As much as I would like to, I don't currently have the spare time to work on CZ. However, I was planning to make it my Online General Reference of Choice as soon as it was publicly launched. This would involve not only using it for my own benefit, but I would inevitably end up referring other people to its articles, too. This will be much more difficult if there aren't many articles. I think that as a consequence, fewer people will hear about CZ, and the community won't grow as much, so the content won't grow as fast, so it won't be so useful ... you know the story.

I think it might be beneficial to keep quite separate in your minds the parts of CZ that editors see, and the parts that the rest of the general public sees. You could, for example, leave the WP articles there at first, but when someone goes to make the first edit to one of those articles, have them edit a blank page by default. That way, the general public will immediately have a useful resource, but CZ editors will get to start from scratch. They can, of course, copy any WP content they think is worth having. You could even have logged-in editors see links in a different colour if they're linked to unmodified WP articles. This would be a psychological incentive for editors to work on all the articles and turn all those links blue, while casual readers will still have a seamless CZ experience.

Tim
<><
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!