Where is everyone?

[Peter J. King]

I seem to be the only Philosophy Editor who has contributed, and most of the registered Philosophy Authors also seem to be inactive.  I'm trying to spread the word, and I know that Larry has alerted the two main Philosophy mailing lists (that's how I came here); any ideas for other ways of drawing in philosophers?

Peter

[Peter J. King]

I suppose that it was a silly question, in the circumstances...

[Larry Sanger]

I can send a mail to the philosophy editors if you write it.  We can report on what work we've been doing.  I find that most of recruitment takes the form of "look at this"--people simply don't know that something is happening.  Probably, some of the philosophy editors aren't aware that anything has been going on.  We might also mail PHILOSOP and PHILOS-L again after we launch into public view.

[Russell Potter]

I've had the same experience in Literature that you have had in Philosophy -- back when things started up, there were three or four other editors/authors, but I seem to be the only one at present who has logged on or contributed in the past month!  I have had some help with the top-level article (from people in other workgroups), but if we get it up to approval-worthy status, I'm not sure who will be able to approve it!

So: I do think some additional pre-launch recruitment will be vital, maybe a refresher e-mail to some of the professional listservs, perhaps with a link to a page of content?  Even getting the first few approved pages really requires at least three or four fairly active people ...

[Peter J. King]

I can send a mail to the philosophy editors if you write it.  We can report on what work we've been doing.  I find that most of recruitment takes the form of "look at this"--people simply don't know that something is happening.  Probably, some of the philosophy editors aren't aware that anything has been going on.  We might also mail PHILOSOP and PHILOS-L again after we launch into public view.

I'll work on something and e-mail it to you.

Peter

[Mike MacNeil]

Err, I likely shouldn't be posting outside the non-member questions and general help forums, since the Constabulary hasn't had a chance to look over my application and approve my authorship as yet, but I just wanted to chime in that you've got at least me offering aid in the philosophy department. Well, I -think- Discordianism, Absurdism, and some of my stuff on Aristotle would belong therein, so, just a pre-emptive "Glad to be aboard, I hope." from me.

~~Michael

[Larry Sanger]

I can send a mail to the philosophy editors if you write it.  We can report on what work we've been doing.  I find that most of recruitment takes the form of "look at this"--people simply don't know that something is happening.  Probably, some of the philosophy editors aren't aware that anything has been going on.  We might also mail PHILOSOP and PHILOS-L again after we launch into public view.

I'll work on something and e-mail it to you.

Peter

Please do!

[Peter J. King]

I'll work on something and e-mail it to you.

Peter

Please do!

Oops, sorry, it slipped my mind.  I'll get on to it.

[Joseph Bessie]

Hello--

Please accept my apology for any clunkiness in how this gets posted--I am still learning my way around the Wiki/Citizendium environment.  Re. question: I'm here and planning to help out, but am presently overwhelmed at the end of the semester here in Valley City North Dakota--we're trying to get our budgeting done for the next year, etc.  I am also pretty untutored in how to contribute to the philosophy articles/discussion to Citizendium (as opposed to Wikipedia, where I've contributed a few things):  My areas are (especially) logic and philosophy of science, causation.  When I look (say) at the logic article, I have in mind a number of ways the thing could be done--but how do I say "here's 500 words of material I think should be in this"--i.e., is that text just plunked into the discussion page and I wait for feedback, or do I just to ahead and edit the existing draft, or...?  Etc.  Sorry for my naivete here--please point me in the right direction!  Thanks and best regards--

Joe

[Larry Sanger]

Joe, sorry for the delay in reply--the philosophy workgroup isn't the most active, but it also isn't the least.

Just add the content directly into the article, but if it changes the article significantly, and if you think it might possibly be controversial, then explain what you're doing on the talk page.  In this regard we operate very similarly to Wikipedia--and it usually works out pretty well, although of course we occasionally have our disagreements as well.  We just tend to be more civil.

In general, I'd point you to this page.  I hope that might help.

I hope that we might get some summer editors involved!

[Joseph Bessie]

Thanks, Larry. 

Another thought re. Citizendium (maybe this already appears elsewhere): With Wikipedia, it's "low cost" to write something, since it's not peer reviewed.  With Citizendium, there's a kind of double-tension:  (a) On the one hand, it's serious and interested in well-written, accurate articles. It's all under the scrutiny of peers, so perhaps there is some reluctance to be publicly in error (or at least to appear so)?  (b) Serious scholars employed at universities spend much of their energies working on stuff (e.g.) for journals and presentations, and one must really be committed to tearing oneself away from that context to contribute for free what publishers or the profession will in other ways reward (money, prestige, positions).  If someone's going to spend serious time on writing something, the profession doesn't well reward this kind of public contribution...  Just some thoughts.

Joe

[Pip Bennett]

Hello all,

I am sorry to have been so useless to date.  How can I help?  My PhD will be looking at Contractarian Limits on Freedom within bioethics and I am interested in the Philosophy of Travel as well as most of Applied Ethics.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Pip

[Aleta Curry]

Thanks, Larry. 

Another thought re. Citizendium (maybe this already appears elsewhere): With Wikipedia, it's "low cost" to write something, since it's not peer reviewed.  With Citizendium, there's a kind of double-tension:  (a) On the one hand, it's serious and interested in well-written, accurate articles. It's all under the scrutiny of peers, so perhaps there is some reluctance to be publicly in error (or at least to appear so)? 

Joe, I think you're right.  WP is not peer-reviewed AND you can contribute anonymously, for whatever reason.  It takes a certain kind of 'girding one's loins' to leave oneself open for this.  I try to look at it like a dance lesson or a trip to the doctor's--people are there to help, not judge.

(b) Serious scholars employed at universities spend much of their energies working on stuff (e.g.) for journals and presentations, and one must really be committed to tearing oneself away from that context to contribute for free what publishers or the profession will in other ways reward (money, prestige, positions).  If someone's going to spend serious time on writing something, the profession doesn't well reward this kind of public contribution...  Just some thoughts.

I would add that "non-serious scholars"?, students, newbies, people with experience but not professional credentials etc. also get rewarded for their work in the ways you mention.  So yes--what are the ways in which CZ can reward contribution?  People have raised this in other threads as well, Joe, so you're not alone in your thoughts.