Launch plan!

[Larry Sanger]

All,

We're going to launch quite soon.  No date is set, but a few weeks from now--as soon as possible.

As you may know, we have been putting off our launch (i.e., allowing the public to view CZ) until we obtained the servers we need to handle the traffic.  Well, we've decided to go ahead and obtain four servers, for a total of five (two of these, and installation, kindly donated to the cause by Steadfast).  These should be installed this week, which means that launch is going to happen soon.

Beyond server work, there isn't a lot of other *technical* work that we absolutely need to do in order to launch.  We've got to create a CZ: namespace and move the Citizendium Pilot: namespace documents into it.  We've got to slap "Beta" on the logo.  And we've got to make sure the license scheme we adopt is reflected by the links we have on article pages.

Also, **if** we can manage it, I'd like to get the semi-automated application hand-approval system written and working, i.e., the system that will allow people to submit their registration on a Web form, and let constables get them into the system by pressing a button.  Even if we *don't* do this, we're already using a new method for getting people on board within a day (usually), via e-mail.  Thanks bunches to our constables for making that happen!

Also, no doubt post-launch, we will want to code up our approval process so that it is simpler (and thus more inviting) for editors.  Doing an approval right now requires approvers to be pretty adept with the software.  So, we'll get this fixed eventually too.

Other things I want to do before launch involve decisionmaking, organizing, writing, and wiki work--in other words, non-technical stuff.  This is all hard work, by the way.  Anyone who says that online projects grow "organically" really doesn't know anything about it.  Even Wikipedia didn't grow "organically": it grew exactly to the extent that lots of individuals did various bits of very hard work, from writing articles, to debating policy, to formatting help pages, and so forth.  There is no substitute for our doing the same thing, if we want to make this thing happen.

And, by golly, it *is* going to happen--or rather, it is already happening!

=================
Decision: license

The only decision that I think is *really* pressing is the license issue.  I have it from a very highly-placed source that we shouldn't "worry too much" about GFDL/CC-by-sa compatibility.  On that person's recommendation, I am leaning toward something I was already favoring, namely, dual-licensing *all* CZ articles GFDL and CC-by-sa.  The grounds for doing this are, in brief (!), as follows.  First, we *must* source Wikipedia articles using the GFDL.  Second, we really do want to allow our contributors to use Wikipedia material.  Third, there is no restriction (I think) on our releasing *our own* edits under CC-by-sa *as well as* the GFDL.  Fourth, licensing *exclusively* using GFDL is suboptimal simply because we don't want to rely exclusively on a license that, quite frankly, doesn't make any sense as a license for wiki-developed encyclopedia articles.  Fifth, having the same licensing for all articles will save us a lot of headaches.

Finally, I will want to say that, while of course each contributor retains copyright over his or her contributions, the Citizendium Foundation must also be granted a nonexclusive copyright, which we may use to re-release all versions of an article, and all CZ articles en masse, under the same (two?) licenses.  So, future entities that make copies of CZ's articles may do so by dealing with just one legal entity, namely the CZ Foundation.

Discuss these issues, which are BY NO MEANS finally decided, here: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.0.html

Obviously, I owe you a longer argument, and a set of replies to the excellent discussion that has taken place.  In particular I need to address the debate about whether we should permit commercial uses or not: to the extent we don't, we can't use Wikipedia articles.  Anyway, as I go through this discussion, I might well change my mind as I work through that material, which I have only started to do.

I'd like to get this decided finally by the end of the week.

==========
Organizing

As to organizing, I've got 37 members of an Editorial Council to get started.  We need to set up a mailing list and start using it.  I think the first thing we should discuss--unless it's the Editorial Council's procedures--should be what new workgroups to adopt.  By the way, I also want to delete the various "Other" workgroup pages (like "Other Natural Science"), since they aren't in use and frankly were probably never a good idea in the first place.  (If anybody wants to just go ahead and do that, be my guest.  I guarantee that nobody's going to object; put {{speedydelete}} on what you can't delete yourself.)

Sometime soon, moreover, we really need to take some more steps toward getting active workgroups going.  Wiki work has been proceeding apace without workgroups being active.  But workgroups seem to be necessary for us to be able to make maximal use of our editor pool; I think we'll also see a lot more article approvals happening when there are, essentially, more self-aware communities of editors.  So, I am thinking that we should probably set up mailing lists for the various workgroups--those that have enough interested people, anyway.

I think we also really need to get our new Editorial Personnel Administrators started, since we need more such people in order to handle new editor applications.  I've no doubt that we would be doing more recruitment if we felt we could handle the load of new applications.

=========
Wiki work

I would like to start the Big Cleanup this week, too.  Learn about it and discuss it here:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,590.0.html)

This will remove templates, category tags, add CZ Live tags, check the "Content is from Wikipedia?", and other such "administrative" stuff.

We could, at the same time, start using the Article Checklist, which you can learn about here:

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:The_Article_Checklist

and discuss it here:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,587.0.html

We really need detailed, constructive feedback on both the Big Cleanup and the Article Checklist before we get started with them.

=======
Writing

I've been at work on a new essay, "Why the Citizendium Will Succeed," which I hope will motivate contributors.  I think many people are sitting on the sidelines, watching with interest, wondering if this CZ thing is going to take off.  I'll argue, among other things, that if we simply continue as we have been, but open the project up, semi-automate registration, and continue to develop process and policy, the Google effect will see to it that we grow and that our rate of growth will accelerate over time.

I will also be drafting (or helping to draft) several policy pages: licensing introduction; article mechanics; naming conventions; the policy on family friendliness; citation policy; image policy; and probably others, particularly some constable policy pages.  I will also be creating several background and help pages, such a page on the differences between CZ and Wikipedia, and a separate page about how to get started as an editor.  After this work, I'll revisit the Project Home page.

I hope project regulars will feel emboldened enough to help me with most of these policy pages, since it will be hard to do it all myself!  But I'll be writing on the wiki quite a bit over the next couple of weeks.

Hope to see you there.

--Larry

[Anthony.Sebastian]

Sometime soon, moreover, we really need to take some more steps toward getting active workgroups going.  Wiki work has been proceeding apace without workgroups being active.  But workgroups seem to be necessary for us to be able to make maximal use of our editor pool; I think we'll also see a lot more article approvals happening when there are, essentially, more self-aware communities of editors.  So, I am thinking that we should probably set up mailing lists for the various workgroups--those that have enough interested people, anyway.

Larry: Instead of a mailing list for each Workgroup, please consider a threaded-forum, like the CZ forum, for each Workgroup.  Members only for each Workgroup, except include administrators and others need to advise and counsel the Workgroups.  Workgroups might choose to invite certain others.

I believe a Workgroup-specific forum would foster community more readily and fully than a mailing list.

[Larry Sanger]

Sometime soon, moreover, we really need to take some more steps toward getting active workgroups going.  Wiki work has been proceeding apace without workgroups being active.  But workgroups seem to be necessary for us to be able to make maximal use of our editor pool; I think we'll also see a lot more article approvals happening when there are, essentially, more self-aware communities of editors.  So, I am thinking that we should probably set up mailing lists for the various workgroups--those that have enough interested people, anyway.

Larry: Instead of a mailing list for each Workgroup, please consider a threaded-forum, like the CZ forum, for each Workgroup.  Members only for each Workgroup, except include administrators and others need to advise and counsel the Workgroups.  Workgroups might choose to invite certain others.

I believe a Workgroup-specific forum would foster community more readily and fully than a mailing list.

But these already exist here on these forums, so if we take your advice, nothing more needs to be done.  Yay!

I think that perhaps we need some way to "get the word out" on important issues to the concerned editors and authors.  In other words, we need a "push" means of communication as well as "pull."  In the same way that there is a "push" or broadcast means of communication for the whole project, Citizendium-L, I think we could use relatively low-volume "push" means of communication for our various workgroups (once a quorum was reached).

A large part of the problem is that there are many workgroups that exist, but quite frankly, people don't know that they're members, or that anything's going on.  The general problem we need to solve is: how do we change that?  Push-style lists are one solution.  Is there another?

[Chris Day]

But these already exist here on these forums, so if we take your advice, nothing more needs to be done.  Yay!

Exactly right, what are these forum for if not discussing workgroups issues. No need for any e-mail lists.

In other words, we need a "push" means of communication as well as "pull." 

But you might want to consider that those not watching the forums don't wish to be pushed?  This is a critical mass issue and we are on the low side.  But as the project builds up we will definitely be happy there is no e-mail.

A large part of the problem is that there are many workgroups that exist, but quite frankly, people don't know that they're members, or that anything's going on.  The general problem we need to solve is: how do we change that?  Push-style lists are one solution.  Is there another?

This is also a critical mass issue.  i think one of the reasons the biology group is working well is that we have enough people in the group that there is always something happening.  Groups with very few active members look dead and thus discourage activity. Solution is recruiting and publicity.  The launch may solve both problems.

[Larry Sanger]

But you might want to consider that those not watching the forums don't wish to be pushed?  This is a critical mass issue and we are on the low side.  But as the project builds up we will definitely be happy there is no e-mail.

Well, of course we want these to be voluntary lists.  Some people, indeed, want to receive "push" communication.

Notice that when I send something out over Citizendium-L, pointing to a forum page (er, like this one), it ends up getting discussed rather well--often rather better than things I post without advertising them on CZ-L.  So, it's like that: there are some issues that you want to bring people out of the woodwork for, and people are willing to be brought out of the woodwork for them.  It's like calling out the troops.  People may not voluntarily go to a bulletin board to read a notice, but if you shout it at them, they (sometimes!) appreciate it and care.  It seems they actually want to be "pushed" at, because they want to be told what's important.  Sifting through everything that has appeared on the forums since the last time they checked, well, few people have time for that.

So I would refine my proposal by saying that the workgroup mailing lists would be broadcast-only and limited in number of posts.

[Chris Day]

But you might want to consider that those not watching the forums don't wish to be pushed?  This is a critical mass issue and we are on the low side.  But as the project builds up we will definitely be happy there is no e-mail.

Well, of course we want these to be voluntary lists.  Some people, indeed, want to receive "push" communication.

Notice that when I send something out over Citizendium-L, pointing to a forum page (er, like this one), it ends up getting discussed rather well

Actually i saw this in the forums first, not in an e-mail.

Voluntary would work. Then those who like to be pushed can be prompted of discussions.

[Adam Carr]

Larry, in relation the comment I made to you on your Talk page the other day, thanks for posting this statement on your plans to launch CZ. Could I now ask you to clarify exactly *what* is going to be launched? Will it be (a) a complete copy of Wikipedia, except for those articles which CZ editors have changed and/or tagged as "CZ Live"? or (b) ONLY those articles which CZ editors have changed and/or tagged as "CZ Live"?. In other words, will it be a very big online encyclopaedia, called CZ but 99% identical to WP? Or will it be a very small online encyclopaedia, with updated versions of a tiny fragment of WP articles, chosen more or less at random? I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

[Derek Harkness]

we need a "push" means of communication as well as "pull."

As long as the message is consistent on both means. I tend not to subscribe to pushed material (my inbox is already full of newsletters I don't have time to read without adding more) so I sometimes have felt that I have missed an important discussion because it took place on one medium only.

[Supten]

Chris Day wrote: This is also a critical mass issue.  i think one of the reasons the biology group is working well is that we have enough people in the group that there is always something happening.  Groups with very few active members look dead and thus discourage activity. Solution is recruiting and publicity.  The launch may solve both problems.
Adam Carr enquired about the profile of the CZ to be launched.
My suggestions:
Can we choose to have, say at least one article from each workgroup (as nicely implemented by the Biology Workgroup), approved and make the CZ open to public at large? Of course all the other articles approved so far will also be displayed there. What's your idea? I believe the "wisdom of the crowd" is really what gave the thrust to WP and (despite all its drawbacks) took it forward quite fast. Now anyway the general public is aware of the potential of Web 2.0

[Anthony.Sebastian]

Okay, I retract my "instead of mailing lists". 

I agree with both mailing lists and forums, for each Workgroup.  Same message both places, with the former linking to the latter. 

Write in forum first, then copy paste to list?

[Larry Sanger]

Larry, in relation the comment I made to you on your Talk page the other day, thanks for posting this statement on your plans to launch CZ. Could I now ask you to clarify exactly *what* is going to be launched? Will it be (a) a complete copy of Wikipedia, except for those articles which CZ editors have changed and/or tagged as "CZ Live"? or (b) ONLY those articles which CZ editors have changed and/or tagged as "CZ Live"?. In other words, will it be a very big online encyclopaedia, called CZ but 99% identical to WP? Or will it be a very small online encyclopaedia, with updated versions of a tiny fragment of WP articles, chosen more or less at random? I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

It's actually a statement I have been planning to make for some time.  What will be launched is public access to the wiki.  What every author can now see, everyone will be able to see.  Of course, only signed-in contributors will be able to edit the wiki, however.  And this will be, therefore, the 2,000 or so pages we now have in the database, whether marked "CZ Live" or not.

Indeed, in the early days of Wikipedia, it was quite arbitrary what people worked on.  There were large numbers of articles in one area (such as philosophy, or geography as I recall) and virtually none in other areas.  But this problem will take care of itself in time, just as it did for Wikipedia

[Larry Sanger]

Okay, I retract my "instead of mailing lists". 

I agree with both mailing lists and forums, for each Workgroup.  Same message both places, with the former linking to the latter. 

Write in forum first, then copy paste to list?

Actually, what I'm thinking of is posting links to forum posts that are important--in other words, use CZ-HealthSci occasionally to point to the most important posts on the Health Sciences board, or to important issues that come up on the wiki itself.

[Larry Sanger]

Can we choose to have, say at least one article from each workgroup (as nicely implemented by the Biology Workgroup), approved and make the CZ open to public at large? Of course all the other articles approved so far will also be displayed there. What's your idea? I believe the "wisdom of the crowd" is really what gave the thrust to WP and (despite all its drawbacks) took it forward quite fast. Now anyway the general public is aware of the potential of Web 2.0

Supten, I think it's a good idea to encourage approved articles in each workgroup, but with volunteers, this is just not something that we can order.  It is something we can facilitate, encourage, make easier...

I think we're going to benefit from most of the same things that made Wikipedia grow quickly.  It is not the "wisdom of the crowd" per se that led to its rapid growth, but its virality, and its virality is perfectly consistent with a role for experts in the system.

[Stephen Ewen]

So, I am thinking that we should probably set up mailing lists for the various workgroups--those that have enough interested people, anyway.

Put them up regardless. Infrastructure preconditions activity.

~~~~~~~~~~~

[a.a.s.]

I concur with the idea that a mailing list can be useful as workgroup's noticeboard for important announces. I think it is not a question of "pushing" people, it concerns just good communication between the members.
Clearly, a threaded forum alone does _not_ support this feature. I mean when there are many threads and many "hot topics" one can not determine what is  important. So getting a general message by mail with a link and a short abstract would be useful.

On the other hand, I'm a little concerned about the number of places where the discussion may be held. So I propose to put somwhere as an explicit principle the following (otherwise obvious) general idea
* we discuss specific articles on wiki talk pages
* basically,  the workgroup-related and domain-wide issues are discussed on the related forum
* on mailing lists we announce new important issues and redistribute conclusions of some important discussions.

I hope this could work.