Citizendium Forums
October 02, 2014, 00:18:55 UTC *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forums is now a read-only archive. Project members may post on the new forum. Non-members may use only the "Open Forum" group, but still must register before posting (it's easy!). Posts will otherwise be deleted.
To edit your displayed name, click on Profile > Account Related Settings. To edit your signature, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Click here to return to the wiki
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Wikipedia is getting ready to copy from CZ  (Read 28766 times)
Arne Eickenberg
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 138


WWW
« on: August 19, 2007, 14:17:28 UTC »

See their list here.

WP talk here.

(I don't know if this has been posted before. If so, the admin shall feel free to delete the thread again.)
Logged

Derek Harkness
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 543


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2007, 15:12:06 UTC »

I found the list at the foot of that page on articles they don't want quite interesting. I looked at many of them but couldn't really agree with wikipedias take. I think this demonstrates how we have moved on from where wikipedia is into developing our own style.
Logged

Arne Eickenberg
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2007, 15:32:52 UTC »

Yeah. I just found out that my "Jake the Explainer"-article is on that second list. I especially like their explanation: "This has one Google hit outside Citizendium. It looks like a neologism that isn't even worth redirecting from." These guys do a google search to evaluate CZ articles! Quite pathetic. If they had read an expert's book on the topic (e.g. William Froug, "Screenwriting Tricks of the Trade" etc.), they would know that the term has been around for ages.
Logged

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Non-Citizen
*****
Posts: 2689


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2007, 15:42:11 UTC »

On the other hand, I think they are right to criticise us for not having articles on every country of the world. It is not as if the info is diffiuclt to find: so what is our excuse?
Logged

a.a.s.
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 152


« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2007, 15:57:54 UTC »

Interesting. The style is different, sure. But not only that.

Pretty many of "unwelcome" entries are listed due to differences in deletion policy and organisation of the project. On WP it's notability driven by consensus, CZ is build on maintainability, see [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy]] -- and in fact we are being somewhat indulgent regarding application of our deletion criteria. And pretty many "unwelcomed" will IMHO be processed on CZ as well (see e.g. Perl example 4 -- I bet it'd end as a subpage).

Anyway, the ratio is 202:26.

Can't stop thinking that under GFDL CZ would be in some cases just copied by bot  and copy-pasted in some other ones.... And in some interview someone would mention that CZ includes WP and WP includes CZ material... Hmmm... is there really the symmetry? I mean not only quality and reliability of stuff written and eventually vetted by editors but also practical consequences for the two projects.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 12:47:59 UTC by Aleksander Stos » Logged

Aleta Curry
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1894


« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2007, 22:28:53 UTC »

Yeah. I just found out that my "Jake the Explainer"-article is on that second list. I especially like their explanation: "This has one Google hit outside Citizendium. It looks like a neologism that isn't even worth redirecting from." These guys do a google search to evaluate CZ articles!

Arne, you've just brought up one of my pet WP peeves:  "to Google" as a verb, and specifically, a verb that indicates a subject's worthiness.  Ticks me off to no end.

Quote from: Martin Balwin-Edwards
On the other hand, I think they are right to criticise us for not having articles on every country of the world. It is not as if the info is diffiuclt to find: so what is our excuse?

Time and personnel?

I mean, I don't write articles on countries because my feeling is that other people could (and will, eventually) write much better ones than I could.  I thought it best to use my limited internet time on topics no one else is likely to be versed in.  Also that no-stubs injunction always stops me, as I have no intention of maintaining them/seeing them through to approval all alone.  Otherwise, yes, I could do a credible job of some short articles on a number of nations.
Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Aleta_Curry

Lady Astor, to Winston Churchill:  Sir, if you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea!

Churchill:  Madam, if I were your husband, I'd drink it!
Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Non-Citizen
*****
Posts: 2689


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2007, 22:37:57 UTC »

Aleta: we should try to put together a framework for country articles. Maybe there should be a workgroup set up, informally, to standardize the approach: i,e, major topic headings, what to include and exclude generally, style etc etc

I think people are always interested to contribute something on countries, but we do need to set the parameters first. This should really be in Geography, I suppose, as the lead workgroup. Any offers from editors there?
Logged

Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2007, 01:07:44 UTC »

Wow, nice find, Arne.  It's something to add to the large collection of quotes by Wikipedians and others http://tinyurl.com/3ce9wk who have made it pretty clear that, given a compatible free license, most all CZ content will be swiped over to WP at first opportunity, leaving us wondering what the heck we're doing over here.

On country articles, I think it'd be nice to have a page of "Articles CZ really wants".  People can browse it and take ideas from it, or not.

I could do articles on a few countries, but these are very labor intensive and am not particularly interested to do so without an editor already on board for the country.  Recruiting is crucial.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 01:17:29 UTC by Stephen Ewen » Logged
Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Non-Citizen
*****
Posts: 2689


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2007, 01:14:25 UTC »

Is there not such a page?: "Articles requested". I recall seeing your name, Stephen, asking for a globalisation article!

You are right about the labour intensivity, but with many hands... Grin

We need some firm editorial control on it too. I might think about taking that on board when I have made some progress with the Race article, where the science stuff is driving me crazy to read it all... Cry
Logged

Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2007, 01:18:39 UTC »

Is there not such a page?: "Articles requested". I recall seeing your name, Stephen, asking for a globalisation article!

 Grin  As corrected.  Cheesy
Logged
Joe Quick
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1530


« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2007, 03:17:13 UTC »

 Cheesy I was happy to see one of the articles that I put together (El Tío) on the list.  A lot of my work here has been on topics that are either absent or embarrassingly underdeveloped on WP.
Logged

Arne Eickenberg
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2007, 12:10:31 UTC »

Arne, you've just brought up one of my pet WP peeves:  "to Google" as a verb, and specifically, a verb that indicates a subject's worthiness.  Ticks me off to no end.
But it shouldn't. That's the beauty of languages and how they behave and change. The German variant of the verb to google (ger: googeln) has already been included in the Duden, one of the standard German dictionaries. And as for the subject's "worthiness": as long as Google manages to direct me to JSTOR articles and the like, which I can then order from a library, it does have some benefits.

Just yesterday I was looking for the inventory number of a photo of a piece from an ancient Roman relief and the originating photo archive, for publication references etc. After 5 minutes I had it. Google can be very helpful at times. One just has to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's something to add to the large collection of quotes by Wikipedians and others http://tinyurl.com/3ce9wk who have made it pretty clear that, given a compatible free license, most all CZ content will be swiped over to WP at first opportunity, leaving us wondering what the heck we're doing over here.
Now those remarks tick me off. Looks like China Syndrome has received an alternative meaning. This actually gives me the creeps, especially some wikipedians' disgusting arrogance.

The same way we are trying to prevent articles forked from WP, we should introduce a license that doesn't allow WP to simply copypaste CZ articles into WP and claim them as their own.

You want to know one thing? I'm absolutely glad that CZ is a "citizen's compendium" and doesn't officially title itself an "encyclopedia". Why? Because pedia, coming from Greek paideia, contains paidos ("child"), which means that an encyclopedia is by definition written to be used by children, and therefore also ad usum Delphini, as a friend of mine once called it in a slightly different context. In the case of the Wikipedia it seems that large parts of it are also written and run by children, not only for children. And no parents around to tell them that stealing, especially the "wiki-way", is a no-no.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 12:21:32 UTC by Arne Eickenberg » Logged

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Non-Citizen
*****
Posts: 2689


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2007, 13:59:01 UTC »

Let me ask the dreaded question, Arne: Are you a googler? After all, a verb has to have its practitioners...
Logged

Arne Eickenberg
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2007, 14:02:02 UTC »

Haha, no no. Cheesy I may be using google to search the web, but I'm not a "googler". I still read books, y'know. Wink
Logged

Todd Coles
Forum Member
**
Posts: 33


« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2007, 14:17:38 UTC »

I think people are always interested to contribute something on countries, but we do need to set the parameters first. This should really be in Geography, I suppose, as the lead workgroup. Any offers from editors there?

I think part of the problem is that there are no editors in the Geography workgroup yet.
Logged

Robert_W_King
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 610


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2007, 14:18:29 UTC »

Since when did google no longer represent a number followed by 100 zeroes?

Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Robert_W_King

All current posts beyond May 8th are typed in short form (mistakes) or with my good hand (sans mistakes).
Arne Eickenberg
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2007, 14:24:49 UTC »

Since when did google no longer represent a number followed by 100 zeroes?
It never did. This was googol, but that term was probably based on the comic strip character Barney Google. Grin
Logged

Derek Harkness
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 543


« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2007, 14:31:28 UTC »

Aleta: we should try to put together a framework for country articles. Maybe there should be a workgroup set up, informally, to standardize the approach: i,e, major topic headings, what to include and exclude generally, style etc etc

I think people are always interested to contribute something on countries, but we do need to set the parameters first. This should really be in Geography, I suppose, as the lead workgroup. Any offers from editors there?
There is this http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Geography_Workgroup/Gazetteer which was endorsed by Larry but never really got much further. I'm up for giving this a push if a few others will to. I'm sure I could write more than a stub about most countries. Could certainly do something for all of Europe and the Americas without much sweat.

Wow, nice find, Arne.  It's something to add to the large collection of quotes by Wikipedians and others http://tinyurl.com/3ce9wk who have made it pretty clear that, given a compatible free license, most all CZ content will be swiped over to WP at first opportunity, leaving us wondering what the heck we're doing over here.
Note that of the several thousand article we have written, only 220 have been marked for assimilation. That doesn't sound like a wholesale swipe to me. I will be interested to see if they mark any of there own existing articles for replacement with a CZ one or will home grown always rein supreme?

Since when did google no longer represent a number followed by 100 zeroes?
Since aways. 10^100 is called a googol. Note the spelling.
Logged

Robert_W_King
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 610


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2007, 20:07:44 UTC »

Since when did google no longer represent a number followed by 100 zeroes?
It never did. This was googol, but that term was probably based on the comic strip character Barney Google. Grin

Gah, you're right.
Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Robert_W_King

All current posts beyond May 8th are typed in short form (mistakes) or with my good hand (sans mistakes).
Joe Quick
Forum Regular
*****
Posts: 1530


« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2007, 20:42:28 UTC »

Haha, no no. Cheesy I may be using google to search the web, but I'm not a "googler". I still read books, y'know. Wink

Google Scholar is actually pretty useful.  You still need to pay attention to sources and quality, of course, but it gets rid of a lot of the junk for you.  Wink
Logged

Nereo Preto
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2007, 15:12:36 UTC »

Wow! Just spotted it!

So, we have >200 articles which are missing in WP! How did it happen? Isn't it a success?

Well, I always thought the value of the CZ project would have been measured by citations. Here's one.

Now, let me say, have those guys at WP copy-and-paste all they want from CZ, as long as they report their source. This will NOT make CZ a small copy of WP. The reason is, the editorial system of Citizendium and the non-anonymous authorship policies of CZ gives us authority. If anyone should make a choice of citing an approved or developed CZ article, or the very same article copied-and-pasted in WP, he will always choose the first. Because the difference is not in the contents itself, but in the quality and reliability of the contents.

Let me add this: the more WP will copy us, the more we'll gain in authority.

Let me go even further, why don't WE copy our contents into WP? Or, am I mad?
Logged

Nereo Preto
Forum Participant
***
Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2007, 15:19:45 UTC »

The second list (articles Wikipedia do NOT want to copy from Citizendium) is interesting as well. This is a great - though negative - feedback. I suppose all of us should take a look to that list, periodically, and learn how to do better.

Some of those articles are indeed quite odd, and I suppose the relative editors should think about that: are those articles doing good or bad to us?

Ooops, are there some odd Earth science articles there perhaps? Panic! I'll check it immediately!!!  Smiley
Logged

Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2007, 16:38:27 UTC »

On the same token, some of the statements there simply show ignorance. 

For example, they say there that the equivalent article to Cows in popular culture was deleted as unencyclopedic - clearly, and no surprise whatsover!!, folks had not done there homework.  And this "unencyclopedic" pronouncement is coming from a project that has an entire article on just one modern manifestation of cows in popular culture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_tipping  Roll Eyes

Logged
Robert_W_King
Forum Communicator
****
Posts: 610


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2007, 18:08:36 UTC »

Can't we include some kind of "non-derivative" part of a license that covers text here that targets other encyclopedic projects?

Would this do us harm?
Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Robert_W_King

All current posts beyond May 8th are typed in short form (mistakes) or with my good hand (sans mistakes).
Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2007, 19:02:14 UTC »

Are you saying CZ should choose a no derivas license?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  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!