I thought of joining CZ simply because I believe that the WP-CZ affair
has become too important to just sit and watch what others are doing (at
least when one has actually the ability to model it and try to change
things). I must say, I think there are many structural flaws in the
actual project but on the other hand this is what a blue print is for so
I will try to give my share of opinion. I think I would qualify for
being what you call an expert, working in University, having a PhD and
being Research the way I earn my daily bread. For this reason, knowing
the academic world from close enough, I do see the advantages and the
risks that the whole CZ project brings along.
I'd have many things to say but I cannot afford being boring so I will
try to contain myself to few exemplificative points - also I don't know
whether this ML is the right place to write this since I have the
impression that the forum is where most of the action goes on.
In this email I want to talk of the following topics.
- Actual contents of CZ
- Internal vs. external references
- Vandalism and real names
- Be creative and innovative in providing contents
- Keep a schedule and monitor yourself
1. Actual contents of CZ
CZ's first characteristics should be: be believable, be serious. We want
readers to know they can rely on the kind of information the find on CZ.
This is a *huge responsibility* and should be always taken as first
objective and never forgotten. CZ's plan is to offer credibility using
expertise of people in the academy. Now, for this very reason I think we
should recognize that this takes away from the project that kind of
knowledge for which you'll never find expertise in the University. That
means that CZ should and cannot be a fork or a mirror of WP in the first
place because we all know that WP is, on the other hand, excellent in
providing details about extra-academic contents.
There are, I believe, dozens of pages about every recent TV-series on
WP, describing everything from the plot to the psyche of the characters;
there are dozens of pages with biographies of Hollywood film stars etc.
This pages (which are probably an important core of WP) should not be
included. They do not belong to the expertise we want to offer and they
actually arm us: we have no control on them, they take resources (human
and technical) and give to CZ no advantage compared to WP (meaning,
editorially is a bad choice)
2. Internal vs. external references
The recruiting process is still in a very alpha phase. I didn't like
what I have read so far because it seems to brake one of the fundamental
rules of community building which is never mix up things belonging to
the different worlds. I will make this point clear 'cause is very
important, although it should be well known to everyone here.
CZ, WP, the free masonry, this ML, are all examples of closed
communities. We want to transform CZ into an extension of the real world
but this is a very courageous action: history should have taught us that
different people behave in different ways when they are up to different
activities. I could be a great researcher but the worst teacher at the
same time (or viceversa) although my job requires both - I could do
wonderful creative job but being completely unable to expose myself in a
convincing way in a conference (or viceversa). Credentials should be
always taken according to the job you want people to accomplish: here
you are "hiring" editors asking them a CV for "academics". This is like
hiring a gardener based on his CV as cook (well, not as much but almost).
Now, historically, closed communities have solved the problem of sorting
people in two ways:
a) using internal-internal references (i.e. experience acquired
within
the system, like 'ordos' for free masonry or post experience for a webforum)
b) using internal-external references; (i.e. an extension of 1 where
expert users take the responsibility to guarantee for new users)
CZ proposal is to use external-external references (i.e. the CV) and
this is no good. This could be done to filter access of people on a
first place (*although I believe is a bad idea*) but then should be
immediately integrated to system 1. It it true that with this system iwe
may find again in a situation where a full professor may be turned down
by a grad student but the bottomline is that sometimes this *should*
happen. If this never happens then we are in troubles.
3. Vandalism and real names
Fighting vandalism is another keypoint of CZ. This is again a big
responsibility because we all know that characteristics of vandalism is
to give strong power to a small group of people, meaning that lowering
down vandalism to 25% is definitely not enough. Vandalism effects follow
a non-linear curve and 10 vandals in a party of 10000 people can make
enough damage to spoil the party to everyone. It has been proposed to
adopt real name as a way to override that. This may work only if there
is a systematic control behind this policy (meaning check IDs, which is
impossible). Asking people to self-certificate their name, age and to
provide an email account is a joke. We all know that people tend not to
use their own data on the net.
Moreover, some author may want to keep anonymity for good reasons and it
would be a pity to keep the door shut to them.
For this I recommend the following: CZ will require credentials from all
editor and verify them, then editor will have the choice of being out
with a real name or not. It should be enough for CZ's authority to be
able to claim that "the CZ staff counts N full professors, N
researchers, N TA, N different universities etc.".
Authors, on the other hand, will not have to provide real names but will
have to be selected according to the points listed above
(internal-internal references or internal-external) meaning for instance
that people should not be able to start writing and deleting during
their initial, test-phase. This will slowdown things but will offer the
following advantages: drastically reduce the number of troll and
vandals; give people an idea of personal growth, a concept that gives
motivation. I am aware that all this is not very liberal for a wiki
project but this is not just another wiki project.
4. Be creative and innovative in providing contents
Other ways of providing contents could be used. I suggest two, as of
examples.
One, DO involve schools. Think of thousands of schoolclasses that are
given the duty (and the honor) to work together, with their teachers, to
contribute with a number of entries. These entries will be a *draft*,
perhaps already pretty good, of the real CZ. This initiative could be
very useful for kids, for their teachers, for CZ (also in terms of echo
in the media).
Second, cooperate with already existing free accessible scientific
journals (and not only). There are a few already out there (PLOS, PNAS,
Genome Biology to name some famous ones). Most peer reviewed journals
have reviews on specific arguments that are thought for the general
readers. Some of them could perfectly suit as CZ entries. Once again,
some journals would be very happy to share their resource for instance
having a monthly or weekly shared articled with CZ. It's good for them
in terms of publicity, it's good for CZ. I am sure even more general
journals like National geographic or Scientific American for instance
would be happy to 'donate' some articles to be entered in CZ.
5. Keep a schedule and monitor yourself
"Know yourself", philosopher says.
I find the biggest mistake of WP was to be absolutely ignorant of
itself. Who really writes wikipedia? How? What is the credibility of
scientific articles vs. political articles, really?
CZ should think of a way to track everything down from the very
beginning. This is the only way to find and correct issues as soon as
they arise, this is the only way to grow.
I'll stop now. Already too much. Hope I have been useful.
Last thing: what you want from experts it is not merely their
theoretical knowledge but their ability to apply a 'method'. A
scientific approach in researching and exposing contents.
Best
Giorgio
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cafelamarck.it
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
