I wish it worked otherwise--I wish it made a transwiki link, and opened the relevant page in WP. But is this even possible? Do we have any way to see what articles we actually do have, live or otherwise.? Except by following links, how else can we figure out?
This immediately settles the question: since some of the linked articles will be very poor, we do not have the option of starting with less than the full contents. All of the articles about things we might decide not to emphasize, are going to be there, every last football club of them. We'll need a much stronger wording for them than merely "We make this disclaimer of all Citizendium article versions that have not been specifically approved."
I think the only way to clarify this is for the editors to start rating the WP pages as quickly as possible, as they come in, because only then do we have the choice of improving the good ones a little, or upgrading or truncated or deleting the bad ones. They will all be there.
(As you asked in a discussion yesterday, are there any uses for the WP article tags: well, here there is:
I'm not sure what text to use, or what categories but we could place a sticker indicating the status.)
(For another question you asked, I've already put comments on the talk pages to the extent I can.).
The meaning of "live" , I take it , does not mean "finished"? So in the real Cz, as in the pilot, where would the distinctions be? We would have pages being edited, with the working version not visible & only the WP displayed, pages edited at least provisionally, with a Cz version displayed, and pages not even looked at, with the WP page no matter how bad it may be displayed.
Is this what is intended for the public version, or can we do something different.? I note that all the pages we are now talking about are in fact now visible. If we don't want to display half-finished editing , we'd have to change things a little.
On 10/31/06, Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Happy Halloween!
I think I might have told you very early on that I am quick to identify
problems and quick to propose solutions to them. So, here I go again.
A certain problem with our work on the pilot project wiki has come to light,
at least I think so. It may not be a deep problem, and I think it has two
different (incompatible) solutions.
The problem is that people (quite naturally, of course) go precisely to
where their interests lie. But there are 1.5 million articles, and people
have quite specialized interests of course. So it's as if we are sending
individual scouts deep into a vast wilderness, and they do not communicate
with each other.
Why is this a problem? It's a problem because, despite our having created
something like 100 active accounts in the last two days, we aren't *quite*
forming a community on the wiki yet. That's because we aren't editing each
other's work very much yet. The thing that really gets people interested in
working on the wiki is the idea that others will look over your work,
improve it, comment on it, etc. If we're just working in parallel, and we
don't *work together*, I'm not sure that we will actually come together and
motivate each other.
There are two possible solutions. One solution, that I want to try, is to
encourage people to spend some of their wiki work editing each others' work.
How do you do that? By going to our "CZ Live" category:
http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:CZ_Live
Those are the articles people have been working on. Filling out nicely, I'd
say! Then pick some articles to work on, and see if they need work--they
probably do.
The second solution is to revert to the idea of forking Wikipedia piecemeal
after all: we start over from scratch. This would get us more focused on
working together because people are more apt to edit other people's articles
instead of creating new articles themselves. It's like moving the community
from a vast wilderness to a small but rapidly growing island.
Of course, it might turn out that what I am seeing as a problem will turn
out not really to be a problem, and we'll just end up working wonderfully,
mostly in parallel. So I wouldn't propose to try the second solution for
another week at least.
By the way, I have read every word of the discussion of the "consumer
information database" discussion and have found it extremely valuable. I
will point out your remarks to the folks I'll be meeting with. I'll have to
reply later.
--Larry
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
