Hi Dave (and the list), Wow, things get heated so quickly! That's what I get for taking a break for dinner and grey's anatomy.
I just want to throw my two cents in (my two slightly tangential cents). I think most people are here out of a variety of frustrations with wikipedia, although I'm not a wp-native. And I think that the danger of offshoots is that 1) people want things to get better very quickly and 2) bring all of their baggage and frustration. I think we should all work hard to try to keep those old battles/frustrations aside a bit. I suspect there are plenty of other people on this list - and there is nothing that turns the newbies off like an old family squabble. I'd also like to (perhaps foolishly) mediate for a moment. There seems to be a sudden doublewhammy headed Larry's way, and I think maybe we should momentarily ignore him (sorry larry, just for a sec.) We're complaining that he's setting all the rules, and then we're complaining that he's not setting the rules clearly enough. Hmmm. Hm. Right. Ok. Moving right along. Experts are experts for a reason. Mostly, we have a ton of knowledge in a little piece of the world. And not nearly enough time. If experts are relied on to write CZ, it will fail. Full stop. There is an inherent tension in what we're doing here. Call some people experts, and the laypeople feel like rank is being pulled. And there are going to be kerfuffles. Some examples? * You're an author. You put a ton of work into an article. An expert wanders over and, because we know all experts are *full* of tact, zaps it. Or says something rude. Or "edits" it. * Or, the flip side. An editor is authoring an article in an area they don't really have expertise in. Another author comes over and says "Actually, let me lend you a hand, I know a lot about this" and tries to help. The editor gets cranky and pulls rank. * Or, an author works on an article. A friendly neighborhood editor comes over and tries to engage in an academic conversation about an article. Makes some suggestions, gives some references. Author takes offense, picks a fight, storms off. Swears off CZ and the bitchy experts. See why we should work hard to make this work? Because there are a million reasons for it to fail. No one knows how to do this. We're used to working in our hierarchies or in declaring anarchy. This is inherently different. We have the opportunity to make a new format for information exchange. We can't all be experts in everything (not even the experts). This is going to be so valuable, an actual verified resource for information. How are we going to build this resource? WE HAVE TO DECIDE. We have to decide what's really important to us. And we have to give this the chance to succeed. When conflicts come up? We need to work together. Are you struggling with something? Talk to other members of the community. Call a constable (seriously, we're a pretty fun bunch). We have to go into this like grownups and keep our eyes focused on why we're all here. Now, if you've made it this far down the email, you're clearly serious. And here's what has been lost on this list today. CZ will succeed contingent on one thing. Everyone throwing in whatever they've got. That changes every day. Yesterday? Oy, yesterday CZ almost sucked me dry. Today? It's been quiet, so I'll go do a little work while I zone out with some tv. And who knows about tomorrow? You might be really busy this week. Or this whole semester. You might feel marginalized by all this discussion about expertise. Let us know, if you're not sure what you should send to personnel. CZ is being built by those that show up. Sarah Tuttle (full disclosure: Constable, Personnel sorter-outer, and executive committee secretary. And astronomy phd student) > I'm actually quite able to avoid the fallacy of false dichotomy and is > acknowledging that not everything is black-and-white. Maybe I didn't > clearly articulate my concern, so let me try again.<br> > <br> > I appreciate the fact that there will be non-expert *authors*, and this > was indeed clear from the beginning, as you note. However, the > *editors'* expertise is, I had thought, a distinguishing feature of > this project, and you're now denying that as well. So, if non-expert > involvement is permitted and encouraged at both the authorial and the > editorial stage, then what distinguishes this project from Wikipedia, > and in what sense is it "based on expert opinion"?<br> > <br> > Thanks,<br> _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
