So after the mention of Citizendium once again, I applied to join it. The application page is extremely verbose. So much so, that it's a bit of a turn-off.
All I wanted to do was sign up and tweak a few articles to see if the interface was better. They make you create a 50-word biography. What's the point of that? So I used that space to bitch. My application was rejected.
I know Larry Sanger reads this. Maybe he could respond. "We don't want people who bitch". Sometimes people bitch for the right reasons.
What I would do, is make the Sign Up page be at the most "Choose a username, choose a password". There's really not much point in making it extremely difficult to join a project.
Will Johnson
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
So after the mention of Citizendium once again, I applied to join it. The application page is extremely verbose. So much so, that it's a bit of a turn-off.
All I wanted to do was sign up and tweak a few articles to see if the interface was better. They make you create a 50-word biography. What's the point of that? So I used that space to bitch. My application was rejected.
I know Larry Sanger reads this. Maybe he could respond. "We don't want people who bitch". Sometimes people bitch for the right reasons.
What I would do, is make the Sign Up page be at the most "Choose a username, choose a password". There's really not much point in making it extremely difficult to join a project.
Will Johnson
An effort is made to identify your expertise. My problem is that I'm not particularly interested in writing articles on divorce law, and also, although I have a Juris Doctor degree, that is not an actual professional level degree from a legal perspective, there are higher professional studies. Only a few words are required. A rather low test of your patience.
Fred
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most.
The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced.
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
So after the mention of Citizendium once again, I applied to join it. The application page is extremely verbose. So much so, that it's a
bit
of a turn-off.
All I wanted to do was sign up and tweak a few articles to see if the interface was better. They make you create a 50-word biography. What's the point of that?
So
I used that space to bitch. My application was rejected.
I know Larry Sanger reads this. Maybe he could respond. "We don't
want
people who bitch". Sometimes people bitch for the right reasons.
What I would do, is make the Sign Up page be at the most "Choose a username, choose a password". There's really not much point in
making it
extremely difficult to join a project.
Will Johnson
An effort is made to identify your expertise. My problem is that I'm not particularly interested in writing articles on divorce law, and also, although I have a Juris Doctor degree, that is not an actual professional level degree from a legal perspective, there are higher professional studies. Only a few words are required. A rather low test of your patience.
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The thing with Citizendium is that I'm not particularly comfortable giving out personal information to people that I don't even know enough to trust it with. If one of these 'constables' decides it, they could have an outing extravaganza -- and don't think it is an impossibility, either - they're not all robots.
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:53 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most.
The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced.
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
So after the mention of Citizendium once again, I applied to join it. The application page is extremely verbose. So much so, that it's a
bit
of a turn-off.
All I wanted to do was sign up and tweak a few articles to see if the interface was better. They make you create a 50-word biography. What's the point of that?
So
I used that space to bitch. My application was rejected.
I know Larry Sanger reads this. Maybe he could respond. "We don't
want
people who bitch". Sometimes people bitch for the right reasons.
What I would do, is make the Sign Up page be at the most "Choose a username, choose a password". There's really not much point in
making it
extremely difficult to join a project.
Will Johnson
An effort is made to identify your expertise. My problem is that I'm not particularly interested in writing articles on divorce law, and also, although I have a Juris Doctor degree, that is not an actual professional level degree from a legal perspective, there are higher professional studies. Only a few words are required. A rather low test of your patience.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I guess you're referring to the part where they ask for a CV. But that is only for "editors" not for "authors".
I really don't understand how Citizendium expects to get a following if they are going to set the bar so high just to sign up for heaven's sake. Any expert that wants to work on an experts-only project can just join the new Britannica can't they.
Knol already has ten times the number of articles, and it's much younger. What I see on Citizendium is pretty sparse. I understand that Citizendium is attempting to only allow qualified experts to create articles but the sign up page only states "write a 50-word biography". It makes no reference to "prove to us that you're an expert" or whatever. It's not a friendly page at all.
The first thing they need to get is better marketing and customer relations ;)
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 3:33 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
The thing with Citizendium is that I'm not particularly comfortable giving out personal information to people that I don't even know enough to trust it with. If one of these 'constables' decides it, they could have an outing extravaganza -- and don't think it is an impossibility, either - they're not all robots.
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:53 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most.
The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced.
Actually, I was just talking about verification of identity.
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I guess you're referring to the part where they ask for a CV. But that is only for "editors" not for "authors".
I really don't understand how Citizendium expects to get a following if they are going to set the bar so high just to sign up for heaven's sake. Any expert that wants to work on an experts-only project can just join the new Britannica can't they.
Knol already has ten times the number of articles, and it's much younger. What I see on Citizendium is pretty sparse. I understand that Citizendium is attempting to only allow qualified experts to create articles but the sign up page only states "write a 50-word biography". It makes no reference to "prove to us that you're an expert" or whatever. It's not a friendly page at all.
The first thing they need to get is better marketing and customer relations ;)
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 3:33 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
The thing with Citizendium is that I'm not particularly comfortable giving out personal information to people that I don't even know enough to trust it with. If one of these 'constables' decides it, they could have an outing extravaganza -- and don't think it is an impossibility, either - they're not all robots.
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:53 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most.
The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well still the verification of identity really doesn't have anything to do with "type a 50-word biography"
When I signed up for Knol, one thing they did was allow verification. So one way to verify you was that you gave them a phone number and your name as it was listed in the phone book. They check that it's really there, they CALL you and give you a code. You have to type that code back in.
So what that verifies is that whoever answered the phone at that number was the same person who asked them to call that name and number (listed in the phone book) in the first place. I'd call that *fairly good* verification. Not perfect, but at least it pins the typist down to a particular phone number and phone book listing.
At any rate, I don't see how a 50-word biography which could be anything I choose to make up, would satisfy any kind of identify verification. To be an *Editor* that ask that you submit a CV which I suppose if you were so inclined you could check against some college database or whatever.
BUT to be an Author they do not ask you to submit a CV. Just apparently this mini-biography.
So the point is still the same. If they are using this to verify something, that's not any sort of verification at all.
Will Johnson
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:05 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Well still the verification of identity really doesn't have anything to do with "type a 50-word biography"
"Will Johnson" does not identify a person. "Will Johnson, the guy who went to X college and works in Y industry, and likes hobbies A, B, and Z" does.
That's not the only reason they ask for a biography, but it is an added benefit. It brings Citizendium into the real world.
When I signed up for Knol, one thing they did was allow verification.
So one way to verify you was that you gave them a phone number and your name as it was listed in the phone book. They check that it's really there, they CALL you and give you a code. You have to type that code back in.
I tried that for several weeks and it was always broken. I tried it with several different phone numbers, and several different credit card numbers. Never worked.
Besides, it costs money.
At any rate, I don't see how a 50-word biography which could be
anything I choose to make up, would satisfy any kind of identify verification.
There's an assumption of good faith, I assume, but at least you're committing to an identity which could be further checked out later, if doubts arise as to your sincerity. It's a great example of soft security, in my opinion.
I don't know. It's been a while since I've signed up to Citizendium. Maybe they've significantly changed the process since then.
To be an *Editor* that ask that you submit a CV which I suppose if you were so inclined you could check against some college database or whatever.
Yeah well, that's a whole different process.
BUT to be an Author they do not ask you to submit a CV. Just apparently this mini-biography.
So the point is still the same. If they are using this to verify something, that's not any sort of verification at all.
What if they're not using it to verify anything, but just to keep out people like you?
C'mon, haven't you ever gone to a meeting and been asked to stand up and tell everyone a little bit about yourself? Did you object and use that platform to bitch about the system? Maybe you did...
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:05 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
When I signed up for Knol, one thing they did was allow verification. So one way to verify you was that you gave them a phone number and your name as it was listed in the phone book. They check that it's really there, they CALL you and give you a code. You have to type that code back in.
So what that verifies is that whoever answered the phone at that number was the same person who asked them to call that name and number (listed in the phone book) in the first place. I'd call that *fairly good* verification. Not perfect, but at least it pins the typist down to a particular phone number and phone book listing.
At any rate, I don't see how a 50-word biography which could be anything I choose to make up, would satisfy any kind of identify verification. To be an *Editor* that ask that you submit a CV which I suppose if you were so inclined you could check against some college database or whatever.
They've had some discussion on the CZ forum about the onerousness of the sign-up process before, and in addition to rejections, they have quite a few where they basically write back, "we need more information, because we don't have enough to verify your identity". Most of those people never get back to them, from what I gather.
CZ sign-up is slightly problematic for people without institutional email addresses, but they place a high premium on better verification than just 'fairly good'. In part, I think this is because they really, really want to avoid letting any vandals through; the lack of that particular aspect of Wikipedia is a major selling point for many of their users and potential users.
A related observation: presumably because of the delayed sign-up process, only about half of new users ever make a first edit on CZ: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
Sage Ross wrote:
A related observation: presumably because of the delayed sign-up process, only about half of new users ever make a first edit on CZ: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
I wonder what percentage of new accounts make a *useful* first edit on wikipedia?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
A related observation: presumably because of the delayed sign-up process, only about half of new users ever make a first edit on CZ: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
I wonder what percentage of new accounts make a *useful* first edit on wikipedia?
Smaller, no doubt, than on CZ. But their registration process has already imposed a moderately intense selection process; most people who successfully register are people whose edits are very likely to be useful, so they view the fact many of them never begin editing as serious loss. And, of course, at this stage they are much more concerned with getting new people involved than we are (which is, perhaps, shortsighted on our part, but it's tough to see participation levels as a critical problem when the scale of the user base is so big that we can't get a real sense of it on an interpersonal level)
-Sage (User:Rageoss)
There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in history, biography and genealogy. I can say that in ten at the most.
The response I was given back was not welcoming. So apparently Citizendium has no room for critics inside the system? Criticism-from-the-inside, to my mind, is one of the most useful strengths that Wikipedia has embraced.
Larry Sanger is critic in chief at Citizendium. I think he pretty much fills up the slot. I edit there, a bit, and, as I focus on what I am editing and am careful to defer to any expert, have never had serious trouble. I did initially say some mildly critical things on my user page, but removed them after Larry reminded me that he wished to maintain a collegial atmosphere:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User:Fred_Bauder&diff=100027867&...
I think that is a great idea, even a profoundly productive vision. I did get blocked at first due to making a couple of edits to the article "pseudoscience" which raised the question of whether psychoanalysis might be considered pseudoscience.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=1...
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Pseudoscience&diff=next&oldid=1...
This resulted in a block, but one which Larry relieved me from
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Use...
I assume he spoke to the blocking administrator. There had been no warning or discussion.
Since then I have done all right, as you can see from my contributions, working mostly on the article Medical error
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Medical_error
Which remains unfinished, but I believe will eventually have some merit.
When I work there I enjoy my work, but make no effort to play any role in policy making, and, to be frank, have not really spent time thinking about how Larry's vision might best be realized. You know, to use a strange new formulation, it is what it is. If it is to succeed, first class academics and professionals would have to contribute, something I doubt is happening now, but I see edits to the article medical error which seem to be made by physicians, here is one editor:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Robert_Badgett
I could certainly respect that editor's input.
Here is other:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Howard_C._Berkowitz#Who_am_I.3F
"I'm not a physician but simulate them on computers" (medical information systems)
Another:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Gareth_Leng
"I am Head of the School of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Medical and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. I am a member of the executive of Citizendium."
I'm glad I did this little exercise. Those three are a pretty good editing crew, and two of them, at least, are certainly, "first class", whatever that means.
I think, to actually try out Citizendium, you have to suspend your upfront attitudes and immerse yourself in it; something I have not really done in a though way, but enough that I can recommend giving it a fair trial.
Fred Bauder
It is my understanding that Citizendium requires users to submit a brief biography (a) to help other authors and editors know with whom they are working and (b) ensure accountability (a biography in addition to a real name can be used to almost perfectly identify a person).
Citizendium has a pleasant atmosphere; I've registered an account there. Nevertheless, I'm not confident that they have the right model for success. My personal opinion is that a new model is needed, one that goes even beyond the traditional wiki concept and implements novel procedures for collaborative contribution, moderation, and rating.
—Thomas Larsen
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
It is my understanding that Citizendium requires users to submit a brief biography (a) to help other authors and editors know with whom they are working and (b) ensure accountability (a biography in addition to a real name can be used to almost perfectly identify a person).
--------------------------------------
I don't see that at all. In my biography I write : "I was first a world-known plastic surgeon, but then I decided to go into soft porn. After that I wrote 12 books on nematodes."
How does that identify me? You can write anything you want. Wikipedia also has a biographical area (your user page), but they don't compel you to fill it out.
I wonder if anyone can name any other website at all, that requires you to fill out a biography before they will allow you to log in? I don't mean check boxes and short fields (like city, birthdate, etc), I mean a free-form field.
This is the first time I've ever encountered a site, that requires you to fill in a free-form field, then has a human read that field, and decide on the basis of that, whether or not they will grant you access.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
It is my understanding that Citizendium requires users to submit a brief biography (a) to help other authors and editors know with whom they are working and (b) ensure accountability (a biography in addition to a real name can be used to almost perfectly identify a person).
I don't see that at all. In my biography I write : "I was first a world-known plastic surgeon, but then I decided to go into soft porn. After that I wrote 12 books on nematodes."
How does that identify me? You can write anything you want. Wikipedia also has a biographical area (your user page), but they don't compel you to fill it out.
I wonder if anyone can name any other website at all, that requires you to fill out a biography before they will allow you to log in? I don't mean check boxes and short fields (like city, birthdate, etc), I mean a free-form field.
This is the first time I've ever encountered a site, that requires you to fill in a free-form field, then has a human read that field, and decide on the basis of that, whether or not they will grant you access.
Will Johnson
Linkedin has procedures like that. If you say you are with a company they will insist on an email message from some account at the company.
You chose to play an ass on Citizendium and were treated like one.
Fred
<<-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Linkedin has procedures like that. If you say you are with a company they will insist on an email message from some account at the company.
You chose to play an ass on Citizendium and were treated like one.
Fred>>
Sorry Fred that is not what occurred. It's easy to give simple answers isn't it?
Will Johnson
Will—in terms of identification, that biography would not match that of any other Will Johnson in the world, and it thus identifies you. It also gives other authors some idea of your interests and biases.
Perhaps Citizendium has too high a barrier to entry, but I wouldn't say it's /unreasonable/ per se.
Cheers,
—Thomas Larsen
<<-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Will—in terms of identification, that biography would not match that of any other Will Johnson in the world, and it thus identifies you. It also gives other authors some idea of your interests and biases.
Perhaps Citizendium has too high a barrier to entry, but I wouldn't say it's /unreasonable/ per se.
Cheers, —Thomas Larsen>>
What is unreasonable is that nowhere on the page does it state anything like what they actually do with the information you enter.
It does not say, "Write a biography because we are going to have a person review it and decide whether to accept you or not based on what you write."
It does not say, "Write a biography because we are going to use it to verify who you are."
It does not say, "Write a biography because we are going to use that to determine what areas of expertise you have."
Nothing. There are many sites with a biographical box. They don't compel you to fill it in, and they don't use it for anything except for you to *self* identify. They do not use it for their own purposes.
That is why Citizendium fails my test for reasonableness. They collect information, and explain neither why they are, nor what they are going to do with that. It 's not the point whether someone else knows that. The point is that the initial user should be told right up-front on that page.
Will Johnson
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I don't see that at all. In my biography I write : "I was first a world-known plastic surgeon, but then I decided to go into soft porn. After that I wrote 12 books on nematodes."
How does that identify me?
It's not true, is it?
You can write anything you want.
Sure, I can. And I did. And they approved my application.
FWIW, the application process used to be even more onerous. They required a CV from everyone. I and many others refused to apply. Then they made it easier, requiring only a 50 word biography. I thought that was reasonable.
You don't. So don't apply. No big deal.
<<-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Sure, I can. And I did. And they approved my application.
FWIW, the application process used to be even more onerous. They required a CV from everyone. I and many others refused to apply. Then they made it easier, requiring only a 50 word biography. I thought that was reasonable.
You don't. So don't apply. No big deal.>>
And you by your own admission above, *knew* why they were asking for that information. However they don't state why they are asking. That's my problem. If you are going to require information, you should state why you are requiring it. Not simply that it's required.
This is even more true in the case of wikis where the information is present for... ever.
Will Johnson
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:14 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Sure, I can. And I did. And they approved my application.
FWIW, the application process used to be even more onerous. They required a CV from everyone. I and many others refused to apply. Then they made it easier, requiring only a 50 word biography. I thought that was reasonable.
You don't. So don't apply. No big deal.>>
And you by your own admission above, *knew* why they were asking for that information. However they don't state why they are asking.
"All Citizens are *required* to maintain biographies on their userpages. Why? Because we are taking real-world responsibility for our contributions and making real-world relationships with each other. A name by itself conveys little information to others. The purpose of user pages is to be helpful to the development of *Citizendium*. Therefore, authors' user pages will be regulated by the *Citizendium*'s constabulary. " http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:User_Pages (linked from the application)
That's my problem. If you are going to require information, you should state why you are requiring it. Not simply that it's required.
If you want to know why they are requiring it, you should ask them, not bitch.
This is even more true in the case of wikis where the information is present for... ever.
I'm sure they'd be happy to delete a biography upon request.
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: wjhonson@aol.com; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
"All Citizens are required to maintain biographies on their userpages. Why? Because we are taking real-world responsibility for our contributions and making real-world relationships with each other. A name by itself conveys little information to others. The purpose of user pages is to be helpful to the development of Citizendium. Therefore, authors' user pages will be regulated by the Citizendium's constabulary. " http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:User_Pages (linked from the application) ---------------------------
"Maintaining a biography of your userpage" is not equal to "Filling out a biography box in order to get a userid" I'm sure you can see that.
Nowhere does it say this will be your biography on your userpage. It doesn't say we're going to use this *in order to* accept your application. Even the text you quoted above does not make it clear that this is a part of the application-acceptance process. That's the issue.
You're looking backward from already being a member and treat anyone who can't understand with contempt. That's not really a position that a site which wants member should be taking.
"If you can't understand this, you're an idiot and we don't want you."
That would explain why Citizendium is dead. Does that really seem like what Citizendium would want?
A site that wants members would make it easy and clear *how* you apply. Not complicated and unclear.
Finally, "bitching" is another man's "constructive criticism". I am not complaining with no possible resolution. I am stating exactly what Citizendium *should* do to clarify the process.
Will Johnson
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
"Maintaining a biography of your userpage" is not equal to "Filling out a biography box in order to get a userid" I'm sure you can see that.
Nowhere does it say this will be your biography on your userpage.
Are you joking? The field is titled "Biography for your public user page (minimal wikimarkup, if any, avoid HTML; in English): "
You're looking backward from already being a member and treat anyone who can't understand with contempt. That's not really a position that a site which wants member should be taking.
What is it that you can't understand?
A site that wants members would make it easy and clear *how* you apply. Not
complicated and unclear.
It's seems simple and clear to me. While it's a bit hidden as to *why* they want a biography, it's quite clear that they want one. Furthermore, had you filled out the application with a good faith attempt, I'm sure you would have gotten either 1) accepted, or 2) a request for more information. You were rejected because you chose to bitch instead of making that good faith attempt.
Finally, "bitching" is another man's "constructive criticism". I am not
complaining with no possible resolution. I am stating exactly what Citizendium *should* do to clarify the process.
Why should they clarify the process? So they can get authors like you? I don't think they *want* authors like you.
I'll make it pretty clear for you Anthony. Here is what I don't understand:
"Fill out a biography BECAUSE we are going to READ it and USE it to determine WHETHER or not to accept your application"
I hope that's clear this time. The page does not state nor imply, in any way, that this is the case.
Being hostile to me here, does absolutely nothing to help your argument. Using hostility in an argument is a good sign that you feel that your position is weak.
How do you know what I wrote in that box?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I'll make it pretty clear for you Anthony. Here is what I don't understand:
"Fill out a biography BECAUSE we are going to READ it and USE it to determine WHETHER or not to accept your application"
I hope that's clear this time. The page does not state nor imply, in any way, that this is the case.
Neither did my application to volunteer for the fire department. That doesn't mean I used the space to bitch, or that I would have been surprised had I used the space to bitch and still been approved.
Being hostile to me here, does absolutely nothing to help your argument.
Using hostility in an argument is a good sign that you feel that your position is weak.
I didn't realize we were arguing about something. This will be my last message on the matter.
How do you know what I wrote in that box?
You claimed in your first message that you "used that space to bitch".
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: wjhonson@aol.com; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Neither did my application to volunteer for the fire department. That doesn't mean I used the space to bitch, or that I would have been surprised had I used the space to bitch and still been approved.>>
And here's the difference. When you apply for a job, you write something on paper, a human reads it. We all know this, we've all done it.
When you sign up for a website, *in general* no human ever needs to read what you put down. A computer sends you an email to click to verify yourself or whatever. The *typical* way to sign up for sites is completely automatic, you can do it at three in the morning.
There isn't anything on Citizendium's sign up page to make you think that they are going to act different from that. In fact it isn't really clear that once you get a login id you can even start editing.
"Fill the out and we'll get back to you" is of course what you see all the time when you sign up for anything online. A typical person is not going to assume that they mean that literally, after dozens of other sites sign you up with automated scripts.
When I signed up for a YouTube account I wrote something pretty nasty in my "bio", but it's an automated verification procedure, just like=2 0 you find all over the net, so it made no difference.
Since Citizendium is acting in a non-normal fashion compared to other sites, they should make sure that it is double-clear exactly what is happening. In my opinion, they are failing to do that. And my case highlights it. You can say, "Well you're just an ass and an idiot" but that doesn't serve any point. If it annoys me, then it probably annoys at least one other person (maybe on Mars or something). And it gains Citizendium no advantage for them to be obtuse.
Will Johnson
Will,
The nutshell seems to be this: You assumed the process would work in a particular way, you assumed they would ignore your bitching in the biography space, and you were wrong. They followed their own process, someone actually read what you wrote, and your application for access was denied.
Everything else you've written has been trying to pass the blame for this along to Citizendium. Even if it wasn't explicitly written down that "if your application is a joke, an attack on Citizendium, in bad faith or otherwise demonstrates ill intentions, it will be denied" I don't think you should be surprised when that happens. Why would they want someone who, from all appearances, is uninterested in collegial participation?
At any rate, this is the "English Wikipedia" mailing list. Exhaustive discussions about the Citizendium sign-up process probably belong elsewhere.
Nathan
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sure they'd be happy to delete a biography upon request.
This has been an issue in the past. They deleted the userpage of an early heavy contributor who then left the project. But they realized that, because they vest authority not strictly in sources but also in the expertise of the contributors, it's necessary to retain at least a basic biography for anyone who has made non-trivial contributions.
-Sage
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sure they'd be happy to delete a biography upon request.
This has been an issue in the past. They deleted the userpage of an early heavy contributor who then left the project. But they realized that, because they vest authority not strictly in sources but also in the expertise of the contributors, it's necessary to retain at least a basic biography for anyone who has made non-trivial contributions.
That is an interesting point in its own right, but I was thinking more about the person who put in an application without realizing their bio would be made public. Presumably they'd realize this before making lots of non-trivial contributions.
As an obligatory on-topic comment, I think that leads to one of the major problems with wiki encyclopedias in general (and, to a lesser extent, copyleft in general), at least for people contributing under their real names. Once you've released your writing, it can be "edited mercilessly" in ways which are directly counter to your intent, and you're left with the choice between abandoning credit for your work and being considered responsible for the modifications of others (or, in the case of Citizendium, you're forced to choose the latter).
The GFDL attempted to provide "a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others", which is mentioned in the preamble, by maintaining a history section. But when the number of revisions to a single article reaches in the hundreds or the thousands, it doesn't work so well, and if you want to try to allow for offline use, it gets even worse.
I hope this gets solved some day, but I'm afraid it's just something we're going to have to accept.
It is my understanding that Citizendium requires users to submit a brief biography (a) to help other authors and editors know with whom they are working and (b) ensure accountability (a biography in addition to a real name can be used to almost perfectly identify a person).
Citizendium has a pleasant atmosphere; I've registered an account there. Nevertheless, I'm not confident that they have the right model for success. My personal opinion is that a new model is needed, one that goes even beyond the traditional wiki concept and implements novel procedures for collaborative contribution, moderation, and rating.
Thomas Larsen
Yes, I think that is spot on. I've found Citizendium pleasant also, but think some serious effort needs to go into realizing its potential including collaborative development of "novel procedures for collaborative contribution, moderation, and rating." I'm a bit tapped out myself with my residual work on Wikipedia and development of another fork, but can see a way forward for Citizendium.
Fred