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(a)aol.com> wrote:

Actually, I was just talking about verification of identity. - Chris On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:05 AM, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: "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. 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 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. Yeah well, that's a whole different process. 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...

Sage Ross wrote: I wonder what percentage of new accounts make a *useful* first edit on wikipedia?

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&am… 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=… http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Pseudoscience&diff=next&oldid=… This resulted in a block, but one which Larry relieved me from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Us… 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

-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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: Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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

<<-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Larsen &lt;larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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

<<-----Original Message----- From: Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;rg>; wjhonson(a)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

-----Original Message----- From: Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; To: wjhonson(a)aol.com; wikien-l(a)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

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?

-----Original Message----- From: Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; To: wjhonson(a)aol.com; wikien-l(a)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

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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

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