In a message dated 4/10/2009 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
So don't join.>>
---------- That's exactly my point isn't it? How many in-bound links are there to Citizendium? How many in-bound links are there to IMDb? IMDb now allows *any* member of the public to create synopsis. Brittanica now allows any member of the public to edit (under moderation), just like we're proposing for the project. If you're a good writer, people will read your material, and your edits will be approved.
I think the world has passed Citizendium by.
Will Johnson
************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Brittanica now allows any member of the public to edit (under moderation),
Have you tried to do this? I tested it out shortly after the editing interface went live, and found that while I could access the text and make changes, I couldn't actually submit the changes without signing up for a subscription (at least, a free trial subscription). I think the Britannica "editing by the public" move is more or less a gimmick to drive subscriptions rather than an effort to seek reader edits.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
Citizendium, I'd say, is backwards. A better drive would be to crib Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes) to FA status, and then replace them. That, I think, would work better than trying to duplicate work that's already been done hundreds of times before. I mean, I have nothing against Larry Sanger, but this is swinging the pendulum in the wrong direction.
~user:orngjce223 | how am I typing?
Citizendium, I'd say, is backwards. A better drive would be to crib Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes) to FA status, and then replace them. That, I think, would work better than trying to duplicate work that's already been done hundreds of times before. I mean, I have nothing against Larry Sanger, but this is swinging the pendulum in the wrong direction.
~user:orngjce223 | how am I typing?
The problem with that is that people end up importing them (and the template jungle) but often never improve them.
Fred
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/10/2009 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
So don't join.>>
That's exactly my point isn't it?
If you say it is, then I guess it is.
But not everyone is unwilling to write 50 words about themselves in order to join Citizendium. I did it (http://tinyurl.com/cjo5hc), though I no longer contribute due to other concerns (the main concern being one that Wikipedia will soon be no better with regard to - lack of respect for copyright).
By the way, to answer your question "what's the point of that", the point is to create a project where people contribute under their real names and identities.
How many in-bound links are there to Citizendium?
How many in-bound links are there to IMDb? IMDb now allows *any* member of the public to create synopsis. Brittanica now allows any member of the public to edit (under moderation), just like we're proposing for the project. If you're a good writer, people will read your material, and your edits will be approved.
Some people have goals other than to have their material read by as many people as possible. Some, for instance, would prefer that their works not be edited mercilessly by any anonymous moron who comes along.
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: WJhonson@aol.com; English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
But not everyone is unwilling to write 50 words about themselves in order to join Citizendium. I did it (http://tinyurl.com/cjo5hc), though I no longer contribute due to other concerns (the main concern being one that Wikipedia will soon be no better with regard to - lack of respect for copyright).
By the way, to answer your question "what's the point of that", the point is to create a project where people contribute under their real names and identities. ------------------------
On the first part, the page does not state that you must do this *in order* to join, it merely asks you to do this. Many sites ask you to describe yourself. This is the first one I've encountered, out of many programs I've joined, that tries to *compel* you to do so, and if you don't you can't join. That's quite different. If Citizendium wants to compel people to describe themselves, they should state it clearly on the page that if you don't, they will reject you. But they don't state that.
On your second point, the biography has nothing to do with your real name. The real name field is another separate field, not within the biographical detail box.
Will Johnson