imported>Carl Jantzen |
|
| (32 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Day of the week== | | {{Archive box|auto=long}} |
| What day of the week should the New Article be selected? We could keep it Tuesday, to synch up with the Article of the Week. It might be nice to have it on a different day, though, so we see Main Page updates twice a week instead of just once.
| | <br/><br/><br/><br/> |
| I'm going to go ahead and change it to Thursday for right now, to keep it as a weekday thing and to also let us start off the program as soon as possible. If anyone has any objections or alternate suggestions please say so.--[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 23:15, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Front page or no?==
| |
| Should the New Article of the Week appear on the front page? It would make the page somewhat less simplistic, as well as possibly highlight an incomplete article. However the added attention might be useful in improving the article. Should it be on the front page, or perhaps highlighted on Project Home or somewhere else in the CZ namespace? --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:44, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : My instinct is that an announce could appear, the precise form to be yet determined. The "added attention" is difficult to overestimate. Besides, this would be a "reward" for the authors. I'm already planning to get there ;-) [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 10:46, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Rules== | | == Date needs fixing == |
| Carl, I've noticed you've already nominated two articles which violates the stated rules. :) My other comment is, what qualifies an article as a "New" article? [[Terrier]] seems obvious because it was made today, but [[Edward I]] has been around since 7/20. Is there a time frame we look at for this, say 2 weeks? Also, as far as article completion, can stubs be nominated? My personal opinion is this would be a good venue to show off articles that are ranked 2, developing, in hopes of attracting other authors attention and they can jump in on the collaboration process. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 09:59, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : Haha, you're absolutely right Todd. I can't believe I didn't notice this. I guess I was just too excited to get this project moving. I've un-nominated [[Terrier]] for now to bring myself back in compliance. Whoops! -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:01, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : We're definitely going to need to come up with some guidelines for what articles do and don't qualify as "new". I was thinking articles newer than 1 month, and ranked a 1 or 2 would be eligible. I also think the 1 month timeframe should be from when the article stopped being a stub, not necessarily from the date the software says it was created. I think allowing articles ranked 1 is important because it would let articles that are decently developed, but only by one author, to gain exposure to other authors and editors. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| I think we shouldn't restrict new article of the week to just the last week - To be honest it would be difficult to find new articles created in just the last week that would meet criteria. Though then again it depends on the direction we decide to take - should it be developed articles or developing articles on the new article of the week? Also, Is it ethical to vote for my own article?[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | Next pick date needs fixing! [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
| : I think that at least for now voting on your own article is ok. Since you can nominate yourself you should be able to vote for yourself. Perhaps when the program gets off the ground we'll change it. On the other hand it might not be easy to find good new articles, so maybe we want to keep the rule that lets you nominate/vote for your own articles even then. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :: I would agree that saying articles within the last month would be a good limit. You can easily check the list of new articles with the date they were created here - http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Newpages . Since most articles on CZ are not created at the stub level, this should be able to give people a pretty good idea of what articles can qualify as "new".--[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 10:17, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Monthly Write-a-thon as article source== | | == Revising score for voting == |
| One place to look for articles to nominate might be the list of new articles created during the [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon]]. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:16, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Interested in New Article of the Week==
| | About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2732.0.html here] in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2. |
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, selecting a <s>Creation of the Week</s>.[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.msg8481.html#msg8481 New Article of the Week]
| |
|
| |
|
| # [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]]
| | The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created. |
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] (if we can call it "New Article of the Week"--excellent idea)
| | |
| # —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]]
| | Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| | |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| | == When there hasn't been an update == |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| | |
| # [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] - I hope I'm not being too bold by going ahead and starting to jot down some proposed rules about this program. I don't know if I need to get approval or anything to do this...if so someone please let me know. [[CZ:New Article of the Week]]
| | I think it's more fair to pick an article that might have passed the deadline, than continue featuring an article on the front page. I can be pretty neutral here, because it is my article on think tank that has been continued. I'd rather have seen either the new one I contributed or one of the two others replace it, and to start the voting afresh with a new candidate. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| | :Did I miss last weeks change over? Because it's still only wednesday where I am. But yes, when I do forget to change it over I agree that an older article would be fine. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
| # [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]]
| | |
| # [[User:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| | == Regarding rules for new drafts of the week == |
| | |
| | Since they include developing articles, suggest an exception to the one-time rule in cases where substantial further development has occurred since first posting on Welcome Page, perhaps with explanatory note regarding why the repeat. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
Date needs fixing
Next pick date needs fixing! Dalton Holland Baptista 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Revising score for voting
About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at here in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2.
The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created.
Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. Milton Beychok 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Milton Beychok 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When there hasn't been an update
I think it's more fair to pick an article that might have passed the deadline, than continue featuring an article on the front page. I can be pretty neutral here, because it is my article on think tank that has been continued. I'd rather have seen either the new one I contributed or one of the two others replace it, and to start the voting afresh with a new candidate. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did I miss last weeks change over? Because it's still only wednesday where I am. But yes, when I do forget to change it over I agree that an older article would be fine. Drew R. Smith 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding rules for new drafts of the week
Since they include developing articles, suggest an exception to the one-time rule in cases where substantial further development has occurred since first posting on Welcome Page, perhaps with explanatory note regarding why the repeat. Anthony.Sebastian 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
