User talk:Matt Lewis: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chris Day |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Wikipedia: yeah, AA quality is an issue) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now having had a little CZ experience. I can suddenly see a few things about Wikipedia that work well (and the overall standard is not as bad as I sometimes say it is). I do agree it is clearly corrupted - have you seen the Chapters? Where are they going I wonder? (apart from to Israel, with an already apparent bias I notice when reading through it last year). These projects have to somehow stand above politics and areas so easily exploited (like any kind of quango - or 'removed' body). | :::I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now having had a little CZ experience. I can suddenly see a few things about Wikipedia that work well (and the overall standard is not as bad as I sometimes say it is). I do agree it is clearly corrupted - have you seen the Chapters? Where are they going I wonder? (apart from to Israel, with an already apparent bias I notice when reading through it last year). These projects have to somehow stand above politics and areas so easily exploited (like any kind of quango - or 'removed' body). | ||
:::Interesting what you say about competition - I've been wondering if CZ'z best chance of long-term 'survival' is by somehow changing (and merging into) Wikipedia. But then again, it would have to get pretty big to do that - so maybe the two can co-exist (a good thing for all in my opinion, provided Wikipedia gets to grips with its faults). There is a CZ-styled Wikipeida 'offshoot' called Veropedia that gives me the creeps (I'd rather Wikipedia was fully organic and CZ dual-format). I do think that CZ should get to grips with its editor problem, or consider returning some of its AA's for general editing. I think you have to have a proper infrastructure before you do things like AA's. They need to be as strong as Wikipedia's FAs, and although FA's aren't always that great, the AA's I've read just aren't as strong. Reading through them I find many of them lack 'strong encyclopedic' prose - I think it's about more than just accuracy. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 12:37, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
::::Maybe your expectations of CZ are influenced by your experience at wikipedia? Is there any reason why an approved article has to be a finished product? Why not just a first step that is accurate but not necessarily complete? Further approvals will rachet up the quality towards a featured article status. Also, considering the infancy and the limited number of participants, thing will inevitably move more slowly at citizendium. | ::::Maybe your expectations of CZ are influenced by your experience at wikipedia? Is there any reason why an approved article has to be a finished product? Why not just a first step that is accurate but not necessarily complete? Further approvals will rachet up the quality towards a featured article status. Also, considering the infancy and the limited number of participants, thing will inevitably move more slowly at citizendium. | ||
::::It is very easy to look at the quality and quantity and wonder if wikipedia is the better choice. But consider what you are doing here compared to wikipedia. No vandalism to go through on a watch list. No extended, over years?, arguments on any given article. The potential for a stable version if you can get it up to the first approval version. Which is a better use of you valuable time? For me the current choice is clear. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:53, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | ::::It is very easy to look at the quality and quantity and wonder if wikipedia is the better choice. But consider what you are doing here compared to wikipedia. No vandalism to go through on a watch list. No extended, over years?, arguments on any given article. The potential for a stable version if you can get it up to the first approval version. Which is a better use of you valuable time? For me the current choice is clear. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:53, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:::: I didn't catch what you were referring to with the ''I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now''? Can you expand? | |||
:::: As to AA quality - yeah, we've got issues. As much to do with unsettled debates as to who to write for, as much as anything, I think. Also do realize that this is miniscule project (in terms of people) compared to WP. Not everyone is a brilliant expositor of material in his field. | |||
:::: Rome wasn't built in a day. We'll get there... [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 01:47, 2 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
==Wales== | ==Wales== | ||
Revision as of 00:47, 2 April 2008
Welcome!
| Citizendium Getting Started | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians | |||
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Dan Nachbar 14:36, 26 March 2008 (CDT)
Wikipedia
CZ isn't big on categories, but it would probably be fun to start a Category:Ex-Wikipedians! J. Noel Chiappa 13:26, 29 March 2008 (CDT)
- Trouble is I'm still editing there, like yourself I see! It would have to be Category:Semi-retired Wikipedians. --Matt Lewis 16:30, 29 March 2008 (CDT)
- I only occasionally dabble a teensy bit there. I've pretty much switched full-time to here. I think Wikipedia's fundamentally broken, and unlikely to reform (although it might, if given competition). J. Noel Chiappa 21:56, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
- I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now having had a little CZ experience. I can suddenly see a few things about Wikipedia that work well (and the overall standard is not as bad as I sometimes say it is). I do agree it is clearly corrupted - have you seen the Chapters? Where are they going I wonder? (apart from to Israel, with an already apparent bias I notice when reading through it last year). These projects have to somehow stand above politics and areas so easily exploited (like any kind of quango - or 'removed' body).
- Interesting what you say about competition - I've been wondering if CZ'z best chance of long-term 'survival' is by somehow changing (and merging into) Wikipedia. But then again, it would have to get pretty big to do that - so maybe the two can co-exist (a good thing for all in my opinion, provided Wikipedia gets to grips with its faults). There is a CZ-styled Wikipeida 'offshoot' called Veropedia that gives me the creeps (I'd rather Wikipedia was fully organic and CZ dual-format). I do think that CZ should get to grips with its editor problem, or consider returning some of its AA's for general editing. I think you have to have a proper infrastructure before you do things like AA's. They need to be as strong as Wikipedia's FAs, and although FA's aren't always that great, the AA's I've read just aren't as strong. Reading through them I find many of them lack 'strong encyclopedic' prose - I think it's about more than just accuracy. --Matt Lewis 12:37, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- Maybe your expectations of CZ are influenced by your experience at wikipedia? Is there any reason why an approved article has to be a finished product? Why not just a first step that is accurate but not necessarily complete? Further approvals will rachet up the quality towards a featured article status. Also, considering the infancy and the limited number of participants, thing will inevitably move more slowly at citizendium.
- It is very easy to look at the quality and quantity and wonder if wikipedia is the better choice. But consider what you are doing here compared to wikipedia. No vandalism to go through on a watch list. No extended, over years?, arguments on any given article. The potential for a stable version if you can get it up to the first approval version. Which is a better use of you valuable time? For me the current choice is clear. Chris Day 12:53, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- I didn't catch what you were referring to with the I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now? Can you expand?
- As to AA quality - yeah, we've got issues. As much to do with unsettled debates as to who to write for, as much as anything, I think. Also do realize that this is miniscule project (in terms of people) compared to WP. Not everyone is a brilliant expositor of material in his field.
- Rome wasn't built in a day. We'll get there... J. Noel Chiappa 01:47, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
Wales
Please see discussion on the article Wales. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:33, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Blank lines
Well, I like 'em; makes it easier to come along and drop a comment in, I find! J. Noel Chiappa 11:59, 1 April 2008 (CDT)