Archive:The Big Write: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:22, 24 February 2007

The Big Write is our second in an series of important community-wide initiatives. The Big Speedydelete was the first. In The Big Write, we are aiming to write many credible starts on high priority articles. Everyone is encouraged to participate, but please read this brief document in its entirety if you wish to do so.

For editors, this is an important opportunity, through only minimal work and commitment, to "jump start" work in your areas. For article writers, this is an excellent opportunity to obtain feedback on your work from subject experts. For all Citizendium citizens, both editors and authors, this initiative will help us get to know each other better and "jump start" many workgroups!

We hope through this initiative to create and review dozens of original (non-Wikipedia-based), top priority articles as credible starts. This would be a fine addition to the Citizendium corpus.

How it works

It isn't complicated.

Editors nominate 3-5 "high priority" topics (below) within their field. Articles on these topics shouldn't already exist. Other contributors then sign up to write a "credible start" on the topic. To be a "credible start," an article must be at least 750 words, accurate, unbiased, and well-written (see below). As many people as want to sign up to write on any topic may do so, but everyone who does sign up to write is then obligated to do so (and to begin soon, i.e., within a day or two of signing up). For each nominated topic, the editor is committed to reviewing and (if all goes well) OK’ing the new article as "a credible start." This is not an approval, but merely the editor's opinion that the article in its present form is on its way to being a good summation of the topic. The editor offers this OK below.

There is another way to get articles on the list. Authors can suggest topics, which editors may then choose to review. This is a good idea, because an author's suggestion indicates that the author will actually write the article. See "Author suggested topics", below.

We will declare the period of nominations over after they drop off significantly.

What is a "credible start"?

For purposes of this initiative, a credible start is an article that:

Is 750 or more words long. (A handy way to calculate number of words is to paste the article text into the form on this page and press the "Calculate Words" button).

Contains at least a good introductory section to a future (longer) article.

Is accurate, largely unbiased, well-written, and university-level. See our article standards.

Is Citizendium's original work.

Instructions for editors

Step One. Choose three to five topics in your field(s) that are very high priority, and about which you have some specialized knowledge. When doing this, please consult the list of "Author suggested topics", below.

Step Two. Alphabetically list each topic under "Editor nominated topics" using the following format (you can simply copy and paste):

[[Name of topic]]
:Workgroup(s) (proposed): [[:Category:XYZ Workgroup|XYZ]]
:Reviewed by: ~~~
:Article writers:
:OK’d:

Notes: place [[ and ]] on either side of the article name. Make your article title singular (so, prefer whale to whales) and lowercase titles when typically written lowercase (so, prefer global warming to Global Warming; but The Great Gatsby). The ":" needs to be flush left; it indents a line. Replace "XYZ" with the name of an existing workgroup, or a workgroup you as editor would like to propose. Sign your name after "Reviewed by" with three tildes (~~~), and your name and date after "OK’d" with four tildes (~~~~).

For example:

epistemology

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Philosophy

Reviewed by: Ed Itor

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d: Ed Itor 19:00, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Please file your topics in alphabetical order. For your own benefit, you might want to write down your nominated topics elsewhere (e.g., on your user page), since this list might get rather long.

Step Three. It is not part of your job to assign authors; they assign themselves. Your role is to offer feedback for improvement, if necessary. The place to do this is on the article's "talk page". For example, if you have nominated an article titled whale, then you should go to Talk:whale. This can be found by navigating to the article and, from there, clicking on the "discussion" tab.

Step Four. "OK" the article as a credible start. Do this by writing ~~~~ after "OK’d" (see the example above). This indicates that you believe the article is a credible start according to the criteria for validation listed above.

Instructions for article writers

Step One. Sign up. If you're a Citizendium contributor--author or editor--you can sign up to write an article. Do so simply by typing three tildes (~~~) after "Article writers". More than one person can sign up to write a given article. Indeed, the fact that you have signed up to work on an article gives you no special authorship privileges over that article, but it does represent your commitment to the community that you'll do your best to write 750+ words that are "a credible start" on the topic.

Step Two. Get to work! See What is "a credible start"?, above, to learn what we're aiming at. For purposes of "The Big Write" intiative, please do not submit articles taken from Wikipedia or elsewhere. This should be your original work.

Step Three. Please place Category:Big Write on the talk page of the article, so that we can keep track of changes made to these articles from a single place.

Step Four. Submit your work to the editor when you're done with your "credible start." No doubt some editors will be on hand on the "Talk" page of the article. If not, leave a message on the editor's user talk page. If you still get no reply, again go to the editor's user page, look to the left under "toolbox" and try the "E-mail this user" link. If you have any trouble contacting an editor (e.g., if the editor has turned off "E-mail this user"), then send your message to constables@citizendium.org, and the constables will forward your message to the editor.

Then await OK'ing, or revise the article in accordance with the feedback you receive.

Instructions for author suggestions

Step One. Choose up to five topics that you consider high priority, on which you are willing to make a credible start. Others may sign up to write on the same topic as well.

Step Two. Alphabetically list each topic under "Author suggested topics" using the following format (you can simply copy and paste):

[[Name of topic]] --Suggested by: ~~~
:Accepting editor:

See "Notes" under Instructions for editors above.

For example:

government --Barnaby Smith

Accepting editor: Ed Itor

Please file your suggested topics in alphabetical order and keep track of them.

Step Three. If an editor accepts your suggestion(s), be prepared to begin a credible start on that topic within the next day or so.

The Topics

aerodynamics

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Engineering

Reviewed by: Hassan Aref

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

anthropology

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Anthropology

Reviewed by: Alexander Hugo Schulenburg

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

applied anthropology

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Anthropology

Reviewed by: Alexander Hugo Schulenburg

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

Arabidopsis thaliana

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Biology

Reviewed by: Chris Day (Talk)

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

Bioengineering

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Biology Engineering

Reviewed by: Supten

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

blog

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Computers

Reviewed by: Jerome Delacroix

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

chemistry in the kitchen

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Chemistry

Reviewed by: Robert Tito | Talk

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

circadian rhythm

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Biology

Reviewed by: David Tribe

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

Citizendium

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Citizendium

Reviewed by: Supten

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

chloroplast

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Biology

Reviewed by: Chris Day (Talk)

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

Colligative properties

Workgroup(s) Chemistry

Reviewed by: Robert Tito | Talk

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Engineering

Reviewed by: Hassan Aref

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

content management system

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Computers

Reviewed by: Jerome Delacroix

Article writers: Charlie Levenson

OK’d:

cultural anthropology

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Anthropology

Reviewed by: Alexander Hugo Schulenburg

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

Distributed computation as alternative to Highperformance Computing

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Computers

Reviewed by: Robert Tito | Talk

Article writers: Nick Johnson

OK’d:

Error analysis in physical sciences

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Physics|Chemistry

Reviewed by: Robert Tito | Talk

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

geologic time scale

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Earth Sciences

Reviewed by: Nereo Preto

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

global warming

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Earth Sciences

Reviewed by: Nereo Preto

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

N.B. The article is top priority overall and I can handle it, but I'm not a researcher in this topic! Perhaps an even more qualified editor exists: go ahead and take it!!! --Nereo Preto 10:44, 22 February 2007 (CST)

hydraulics

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Engineering

Reviewed by: Hassan Aref

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

hemispheric lateralization

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Biology

Reviewed by: Supten

Article writers: [authors place names here]

OK’d:

hypertension

Workgroup(s) (proposed): Health Sciences