User:Pat Palmer/sandbox: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer No edit summary |
imported>Pat Palmer No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOINDEX__ | __NOINDEX__ | ||
The Citizendium wants to be a small, supportive community of collaborators who work on articles which could not be developed in Wikipedia, that are different from what Wikipedia now offers, though not necessarily either better or worse. Please understand that we love Wikipedia; most of us consult it several times per day. But we also understand its limitations, and that's why we are support The Citizendium also, not as a competitor but as supplement which allows authors to write different style articles which generally than what generally can be produced by Wikipedia's massive and anonymous crowd-sourcing. | |||
We know that Wikipedia has proved very good at cataloging facts, versions, releases, and details, and it would be futile to duplicate that effort over here in The Citizendium. Wikipedia is also--sometimes--good at giving extremely careful technical explanations of complex matters, but we find that it is generally less good at explaining a topic from the ground up for people who are not already experts, or at maintaining a coherent article structure and flow of narrative. We think there is value in providing a quick summary, a personal evaluation, or an introduction for beginners. We also don't require the removal of any trace of personality or individual thought, an approach which though well meaning is arguably not fully honest, because every writer is always making choices all the time about what to include, or not, and how to phrase things. | |||
In short, the Citizendium provides a different kind of collaborative environment than Wikipedia now offers. We use real names, and we now have a modest number of active authors so that it becomes possible to know each other. Collegial, helpful collaboration is what we want at all costs, because we are a community, and when it is done in a helpful, supportive community, writing can be immense fun. And we're open to having multiple articles developed on a single topic (to be found via a disambiguation page). For those who want to fully control the direction of a given article, we allow "signing" of articles; such articles can still be collaborations, but the signers are the ones who get to lead the direction and emphasis of the article. | |||
We have no problem with people using The Citizendium as a staging area for an article to be copied elsewhere later. This is legal, with the following caveats: the article remains behind on The Citizendium (cannot be deleted), and at its new home, attribution is given to The Citizendium as per our site license. | |||
We saw a theory about factions over in Wikipedia, and the theory was: | |||
1. a big faction against a small faction makes for a biased article (the big faction bullies and "wins") | |||
2. two equal but opposing factions make for a good article because they balance each other | |||
3. a single person or faction makes a bad article because no oversight | |||
We agree with (1), because many of us have experienced being ganged up on firsthand, and it can easily result in suppressing valid voices. But we do not buy into (2) and (3) all the time. Two opposing factions do not always reach compromises that are reasonable. Nor does a simgle party, writing with experience, skill and diligence, always create a biased result--or, even if the output is not fully balanced, it may still be coherent and worthwhile. Our model is going to be to allow multiple articles on a given topic, linked on a disambiguation page, and people can read the one they want, or read both. That does not preclude collaboration at any level--it just does not absolutely dictate that there must be collaboration when people have different working styles. It is our hope, based on long experience, that allowing multiple articles may relieve many of the conflicts which sprang up in the past when The Citizendium was trying to be an alternative to Wikipedia. | |||
Along with careful screening of authors out front, and quicker, more private intervention by a management team into any developing behavioral issues, | |||
---- | |||
Draft of [[User:Pat_Palmer/sandbox/Paris, Tennessee]] | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 11:38, 24 September 2020
The Citizendium wants to be a small, supportive community of collaborators who work on articles which could not be developed in Wikipedia, that are different from what Wikipedia now offers, though not necessarily either better or worse. Please understand that we love Wikipedia; most of us consult it several times per day. But we also understand its limitations, and that's why we are support The Citizendium also, not as a competitor but as supplement which allows authors to write different style articles which generally than what generally can be produced by Wikipedia's massive and anonymous crowd-sourcing.
We know that Wikipedia has proved very good at cataloging facts, versions, releases, and details, and it would be futile to duplicate that effort over here in The Citizendium. Wikipedia is also--sometimes--good at giving extremely careful technical explanations of complex matters, but we find that it is generally less good at explaining a topic from the ground up for people who are not already experts, or at maintaining a coherent article structure and flow of narrative. We think there is value in providing a quick summary, a personal evaluation, or an introduction for beginners. We also don't require the removal of any trace of personality or individual thought, an approach which though well meaning is arguably not fully honest, because every writer is always making choices all the time about what to include, or not, and how to phrase things.
In short, the Citizendium provides a different kind of collaborative environment than Wikipedia now offers. We use real names, and we now have a modest number of active authors so that it becomes possible to know each other. Collegial, helpful collaboration is what we want at all costs, because we are a community, and when it is done in a helpful, supportive community, writing can be immense fun. And we're open to having multiple articles developed on a single topic (to be found via a disambiguation page). For those who want to fully control the direction of a given article, we allow "signing" of articles; such articles can still be collaborations, but the signers are the ones who get to lead the direction and emphasis of the article.
We have no problem with people using The Citizendium as a staging area for an article to be copied elsewhere later. This is legal, with the following caveats: the article remains behind on The Citizendium (cannot be deleted), and at its new home, attribution is given to The Citizendium as per our site license.
We saw a theory about factions over in Wikipedia, and the theory was:
1. a big faction against a small faction makes for a biased article (the big faction bullies and "wins") 2. two equal but opposing factions make for a good article because they balance each other 3. a single person or faction makes a bad article because no oversight
We agree with (1), because many of us have experienced being ganged up on firsthand, and it can easily result in suppressing valid voices. But we do not buy into (2) and (3) all the time. Two opposing factions do not always reach compromises that are reasonable. Nor does a simgle party, writing with experience, skill and diligence, always create a biased result--or, even if the output is not fully balanced, it may still be coherent and worthwhile. Our model is going to be to allow multiple articles on a given topic, linked on a disambiguation page, and people can read the one they want, or read both. That does not preclude collaboration at any level--it just does not absolutely dictate that there must be collaboration when people have different working styles. It is our hope, based on long experience, that allowing multiple articles may relieve many of the conflicts which sprang up in the past when The Citizendium was trying to be an alternative to Wikipedia.
Along with careful screening of authors out front, and quicker, more private intervention by a management team into any developing behavioral issues,
Draft of User:Pat_Palmer/sandbox/Paris, Tennessee
{{dambigbox|French city|Paris}}
{{seealso|Paris}}
{{Authors|Pat Palmer|others=y}}
recent changes to physics articles
recent changes to physics articles
OLD: Citizendium
NEW: User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Citizendium
pat palmer
- OLD: CZ:Neutrality policy
- User:Pat_Palmer/sandbox/Proposed Neutrality Policy - REDIRECTED
Templates for lead authors
Ten examples of the Authors or Contribs template:
| Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
| Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
Authors [about]:
join in to develop this article! |
| Contributors [about]:
CZ is an open collaboration. Please join these people in developing this article! |
Contributors [about]:
CZ is an open collaboration. Please join these people in developing this article! |
Contributors [about]:
CZ is an open collaboration. Please join these people in developing this article! |
Mary Baker Eddy
Gill, Gillian (1998). Mary Baker Eddy. Perseus. DOI:10.1086/ahr/105.2.551. ISBN 0738200425.
https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/105.2.551
ISBN 0-7382-0042-5