User:DavidGoodman/comments

live

Larry, because of the way the pilot works, we have already made some of these choices. Since all linked articles are incorporated when the link is made (or followed?). then we have all the linked articles in Cz, at least as far as the pilot is concerned, The only control is, as you've told us, the use of the 'live' tag--If we copy linked text, the page it links to becomes part of Cz unless we remove the links. I suppose this is unavoidable, but it sets some limits.

I wish it worked otherwise--I wish it made a transwiki link, and opened the relevant page in WP. But is this even possible? Do we have any way to see what articles we actually do have, live or otherwise.? Except by following links, how else can we figure out?

This immediately settles the question: since some of the linked articles will be very poor, we do not have the option of starting with less than the full contents. All of the articles about things we might decide not to emphasize, are going to be there, every last football club of them. We'll need a much stronger wording for them than merely "We make this disclaimer of all Citizendium article versions that have not been specifically approved."

I think the only way to clarify this is for the editors to start rating the WP pages as quickly as possible, as they come in, because only then do we have the choice of improving the good ones a little, or upgrading or truncated or deleting the bad ones. They will all be there. (As you asked in a discussion yesterday, are there any uses for the WP article tags: well, here there is: I'm not sure what text to use, or what categories but we could place a sticker indicating the status.) [some of this emailed] >

(For another question you asked, I've already put comments on the talk pages to the extent I can.).

The meaning of "live" , I take it , does not mean "finished"? So in the real Cz, as in the pilot, where would the distinctions be? We would have pages being edited, with the working version not visible & only the WP displayed, pages edited at least provisionally, with a Cz version displayed, and pages not even looked at, with the WP page no matter how bad it may be displayed.

Is this what is intended for the public version, or can we do something different.? I note that all the pages we are now talking about are in fact now visible. If we don't want to display half-finished editing , we'd have to change things a little. I think the only way to clarify this is for the editors to start rating the pages as quickly as possible, because only then do we have the choice of improving the good ones a little, or upgrading or truncated or deleting the bad ones.

There are two ways to start: with the overview articles and the specific ones. If we do the specific ones first, we'll have gaps in CZ content for years, although for many of them we can pretend the WP content is passable.18:27, 31 October 2006 DavidGoodman (Talk | contribs)

quality of WP pages

I think as we have all been talking the last few weeks, the feeling is we should not start out be having the WP article as the default place holder--at least until we have looked at it and removed the junk and evaluated. (As you asked in a discussion yesterday, are there any uses for the WP article tags: well, here there is: I'm not sure what text to use, or what categories but we could place a sticker indicating the status.

For example, consider the botany page in WP: I think I could say a good deal more in that space, but what there is in not actually misleading. But then look at the zoology page, where you will see the complete absences of content: it was all deleted by accident on Sept 2 while reverting vandalism, and nobody seems to have put it back. so everyone has a chance to look, I will reinsert in, but not until Nov. 3. Even with it, there wasn't much. I would perhaps put it in for the moment, but with a very different label, and it would be a high priority to redo. There are several hundred good zoology pages on individual species, which range in quality from good to excellent. I would put them all in, and not worry too much about revising them right away.

I think it will have to go page by page. this way. I looked at another field I know, and he technology related parts are fair to good, and the others unmentionable.

There are in various fields, WP pages that in the past have been better than they are now. Generally not by accident, like Zoology, but as a result of a revert war--the argument was solved by deleting both sides.

links

Larry & Nancy-- first of all , we can always get the links for the version in the page history. as when we check the links, we should also decide on whether we need them--which is in turn a matter of policy. WP links every significant word on its first appearance. When i first look at WP the practice seemed absurd & a sign of amateurism. By now I no longer notice it, but it still seems absurd. I know it helps in th categories, but I do not think we need a category of everything that happened in 1901, 1902,1903 except in fields where it matters. nor do we need lists of people born in .... & also many irrelevant subject based links; every article the word "history" appears in, and looking at what I've just written , "article" or "subject' or "link". Subdisciplines as you mention, certainly.