CZ Talk:Anthropology Workgroup
-Could the authors of the developed articles please place them in the appropriate categories? Also, why do not all articles that are developed and have the anthro workgroup tag appear inthe developed articles? Is this a glitch?
Lee--to the former, I'm not sure what you're asking. Most articles (unlike most of yours, by the way) do not have single authors. To the latter, could be a glitch. Can you give an example? --Larry Sanger 12:56, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Hi Larry - when I clicked on our header in our workgroup "developed articles" I get about eight or ten or so. However, when I'm adding subpages9 (subpages gives one a funny look still (see Talk on our workgroup) to my articles (even ones that several authors have now worked on), they do not automatically appear as "developed articles" in that very same workgroup list - (I presumed it was automatic). So, I was asking authors - like the authors of Kilt to add those in to the "priority list" manually under appropriate headings.
Lee R. Berger 13:05, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Just noticed this myself. Articles disappear from the developed, developing, etc. categories when one deletes the article checklist from the talk page. They do not reappear when the Metadata page is created. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Question
Now that several people have been at work on the Anthropology Workgroup page, I have a question: what are the main functions of this page? And can we perhaps get people working on other workgroup pages, bearing those functions in mind? --Larry Sanger 13:02, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Please clarify "functions" - do you mean - what is the goal of a page like this? I would suggest - if that is the case - that it is -
- 1 - to identify priority areas of work needed so that we develop a core content.
- 2 - to identify the entire "common" knowledge of the area that needs to be worked on so that the encyclopedia appears "complete", and,
- 3 - to stimulate - by example - the development of new articles, areas of redress and the search for unknown information (e.g. adding five sites to North American archeological sites even though the editor knows there are hundreds if not thousands - someone will add one or two more...)
- I would add one:
- to provide a sense of "community".
—Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:19, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- truly more clearly stated than my "waffle" in point 3 (which said the same thing in sinister tones!)
Lee R. Berger 13:25, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
I wonder if it would help, for purposes of community-building, to have a Citizendium Anthropology Advisory Board--actually, A Boards for all workgroups, eventually--to demonstrate that some well-known anthropologists are behind the project, even if they aren't actually involved themselves? To be clear, I'm not saying y'all aren't serious anthropologists--but you get the point, I hope. I'm thinking of putting this into the policy expansion I'll be proposing before too much longer. --Larry Sanger 13:48, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- One thing that would enormously help is to convey that editors and authors are working shoulder-to-shoulder, although the latter to the former concomitantly, which this fails to do and author contribution not being added in the first place. We have to remind ourselves that without authors who are energized, appreciated, motivated, happy, and appropriately credited, this whole bird just ain't gonna fly. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:07, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Critical mass
With community in mind it is important to have enough authors to make it a happening place. I wonder if well thought eduzendium projects, that could make workgroups a happening place, might be the way to get some of these groups kickstarted. Not only will the students be generating their own good articles, they will serve as honey to other editors and authors that want to see more activity before jumping in. Chris Day (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I'm all for that and after my student meeting on monday will be posting on the forums my "experiment" - authors are the key.
Lee R. Berger 13:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, one thing I'm contemplating, now that I'm back in the saddle again, is possibly assigning work on CZ pages as special projects or extra credit assignments for my students. But that would probably wait until the end of this semester or the beginning of the next.... —Richard J. Senghas 13:42, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I think if we can set up a good system here to help academics run such classes, then it will help the recruitment a lot. Especially if the students like this environemt, it could be our best recruiting tool from the academic sector for both authors and editors. Chris Day (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
It's a good idea. See CZ:Eduzendium. As I've told Lee, and as Eduzendium director Sorin Matei has privately confirmed, it's all right if we do not use the full apparatus of Eduzendium as described there. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
"Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. "
- Thought you would say that - just thought I'd ask it out in the open... (I also think you are right...)
Lee R. Berger 13:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)