CZ Talk:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians
Hey Steve, let me leave this in your hands. See CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians for what I worked on--feel free to fold it in, or not use it. I didn't realize that you were at work on this, or I wouldn't have bothered. --Larry Sanger 14:48, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
workgroups
workgroups build collaboration that wp did not/does not have.
workgroup recent changes allow you to monitor article changes within a general field.
wikipedia had sub-categories that only allowed you to monitor recent changes within that small sub-category instead of a general category like "biology workgroup."
Articles need to get tagged with workgroup tags for workgroup recent changes to work to its full potential.
Adding your name as an author to a workgroup...
Applying to become an editor of a workgroup...
Will add more ideas later. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:44, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
?
Really?
"At Wikipedia, creating lots of stubs is considered productive. Someone will always come along and add to it, "eventually". At Citizendium, we feel it is much better to start one or just a few articles, and concentrate on them until they are approved."
This is policy? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:09, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
What about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.?
Do we ignore these? Link to them? Set up a Citictionary? Having done a lot of work on Wiktionary, I find it to be much simpler to work with and less subject to contention, manipulation, and plain silliness, than Wikipedia. Wikiquote, on the other hand, has some of the basic problems of Wikipedia on a smaller scale - obsession with pop culture trivia, arguments as to the notability of persons and media quoted, and efforts to manipulate the placement of quotes on contentious issues such as abortion and religion to score points for one ideological position or the other. Brian Dean Abramson 20:02, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Bringing in solid, unchanging articles from Wikipedia
I've written 100+ Wikipedia articles on WWII U.S. Navy ships and some related subjects. They are all based on the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), but with some facts, public domain photos, etc. added by me. If I do say so myself, they are pretty good encyclopedia articles. There has been very little editing by other people.
Since these are basically historical articles about subjects that are not ever going to change (the ships were scrapped long ago), I'd like to be able to bring them over to CZ without making a lot of changes just for the sake of making changes. (It would be VERY hard to make factual changes, and troublesome to make wording changes, though the latter COULD be done.)
What should I do about these articles? Louis F. Sander 20:27, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Louis. That sounds like a decision for the Editor-in-Chief. - Stephen Ewen 20:48, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Reading CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles, it seems that you are free to copy them if you think that the Wikipedia articles are good and you adopt them to the Citizendium house style (remove categories and interlanguage links; that sort of stuff). I haven't seen an argument against copying them in this case. -- Jitse Niesen 21:26, 1 April 2007 (CDT)