Jump to content

Talk:Citizendium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial comments

The context is well defined, this is an official project proposal by one of the founders of Wikipedia. Announced today. conTEXT is very clear defined, WP:CSD A1 not met. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The current edition of this article is biased against Larry and pro-Wikipedia. Isn't the idea that Wikipedia is neutral on everything in articles, even itself?

Then research and fix it. (The article's less than a day old - odds are it will improve.) Peter Grey 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There is little to research, given how new the project is! Anyhow the bias is/was in the choice of language not so much the choice of facts. As for fixing it, often it is better to tell others of their mistakes so that they don't make them again, rather than just quietly fixing them oneself. Better to teach how to fish... etc etc. Athash 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Gosh, I'm surprised that this talk page isn't a hundred screens long (yet). Are all the American Wikipedians too busy watching football to check Slashdot? Melchoir 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the problem is that American Wikipedian Slashdotters are too busy reading and posting on Slashdot to arrive at this forum in a timely fashion. Rydra Wong 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA.. I hate Slashdotters' jokes, they seriously start to creep on my neves. --nlitement [talk] 19:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But as an American Wikipedian Slashdot Troll (AWST?) I hereby edit this article. The Citizendium FAQ tried hard to be nice, but there was an obvious emphasis on how Wikipedia doesn't respect experts enough. Added/ King 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I commend your attention to the third edit to this page: a proposal for speedy deletion. The eloquent edit summary, reproduced here verbatim: "Huh?"

That's what Wikipedia has far too much of: "contributions" by people who know nothing. Some of us will be delighted to see that fixed. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ambiguous authorship above (Wiki-tech is limited; work with it our get out of the way!); to the first statement I reply, "Don't be so fragile. Your crying wolf smacks of drama-whore. Chill. Signal/noise, remember? Some of us are listening. As to cause for deletion, "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context" merely shows that a system that empowers sophistry merely sophisticates Stalin. (One man's opinion, of course. heh) "I saw my neighbor's little boys dog and recognized it as my neighbor's little boy's dog but am not required to know that so I shot it on the 8th day." --BenTremblay 05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And there is more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wizards_of_OS_4&diff=75913579&oldid=75913541

Yeah, that's wikipedia! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

His user page has somthing about this now: [1]. Is it allowed to add links for userpages on namespace articles?---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 02:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Anyway, I don't see where this is mentioned. Melchoir 19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no rule that forbids linking to userpages (as long as it's treated like an external link), but I don't see the point in linking to his userpage in this case. --Conti|✉ 21:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"His"? All these brilliant minds and nobody stresses the author why pointing at "His"? On such as this doth WP turn? Gadzooks. But really: What's with you? You're acting like jilted lovers. (I wudda written sychophant but I'm not sure that sycophant is the right spehlung for sychophant. Maybe that's because I'm allergic to sycophants, sycophantism, and the objects there of. Or maybe it's just cuz I cahn't spehl. I don't have a 4 year degree.) --BenTremblay 06:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

German articles

Can anyone do translation on the armada of German news media that seem to be covering this, to expand the article further? · XP · 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fork.

Quoting from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/ar01s03.html

This kind of divergence is called a fork. The most important characteristic of a fork is that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, splitting the potential developer community. (There are phenomena that look superficially like forking but are not, such as the proliferation of different Linux distributions. In these pseudo-forking cases there may be separate projects, but they use mostly common code and can benefit from each other's development efforts completely enough that they are neither technically nor sociologically a waste, and are not perceived as forks.

cow_2001 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard that a fork cannot exchange code with the original project before. Then again, I'm not an expert on forking or computer software, so what do I know. According to our own article on this topic, Citizendium will indeed be a fork, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition you cite is from the earlier days of open source, and the matter has evolved. Now, forks are used even for temporary split-offs that are intended to be reconciled in several months. For example, Gaim needed audio-visual support, so the gaim-vv fork was created so those features could be worked on without disturbing the main tree, and now gaim-vv has been merged back into Gaim. CRCulver 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the stated aim

From the article: "The stated aim of the project is to build up an expert culture and community that encourages academics to contribute and "citizens" to respect these expert contributions."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.242.113.133 (talk • contribs) .

I tagged it, don't have time to fix it myself unfortunately. · XP · 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that seems fair. What would be a good formulation of the stated aim? "retaining Wikipedia's virtues while eliminating [certain problems]"? [2] Haukur 08:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the stated aim. Please look at http://www.citizendium.org/essay.html and the FAQ for the stated aim. I request that this article be labelled as questionably non-neutral until this and other problems are fixed. --Larry Sanger

Merge with Larry sanger

Ok, this is just a idea at the moment, nothing notable yet, so, why not merge it with Larry sanger for the time being. If is get wings, we can always split it off again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was notable because this will get significant media attention. Merging may be applicable in the future if the project does not 'get wings'. 193.134.170.35 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur; any action that makes this article less visible will be construed as suppression of dissent. If it's worth a register article[1], it's worth a Wikipedia article. Might as well do a link or block quote of the stated aims, since trying to track a wiki with a wiki is likely to get tricky. Ojcit 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Any action that makes this article less visible ..." Such neat use of deniability; it's like a mediocre master-class in sophistry. You're saying there's reason to make it less visible? If not then you're dealing very skilfully with a hypothetical ... paranoid? --BenTremblay 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sophistry...don't know if I've been accused of that one before; I'll have to look it up before I know if I've been complimented or insulted, or both. If it's a combination of sophomoric and sophisticated, then I'm guilty as charged. I don't see a reason to make it less visible, but I was expecting it to be more controversial than it's proving to be. Since it's a collaborative project, and likely to involve many more people than Sanger, I still think it should be its own article. Once he sets it loose, it's its own animal. Ojcit 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/#bootnote

Let's Fork Citizendium, or at Least Spoon It

I hereby found the AdInfinitium. While Citizendium defers to "experts," there's no recognition of the contributions of Gurus, demi-gods, Wizards, or even the cogniscienti. Expertise isn't a binary function. Ojcit 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo. Is there a "friend" function here? Oh yaa, WPdeians abhor LJ. Meh. *Big wet kiss.* [Meh! Users w/o user pages should, IMNSHO, STFU.] --BenTremblay 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Doesn't anyone have respect for my expertise?  ;-) Anonymous Expert 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Raising eyebrows

Wikipedia is arguably dysfunctional community," which appears to be "committed to amateurism...for a community that has produced one of the best sources of information on the net...we sure take a lot of flack. Does this qualify as treason? Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, we should welcome the initiative. Remember that anything worthwhile can be copied right back here. And if it does turn out to work better than Wikipedia then the better for humanity. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Haukur 06:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course. If you're the sort that lives by accusing others of treason, then accuse ... good and loud and clear, so that all may heed and note your name. Apparently the battle of civilizations is being fought not in Iraq but in Wikipedia! I wish you good luck: swallow your tongue. --BenTremblay 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sanger is no longer part of Wikipedia, so there's no reason he should have any obligation of loyalty here. Even if he were an active member of the community; the notion that he can't criticize WP, or found a competing project, is offensive. After all, User:Fred Bauder, an ArbCom member no less, runs Wikinfo, a Wikipedia fork--nobody considers his activities to be in conflict. --EngineerScotty 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you care if it's 'treason'? Oh no, he doesn't like a certain encyclopedia as much as I do, better go burn down his house! eritain 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright alright...It's just that I've always through of Wikipedia as a vision and to think that one of the leaders of the community lost that vision and call the remainder of the Wikipedia community as "committed to amateurism" got me annoyed. Come to think of it I rather regret that post above...Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to Ben Tremblay who squeezed his comment in above after my last post a few days back. I have already admitted that I am embarrassed of that edit which came in the spur of the moment without much thought. Mr. Sanger has an idea and I respect that idea. Again, I am most embarrassed by my comments. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interests?

I read on the article "Larry Sanger" that "In December 2005, Digital Universe Foundation announced that Sanger had been hired as Director of Distributed Content Programs,[3] where he will lead the Digital Universe Encyclopedia content resource of the larger web project to be launched in early 2006.[4] Unlike Wikipedia, the Digital Universe encyclopedia plans to bring in recognized experts to certify the accuracy of user-submitted articles as well as to write articles themselves." Since I read in the FAQ of citizendium.org that Citizendium is not related to Digital Universe Foundation, and that Sanger's role in Digital Universe Foundation is supposed to be a professional one, even if the Foundation should be non-profit, isn't there a danger of a conflict of interests? Does anybody know any sources about this issue? Or maybe Sanger is no longer involved in Digital Universe Foundation? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.143.109 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed I was just asking if anybody knew about some "discussion of such a conflict published somewhere", or to update the article "Larry Sanger" in case its namesake wasn't a DUF employee anymore. I wasn't soliciting original points of view on the issue.

Stub?

This article doesn't have much information about the subject, but that's because the subject is so new that there simply isn't much information. I don't see much room for expansion until there are further developments -- and there's enough interest among Wikipedians that I suspect any developments will be added to the article quite promptly. I suggest removing the "stub" tag. JamesMLane t c 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No source for quote

I removed [3]. Is there a source for it somewhere? --HappyCamper 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added that quote yesterday, copied from an online newspaper article, I think. I will need to find the source, as I did not keep it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger_announces_Wikipedia_fork -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost

Latest nonsense

He calls his administrators "Constables", minimum qualification, "four-year college degree". Fred Bauder 23:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As Fred knows, the name and the qualifications deemed necessary are currently being debated.--Phil Wardle 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Same old Larry

"If you don't see the reason in that, then I encourage you to stop attempting to shape policy for the Citizendium, and stick with Wikipedia. This isn't the project for you." Fred Bauder 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[4] · XP · 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) A more diplomatic formulation Fred Bauder 10:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As Fred knows, quoting out of context can at times be misleading; the full response by Larry Sanger quoted below for comparison:

"I figured that I would catch a little flak on this, but I am sticking by my guns, and I hope to hear from those of you who support me on this.

Constables must both work closely with editors and be *excellent* judges for the general public. In a knowledge-oriented project, this is a job that is *emphatically not* merely one of conflict mediator. It is one that requires, quite simply, a great deal of practical wisdom. So in fact I would be more inclined to put an age limit--say, 25 years old--before I would put a requirement of a college degree.

The point is that, in an open, scalable, rapidly-growing community, we have a *practical* need of objective indicators of this practical wisdom. Age and formal education are obviously imperfect indicators, but they are indicators.

What remains open to negotiation is the specific configuration of requirements for being a constable. I *can* imagine a set of qualifications that allows someone to be a constable who doesn't possess a college degree. My point is that the minimum education and maturity level of constables is indicated by the possession of a college degree.

What is completely unacceptable to me is, for example, a callow 20-year-old college undergraduate making key enforcement decisions that directly affect the motivation of a 50-year-old college professor to participate in the Citizendium.

If you don't see the reason in that, then I encourage you to stop attempting to shape policy for the Citizendium, and stick with Wikipedia. This isn't the project for you."

Rather different IMHO.--Phil Wardle 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Larry's old news here. Always comes down to a weird control trip. My way or the highway. Fred Bauder 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Phewwwwww! Howdee pilgrims! This slight show of lucidity re-affirms a good eal! Thanks Fred. Yes indeed. My gambit was something like, "Let it be, let it be clear, and let it be seen. If it's meaningful, it's grist for the mill." I guess that's my clumsy way of setting up "Hoisted on his petard!" I'm sick of well-meaning individuals being skilfully exploited by those drawing salary. We aren't using our best practices either in remunaration nor in KM. --BenTremblay 06:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair comment. We will await developments and see if a leopard can change its spots then.--Phil Wardle 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Trouble is, Larry seems to be damned if he do and damned if he don't. My belief was that lowly peasants would need approval from the annointed high-and-mighty "experts" for each and every one of their edits on CZ. I actually posted a couple times on the CZ mailing list under this impression. But then Larry said, no, the experts would only be guides or friends or nice gentle people or something...and immediate, unfiltered editing by run-of-the-mill editors would be permitted just as on Wikipedia.
So wouldn't you know, some folks like KimvdLinde got upset that there wouldn't be enough control by experts (Kim was definitely looking forward to being one of the annointed). As some of them said, if CZ allows immediate editing by anybody who drops by, then what's the difference from Wikipedia?
So now Larry goes back to more of the iron fist and has started laying down tight educational and age qualifications for the ominously named "constables", who will apparently carry a cyber-nightstick to beat ordinary editors into shape. And guess what. Larry is now catching grief for his supposed "control freak" tendencies.
Sorry, but the whole project sounds incredibly hazy to me. Right now the launch date seems to be receding into the future, and Larry doesn't even look sure whether to fork the entire WP database or just selected articles. As to the exact editing rules on the articles once he forks them...well, stay tuned. I still don't know if unrestricted editing by ordinary editors will be permitted. I don't have the foggiest about how much power the "experts" and/or the "constables" will have over grunt-level editors. Truth to tell, I don't think Larry knows for sure. So how exactly are we supposed to write this article in any detail? Wish I could tell you. Casey Abell 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so people here don't think that I and others involved in CT are all Larry's bum-boys or anything. The man has a plan and it isn't a canal, despite the fact that he needs a Panama and I don't, despite the fact that I'm retired and he isn't ;-) Look, I love the Wikipedia, but mostly as a user of it, more than an editor (i.e. I haven't got many axes to grind, except possibly the article on axes here...erm, axs? Which I have yet to read, I just realised and for my sins, I will do that now, and it had better mention David Foster, or it soon will ;-). And you all know, that as a user, the Wiki can bite you in the bum. So...something wiki-ish that hopefully does that painful bit a lot less often. Ain't aiming for perfection, no such thing. Ain't aiming to be the Wiki..you/we are. But, there is a place for a wiki-type knowledge base that has more than just a tad of some academic/real expert(hopefully) control over the tossers who stuff all your work up and expect you to wear it. Spend twenty/thirty/sixty years of your life on something, only to get dissed and made a fool of while all you are doing is trying to be helpful...well, it hurts, and it ain't much fun. So don't dis CZ, there's a place for both to succeed. Just help us out. Larry isn't Julius Caesar and if he turns out to be (again) we can always bump him off (again ;-) But I'm prepared to give him (and myself, to be honest) a go. There actually IS a place for academics in a wiki type knowledge base you know...even if some of the tossers can't do up their own shoe laces.....or remember to wear socks (guess who?). And when I want to look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, I don't particularly want to be uncertain.--Phil Wardle 09:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

NB like it says: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please talk to the article and its improvement. Charles Matthews 10:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you just read it, and so did half of Europe by now (j/k). OK point taken. But this is a discussion of what the article contains and what it may well contain. Like the fact that I have proposed that the term "constable" be replaced with something more neutral and more pleasant sounding...an old term for a magistracy or a person who is responsible for maintaining a city's infrastructure...Aedile ("eedyle" now...mebbe "eye-dil-eh" then). That should qualify as on-topic discussion. Better than both the article and the discussion on "axe" anyways, both of which are very poor, IMHO, (yeah, give me time, I'm on it) ;-).....--Phil Wardle 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To relate this essentially off-topic conversation back to the article, we don't want an article that picks at imaginary (or minor real) faults. We want a neutral article that chronicles the developing project. To do that we need to step back a bit and view things in perspective. Not good to report on individual emails on their mailing list, blow by blow account of minor issues. I don't think it hurt to give Larry a little feedback, but that is not the function of this talk page. Fred Bauder 11:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
"emails on their mailing list"? (my italics), 'Our' mailing list, Fred...after all you are on it. Gotcha! But you do have a point. So, and I do agree, we do need a neutral and accurate portrait of a potentially, no I'll rephrase that, definitely, newsworthy, and therefore "unfolding as we speak" news item/article. The potentially weird sythensis of the Wikipedia with a name...Sanger. Should prick a few newspaper trolls' ears, looking for copy, and hence money, and hence the article we are trying to get right (unlike "Axe" ;-).....Come on, this is too "important" (whatever that means) to constrict like a boa (groan). So, I will now edit the main article to justify what I have been saying here.--Phil Wardle 11:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I like Phil's qualifications, such as "yet to be decided process" and "details of this process are still to be worked out". I've added some similar language. As I said, so many critical details of the project are hazy, to put it mildly. At this point, about all we can say is that CZ wants to have more expert input than WP, though the procedures governing that input - especially the all-important editing rules and dispute-resolution processes - look extremely vague. Larry's doing a lot of hand-waving about benevolent "professors" kindly guiding their "students" to a realization of the true, the beautiful and the good. No word yet on what happens if the students get a little unruly, or if another professor comes along and disagrees with the first prof. We'll just have to reflect these deep uncertainties in the article. Casey Abell 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Citing Citi mail lists

Whats the right way to cite these, until they are archived somewhere? And after? · XP · 23:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-September/000348.html Fred Bauder 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. · XP · 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure to be honest. Honestly I guess (j/k).Probably after any debate has reached some sort of conclusions on matters up for decision making. I should think citing Larry Sanger's views during a debate, done accurately, would be OK (as I have done) as he is careful to be consistent with his stated aims (see his essay: "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version)). However, the Citizendium wiki page will also cover the positions adopted and would probably be a better place to cite for authoritative reporting on developments.--Phil Wardle 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No

Can nobody else see the obserdety is creating a "better than wiki" starting out using wiki and then going into it's own website to become bigger and better than wiki?

Wikipedia is already here!Alan2here 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Haisch - managing editor of CZ

I know this is not meant to be a forum, so please forgive me, but I have to mention the rejection I got from the Citizendium mailing list when I asked some questions about the appointment of Bernard Haisch as editor in chief. Reply "Posting of your message titled "Bernard Haisch" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "We are not going to have a thread on citizendium-l about Bernard Haisch. Sorry." Dbuckner 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Edward Buckner

Just to clarify things. The general mailing list for the Citizendium, citizendium-l, which I moderate along with the administrator, Larry Sanger, has had a change of policy regarding contributions. Previously, anyone could post articles, and as many times as they liked. Moderation barriers were removed (i.e. people were "whitelisted") when it became apparent that they were trustworthy contributors (meaning no offensive language, attacks on individuals etc, not censorship of viewpoints). Following the creation of both a project wiki page and a new project forum, Larry Sanger made the decision to restrict total posts on the citizendium-l list to but eight a day. Four to be selected by him and four by me...twelve hours apart each day. Everybody came off the whitelist, so that I or Larry could choose the best and most on-topic articles for that particular day (the week’s topics can be found both on list archives and also on the Citizendium’s forum pages). The reasons given for the changes to the list posting policy can be found publicly displayed on the list’s archives. To précis them however...basically so that the list would have less "signal to noise ratio" and contain only substantive essays on the project; whereas the forum and wiki could be places for short articles, banter and news announcements etc. If Mr Buckner wishes to raise any concerns regarding the appointment of Bernard Haisch (whom I do not know, either personally or by reputation) he is free to do so directly to Dr Sanger. He may also air his concerns to the Citizendium forum moderators for a thread to be started there. Although I also am a moderator of the CZ forum, I choose to concentrate my time on the citizendium-l list. The administrator (Larry Sanger) and the other two moderators will therefore be making any decisions regarding this matter on the forum site.--Phil Wardle 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that was not the reason for rejecting the thread. Larry Sanger has since stated that there will be NO DISCUSSION of Haisch's role as managing editor. Obviously you are not aware of the controversy surrounding Bernard Haisch. The Wikipedia article of that name gives you a flavour. Haisch publicly attacked the article (in the LA times), and there was a brief edit war. One of his objections was to the description of his research (into UFOs, and inertialess drives) as "fringe". Dbuckner 09:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The talk page of Talk:Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration gives a flavour of the dispute. Dbuckner 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys - this is not the place to hash over all the controversies. In line with the page warning, I will happily cut out whole threads here that do not conform to the principle, that this page is for discussion of the article. We do not create Talk pages as a magnet for all sorts of passing comment and trolling. Please bear that in mind. Charles Matthews 09:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, make it a discussion of the article. The article says it is a current event article, and the news that Haisch has been appointed managing editor is already there, I see. And a further fact surrounding this news is that the appointment is bound to be viewed as controversial in light of Haisch's involvement with WP, in particular a series of edit wars over articles in fringe science (such as referred to above). One of these wars culminated in an expert editor (Chris Hillman) leaving WP. That is relevant, surely. Sanger has not publicly announced that there will be no discussion of the controversy (having read the talk pages, it is clear that the issue is not black and white - see Bill Jeffery's contributions, e.g.). But all this is relevant to the current events documented in this article. Dbuckner 09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As Fred Bauder said above: We want a neutral article that chronicles the developing project. Absolutely right, and a test of NPOV. When you say I have to mention the rejection I got from the Citizendium mailing list, I must disagree. You write

And a further fact surrounding this news is that the appointment is bound to be viewed as controversial in light of Haisch's involvement with WP, in particular a series of edit wars over articles in fringe science (such as referred to above). One of these wars culminated in an expert editor (Chris Hillman) leaving WP.

Most people would count this as 'stirring', and I'll trouble you and others to keep such edits off WP. You don't even have your facts straight (User:Hillman is editing today, I'm glad to say). Charles Matthews 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So he is. But his user page nonetheless says "I am a former active contributor who has chosen to leave the project". And he certainly did leave for a bit. Then of course, my user page says I have left the project (which I have - I am no longer contributing articles). All right then, point taken about such edits. My apologies. Dbuckner 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
On October 7 Larry announced on the CZ mailing list that Haisch has decided not to take the managing editor job. Larry hasn't found a replacement yet. Larry also gave an update on server problems in the pilot project and (surprise!) stated that he would personally select each editor for the pilot. Sounds like the pilot will be extremely restricted and tightly controlled by Larry, with zero access (not even read-only) for the hoi-polloi. I've updated the article. Casey Abell 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Casey, if you really would like to do a good job of writing this article, you would ask questions and/or do research, rather than reporting your speculation as fact. If by "hoi polloi" you mean non-editor authors, you're simply incorrect: there will be such authors among the very first participants on the Citizendium. Furthermore, the person to choose constables will not be me but the Chief Constable (whom I will name when she agrees). By saying that access is restricted ("not even read-only"!) you imply nefarious motivations. Well, there aren't any: we simply want to have a low server load. If there were a simple, easy way to post our work, without possibly having to have many servers in place in advance, we would. It would be nice if folks would abstain from jumping to conclusions and looking for the worst possible motives. Particularly folks who purport to be writing a fair, neutral article on a project... --Larry Sanger 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Larry, I said this on the CZ forum and I'll say it here: if you have any problems with this article, you are welcome to make all the corrections you want, just as you've made comments on this talk page. And to respond to those comments...by hoi-polloi, I mean the general public, who won't even be able to look at the pilot project, much less contribute. The article attributes no "nefarious motives". It just reports the fact that not even read-only access will be granted to anybody except those selected for the pilot. If you want to modify the article to state that this restriction is to avoid overloading the servers, feel free. There's no hierarchy of editors on WP. I'm not the annointed "expert" who can decide all content disputes. Your content is just as welcome in the article as mine. In fact, a lot of your content is already in the article, through extensive and fair quotation of your remarks on the CZ mailing list and web forum. Casey Abell 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've cited Larry's comments here in the article, in language as scrupulously neutral as I can make it. I'd like to point out that the article already includes a number of comments quite critical of Wikipedia, from Larry and Phil Wardle. Frankly, I think the article is doing a good job of living up to NPOV. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? (wink) Casey Abell 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Casey says: "by hoi-polloi, I mean the general public, who won't even be able to look at the pilot project, much less contribute." Well, again, it's simply false to imply that members of the general public "won't even be able to look at" the wiki. They may apply for an invitation, and many will be invited. What you are complaining about, more accurately described, is that developmental work will not be done in public view. But what, precisely, is wrong with that? It's not neutral to imply that there is something wrong with that, without at the very least saying what you think is wrong with it, and then providing the other side--and there is another side, you know. --Larry Sanger 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in collaborating with you, Casey, on this article. I leave it to you and the Wikipedia community to prove that you actually can do a responsible job with this topic. I am acting as a source. --Larry Sanger 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What you don't seem interested in is actually pointing out any inaccuracies in the article. Please specify exactly what you find objectionable. I don't think that's an unreasonable demand. I've already revised the article to include your explanation of why the general public will not be allowed any access, even read-only, to the pilot. I have not included any "nefarious motivations" and never did. I accurately reported, using your own words, that only those invited will be able to view the pilot. The article is completely accurate on this point...and on every other point, as far as I can see. Again, if there are inaccuracies, point them out specifically instead of making broad-brush accusations. Casey Abell 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of all dates

In the article I've eliminated all dates for hardware set-up, beta testing, full launch, and basically anything else except the original announcement and Haisch's appointment, per Larry's e-mail of September 27 on the launch plan. I'll watch the CZ mailing list and forums for future announcements of any dates. Casey Abell 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Citizendium

The article currently states: "The stated aim of the project is to create an expert culture and a community that encourages subject specialists (presently named as 'editors') to contribute, and 'citizens' (to be called 'authors') to 'respect' the expert contributions. . . ".

But isn't that confusing method and purpose? The purpose, as stated in the project announcements, is to create a "new compendium of knowledge", a "citizen's compendium of everything". Hope this is not being too nit-picky. :-) JFPerry 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too nitpicky to me. I've reworded and cited. Casey Abell 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment on editing rules

Larry just posted a long, rather rambling comment on the CZ mailing list that apparently was intended to clear up the editing rules, which so far have remained incredibly hazy. Unfortunately, the post is so hedged with reservations and OTOH's that I really don't see how I can update the article with anything definite. Apparently, Larry wants a two-fold article approval process from the subject expert "editor" and the (I think) style expert "copy-editor". But the article would still be open to editing even after both these people signed off with approval notices. At least that's what he seems to be saying.

We may have to wait for the actual launch of the project, which continues to recede into the future, to see how the editing rules actually develop. I'd like to put some more specifics into the article, but the editing rules still look hopelessly vague to me.

In fact, I'm having second thoughts about a change I recently made. I wrote that Sanger favors a complete fork of the English-language WP instead of importing only selected articles. Other posters on the CZ mailing list keep bashing WP's quality, and they argue that only a small percentage of articles are even worth working on. So far Larry seems to be sticking to a complete fork, so I won't change the article. But as usual with CZ, stay tuned.

One other thing: apparently an announcement of the identity of the "Chief Constable" is upcoming. I'll keep a lookout for the news, because this is at least one specific thing we can put in the article. Casey Abell 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took the plunge and tried to include some more material in the article about the CZ approval process. I had to hedge everything, so none of the comments are set in stone. Casey Abell 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Larry just outlined a few more details of CZ management structure, which I put into the article. The Editor-in-Chief or "main individual in charge" will obviously be Larry himself, though baldly saying so in the article seemed a little POV. And after all, I can't cite it...yet! There's also a board of directors and chief subject editors, and a rather ill-defined group called the board of advisors. I don't know exactly where that last group fits in, so I left them out of the article for now. Larry sounds like me when he says that final decisions on management structure won't be made until...well, whenever Larry makes them. Okay, he doesn't exactly phrase it that way. I give his phrasing in the article. Casey Abell 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another idea to get this thing off the ground

It is fun to drop in on the CZ forum and mailing list. Larry and the gang are always coming up with ideas for the encyclopedia to be launched later. In fact, the latest idea shows some impatience: import a few WP articles into Larry's already existing Textop wiki and, well, start editing them. After all, Larry and the would-be CZers have been chewing the fat for a while now, and some of them want to get busy on some actual encyclopedia articles, dammit.

Can't put any of this into the article yet, because Larry is only thinking it over. And in a very top-down project like CZ, nothin' ain't nothin' until Larry says so. But I really hope this idea gets somewhere, and fast. It would provide some content for the article besides endless versions of "to be decided later". Watching the CZ folks actually work on some entries would let us put a little genuine meat on the article's bones. Not to mention that we could see if any of the content got spooned back to WP after the fork, which would make a whole new interesting section of the article. As I've said before, stay tuned. Casey Abell 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Larry just nixed the Textop wiki as the site for this beta test. So maybe things won't happen too quickly (surprise). Anyway, nothing can go in the article yet, but some kind of beta would be nice to write about. Casey Abell 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Larry seems gung-ho on the "alpha test" (not beta), as Peter Hitchmough called it. So I've added a section to the article. Will continue to add material if and when the alpha gets going. Casey Abell 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

New Wikipedia namespace page for Citizendium discussion

Hello,

I've created the page Wikipedia:Comments on Citizendium (and its accompanying talk page), for discussion of Citizendium itself--its potential impact on Wikipedia, its editorial policies, and its personalities. I did this so this talk page can be about the article, and not about the article's subject.

Normally, such an action would be inappropriate--Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web forum or chatroom; and most articles have subjects which have little bearing on Wikipedia itself. I certainly wouldn't create an article such as Wikipedia:Big Bang wherein armchair (or professional FTM) physicists can debate the origins of the Universe without any regard to encyclopedic content--such a subject is irrelevant to the workings of the encyclopedia, and is only of interest to the Wikipedia project as a subject to document in the encyclopedia. A debate on the Big Bang itself is not appropriate for any part of Wikipedia; this is probably true for most subjects we cover. However, this topic is much more relevant to the "meta-" side of the house; thus finding a home for discussion on the project may be appropriate.

Of course, those who disagree vehemently with my WP:BOLD action are welcome to take the matter to WP:MfD; I understand full well that I am pushing the envelope a bit. This should not be construed as a generic means to move irrelevant debates out of article talk pages.

Assuming that Wikipedia:Comments on Citizendium survives, though--it, not here, is the place to discusses Citizendium qua Citizendium; rather than the present encyclopedia article.

--EngineerScotty 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning, I hope the page is short-lived. WP can best address its own possible failings by, well, addressing them, rather than looking over into some fairground mirror where we can see a distorted reflection. Charles Matthews 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilot proposal announcement

Larry has put out a fairly detailed pilot proposal that apparently is meant to blossom into the full-blown wiki. It looks very private and password-protected, so prying eyes won't be able to see much of what is going on. Whether GFDL content from Wikipedia can be used in such a hush-hush manner is for the lawyers to decide. Anyway, I've summarized the proposal in the history section and cited everything. I've also given Larry's loose deadlines for the launch of the fully functioning encyclopedia. Casey Abell 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Added more about the pilot based on Larry's follow-up and comments from members on the CZ board. Had to smile a little when Larry asked people to "help me think creatively" about who should authorize access to the pilot. I've got a real good idea who'll be making those decisions (wink). Casey Abell 13:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Tossed some more into the pilot announcement section about Larry's October 11 "call for applications". As expected, the pilot is very hush-hush and completely controlled by guess who. The deadlines for completion of the pilot are the usual mudslide: one month or maybe two or maybe three or maybe whenever. Nobody will be able to see what's going on except the people Larry allows into the pilot. So future comments in the article about the pilot will have to be gleaned from anything the participants may say on the mailing list or forum. Larry also put out a "fundamentals" document that I've referenced in the article. It's now pretty clear that "experts" won't have pre-approval authority over edits by grunts. But it still looks like "experts" can pretty much toss out anything they don't want. What happens when the inevitable conflicts occur between experts and grunts and between different experts? Uh, well... Casey Abell 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"As expected, the pilot is very hush-hush and completely controlled by guess who." Again, completely false. The pilot is going to be controlled by a whole group of editors and constables who will be invited. I could not control a project of this size completely, even if I wanted to. --Larry Sanger 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but it sure seems like the decisions are being made by you. For instance, you said in an October 7 mailing list post here: "Note that in the future, according to my proposal, editors will self-identify. But for the pilot project I want to select a relatively small, high-quality group myself." If you're going to select the editors for the pilot project, why can't the article say so? Casey Abell 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Larry Sanger will be selecting the initial editors for the pilot project from both applicants and envitees. "Constables" (the name is still a topic of debate) will be selected by the new Chief Constable from people who have applied for the position. Both positions have been advertised quite openly here: http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html --Phil Wardle 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's already in the article. I added the comment about the chief constable selecting the constables for the pilot project after Larry mentioned it on this talk page. Casey Abell 05:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Casey, you are more on the ball than I am, it seems.--Phil Wardle 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nature article

Added a link to a brief Nature article (remember Wikipedia vs. Britannica?) about CZ, via Larry on the mailing list. The article says the CZ pilot will launch next week, but I've learned my lesson about putting dates into the article. Larry first talked about getting the wiki running by the end of September. Monday he was talking about getting the pilot running this week. Now the pilot is next week, maybe. Deadlines slide like southern California mud on CZ, and I'm not even comfortable with Larry's very vague language ("one to two months") currently in the article for the actual launch of the project. Casey Abell 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement

Rearranged the article to get "Nature of the Project" material up front. The basic stuff was getting pushed further and further down by the lengthening "History" section. If and when things settle out and CZ actually gets going, it will be possible to put the "Nature" material into more polished and concise form, without all the endless qualifiers now necessary. The "History" section can also get boiled down once the project progresses further. Casey Abell 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible GFDL violation by pilot project

"Whether content developed from Wikipedia sources can be held "privately" for the duration of the test away from general distribution under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License is not clear."

In my last edit, I removed the above sentence from the article. It strikes me as being a speculation of the author who published it. I did not see any discussion of this issue in the document to which the reference following that sentence pointed.

Meanwhile, I don't think it is unclear whether this can or cannot be done under the terms of the GFDL. If I were to take some source code and work with it on my computer, privately and away from public scrutiny, is that not okay? Presumably, a small group could also do this as part of the development process, only sharing their work when it is advanced enough. The pilot proposal to work a limited number of WP articles by a small group as a test for a limited time is clearly not a problem (at least, it does not seem so to me). If Richard Stallman or someone like that weighs in and says it is, then that is another matter. Until then . . . JFPerry 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can't see WP making any fuss about this, anyway, because they don't want to look like bullies to the new kid on the block. Casey Abell 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the comment "If I were to take some source code [I assume the author here means GPL'ed source code] and work with it on my computer, privately and away from public scrutiny, is that not okay?" - the answer is it is okay... just take a look at the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), which states: "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them... But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL." But that's GPL and not GPDL; however looking at the text of GFDL, I cannot see how GFDL prohibits "private modification". Rgl168 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The actual GFDL states in its first two paragraphs:
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
"This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software."
It's hard to see how a private project, accessible to only a few invitees, could "assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute" "derivative works" developed from Wikipedia content, which "must themselves be free in the same sense". I suppose it comes down to how long the material is kept unavailable to general distribution. If there was an intent to keep such "derivative works" private forever, the GFDL would seem to be clearly violated. A one-to-three month private pilot project probably doesn't cross the line. A ten-year private project might really be nudging the license the wrong way. Anyhow, I don't have any problems with removing the sentence, because again, I can't see Wikipedia making any fuss. Casey Abell 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood the nature and meaning of the GFDL. It does not require that any derivative work of a GFDL-licensed document be available to anyone, at any time, as you seem to think. It requires that anyone who gets a copy of the derivative work can distribute it without any restrictions; this is very different. There is the famous "technical measures" clause, which complicates things, but, considering the statement from the GPL FAQ above, I strongly doubt that the FSF intended (or intends) the clause to require public distribution of deriviative works. There is absolutly no problem with making a copy of a Wikipedia article, modifying it, and giving the modified copy only to your friends, and refusing to give a copy to some stranger who asks you for one. What you can't do is prevent your friends from giving the stranger a copy (if they want to). AFAIK, there is no restriction on people who are able to read the pilot project site distributing what they read - that's all that is required by the license. Please do not spread misunderstandings like this. Thanks! 71.128.189.182 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (actually, User:JesseW/not logged in)

Okay, so you're saying that anybody with access to the pilot project can publicly release anything they find there which is derived from Wikipedia content. We'll see if any such material shows up on the freely accessible web during the pilot project. Sooner or later CZ will have to go public, anyway, so it'll be interesting to see if there are any leaks before the public launch. Casey Abell 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That's right, but, in fact, this is the case with anything they find there, period - Citizendium content is released under the GFDL. Even calling such distribution a "leak" seems to be a misunderstanding; I have not seen anything to suggest that Larry, or anyone else, has the slightest desire to limit the spread of material created or modified on the pilot project site. If you have, please comment, I'd be interested in seeing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll rephrase the deleted sentence in this manner and add it back to the discussion of the pilot project:
However, it would appear that, under the terms of the GFDL, anyone with access to the pilot project could publicly release any material on the site which is derived from Wikipedia content.
The reason I'm not saying that any material on the pilot could be publicly released is that I'm not completely sure that CZ will use the full GFDL for all their content, including material not derived from Wikipedia. There's been some discussion on the CZ forums about using somewhat different licenses. Anyway, the reworded sentence would seem to agree with even the strictest interpretation of the GFDL. Casey Abell 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
One last comment about my "misunderstanding": there has been some talk from CZ insiders about keeping the pilot project under tight wraps to work out technical bugs and to make a bigger splash when they go public. Zachary Pruckowski, one of the leading contributors on the CZ web forum, said this on October 7, in response to one of my not-so-reverent posts that it would be in CZ's interest to get some of their content out in public as soon as possible:
The basic idea is that until we're sure of what we want to do technically and policy-wise, we want to be off the radar. That has a couple of advantages:
1) We can change whatever we have to without any fear of public criticism.
2) We get all of our press at once, when we want the people, instead of when we aren't taking on editors or authors.
3) We can set up the alpha site now, when we can handle it server-wise. Wikipedia has about 100 servers. We currently have 1 (AFAIK). We may want to limit traffic for that reason. Then when we go public, we can look into adding more servers. That gives us more time to get funding and servers set up, and maybe even a charter or policies to accompany a public launch.
I still think it would be in CZ's interest to show everybody at least some content as soon as possible. So maybe we'll see some stuff even before the pilot ends. Casey Abell 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Foundation

"...a Citizendium Foundation which is yet to be founded." Well, it has been founded; some of its members have been listed in the first press release; it's just that it has applied for, yet not received, 501(c)(3) status. Please make an effort to be unbiased with this article. --Larry Sanger 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Already put the news about the foundation in the article, along with many other details from the press release. I'll change the "yet to be founded" sentence. And no, I didn't write that sentence (wink). Casey Abell 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

citizendium exists?

well, uh, i don't mean to sound naive (but i probably do), but can an article stay if the thing it's about doesn't exist yet? i keep checking the site, and i get bumpkis. this seems more like a article on gossip than anything corporeal. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, CZ is getting closer to existing. A pilot is apparently on the verge of launching, even though it won't be accessible to the public. I agree that after a while, some actual product has to emerge in public, or the article starts looking like Seinfeld, a show about nothing. But I think we can wait a little longer. Casey Abell 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a WP article on Windows Vista as well as an article on the $100 dollar laptop. Articles about products in beta stages exist with no problem, so I don't see why this article should pose a problem. JFPerry 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, just like United States invasion of Iraq, wholly predictable. Fred Bauder 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Media comments

Some media stories cropped up in response to Larry's October 17 press release about the encyclopedia to be seen later. I included some of the more interesting ones in the article under the comments section. Also got rid of the tiny "linguistic spread" section and transferred the content to the first section. Casey Abell 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point is worth making, though. 'Soon to be replaced' Wikipedia may be making its last stand in German, Portuguese, French, Polish, Russian, Japan, Chinese et je m'en oublie. Charles Matthews 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The present "Comments" section is yet another example of vain Wikipedian navel-gazing: rather than discuss the substantive comments that people have made about the project, nearly the entire section is about the relationship between WP and CZ, and particularly about the relationship between Jimmy and me. Are you an encyclopedia or a tabloid? "Other published comments have emphasized the rivalry between Sanger and Wales." Actually, only a few stories have even mentioned this, so this issue doesn't deserve the pride of place it is given here. If you look, you'll see that most of the stories don't even mention a "rivalry," as well they shouldn't, because on my side there is no rivalry, and I doubt there is on his; instead, matters are precisely as Jimmy described them, a difference in vision. I have no desire to be Jimmy's rival. As always, I wish him and Wikipedia all the best. Now, of course, I wish CZ the resource to outdo WP the resource, but that doesn't mean there's a personal rivalry by Jimmy and me. Frankly, that's just silly. --Larry Sanger 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the article I have quoted from your comments to balance the remarks from the Guardian and the Independent. Casey Abell 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are hardly a good source of information for an encyclopedia article, Casey. Instead, you should look at the actual articles that have been written, and then draw the proper conclusion: as I said, "only a few stories have even mentioned this." And the section remains, as I said, an example of vain Wikipedian navel-gazing, as if a section called "Comments" really should be focused on the WP-CZ relationship. Why do you think it should be? Oh well; I look forward to CZ's own article about CZ, released publicly. :-) --Larry Sanger 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So do I, Larry. I look forward to any material from CZ being released publicly. By the way, I don't understand why comments from CZ's editor-in-chief aren't a good source for this article, whether they're made on this talk page or anywhere else. In fact, I can't think of a better source. Casey Abell 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is not the person, but the venue. CZ will actually conduct, and publish, interviews. --Larry Sanger 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the venue? What you write here is just as valid a source for the article as what you write on any of the CZ sites. It's published material open to fair quotation and referencing. Casey Abell 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But even though we know Larry Sanger is Larry Sanger, you can't use wikipedia pages as sources in wikipedia. That would be OR, sort of. Skittle 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I disagree with the OR critique, but it's no problem. I just replaced the quote with a roughly equivalent one from citizendium.org. There's no way the new quote could be considered OR. Casey Abell 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

David Marshall's Textop suggestion

David Marshall, the newly appointed managing editor, is asking would-be CZ-ers to start writing articles on Larry's textop wiki. This seems to be a way of getting more people involved while the Select Group works on the very private pilot project. Larry thought about the same idea a while ago, but then it went into hibernation.

A few articles have appeared on Textop: the WP article on Bach, one of Jon Awbrey's obscurer (!) versions of WP's C.S. Peirce article, and a stub on Tony Blair. It's a little odd to see all those red links in the transplanted WP articles. There's not much to write about yet, but I did add a couple paragraphs to the article on Marshall's suggestion. Casey Abell 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User Margana showed a little humor and uploaded to Textop a version of the WP article on...Jimbo. Larry deleted it and moved it to her user page. The reason? We're not looking to pick a fight. I'm getting an evil urge to put this into the article, but that really might be picking a fight (smile). Casey Abell 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be an entirely wrong urge to put anything in this article, anyways. --Conti|✉ 01:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I know, but it doesn't hurt to have a little humor about the situation. After all, several mainstream media reports emphasized the Wales-Sanger rivalry. And the first sentence of CZ's first press release talked about "unseating" Wikipedia. So it's impossible to pretend that a rivalry doesn't exist. The article would be dishonest if it tried to avoid the issue. But I admit that putting this little dig into the article would go too far. Casey Abell 01:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between a rivalry between the websites, Casey, and between individuals. And there are many more interesting "comments" about CZ than about the CZ-WP relationship. Or do you deny that? --Larry Sanger 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Larry, I have extensively quoted and referred to comments by you, Peter Hitchmough, Jason Potkanski, David Marshall, Phil Wardle and others concerning CZ. Few of those comments have anything to do with the CZ-WP rivalry. I admit that a few comments - like your own assertion that CZ will "attempt to unseat" WP, or Phil Wardle's statement that WP's featured articles could easily be improved "out of sight" by CZ-ers - do concern the rivalry. But it's silly to suggest that the article is mainly, or even to a great extent, concerned with that rivalry. On the other hand, the article doesn't try to pretend that a rivalry doesn't exist. The subject is treated fairly but not allowed to dominate the article. Casey Abell 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Notice that I was not talking about the whole article, I was talking about the "Comments" section. --Larry Sanger 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Larry, the comments section contains remarks from six sources: Brad Patrick, Jimbo Wales, Stephen Foley, Charles Ledbetter, yourself, and Richard Waters. Of these sources, only two (or more accurately, one sentence from Foley and about half of Ledbetter's remarks) suggest that there is a personal rivalry between you and Jimbo. Your comment explicitly denies such a rivalry. Jimbo's comments at least implicitly deny such a rivalry (in part - most of his comments have nothing to do with any personal rivalry). The comment from Brad Patrick is completely positive, half the remarks from Ledbetter are positive, most of the comments from Jimbo are either neutral or positive, and Waters' comment is neutral.
So there are one-and-a-half comments (amounting to six sentences in an article of more than 3,600 words) which suggest that there is a personal rivalry between you and Jimbo. And even those six sentences are rebutted by remarks from you and Jimbo denying such a rivalry. With these statements of fact, I'll conclude my own comments on the subject. Casey Abell 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, something visible to write about

I've added some material to the "Pilot project implementation" subsection about edits on the Johann Sebastian Bach article, which was forked to the Textop wiki here. Of course, I can't write directly about the pilot project because it is off-limits to public view. But some of the things that happened on Textop—the accuracy disclaimer, the acknowlegement notice, the link back to WP, and the GFDL statement—may become standard on CZ. It's nice to have at least a bit of actual encyclopedia-writing to discuss. Casey Abell 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting case has developed on the Textop wiki: the article Charles Sanders Peirce posted by Jon Awbrey. First, along with Awbrey's related entry Charles Sanders Peirce (Bibliography), this is the only article, out of an admittedly small sample, that doesn't have the "errors, bias, grammar, etc." disclaimer at the top. Second, both managing editor David Marshall and editor-in-chief Larry Sanger have discussed the article on its talk page. While generally respectful, their comments indicate that the article might need some work, especially by Jaime Nubiola, who apparently has been selected as one of CZ's expert "editors". Third, the article directly involves Jon Awbrey, who has made a number of critical comments about both WP and CZ on Wikipedia Review, wikien-l, the CZ web forum, and Wikipedia itself. This may become an interesting test case for dispute resolution on CZ. I'll keep an eye on the article. Again, it's nice to have some actual, if preliminary, encyclopedia-writing to discuss. Casey Abell 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The "errors, bias, grammar, etc." disclaimer has now gone onto the Textop articles about C.S. Peirce. Awbrey sounds alternately enthusiastic and disappointed in his talk page responses to Larry and David. I've added some neutral comments to the article about Larry and David's remarks on the talk pages of the entries posted to Textop. For me, this is the most interesting material to come out of the project so far, because they're actually talking about specific encyclopedia articles instead of abstractions. Casey Abell 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilot up and running

From Peter's comments at forge.citizendium.org and posts by Jason and Larry on Citizendium-l, it appears the pilot is now functioning. I like the CaesarWiki nickname for the pilot, even if Jason doesn't ("CZ-er", get it?) Of course, nobody on the planet except the "20", as Peter dubs them, can directly report on the pilot. In fact, the identities of the "20" haven't even been disclosed. We'll just have to pick up what we can about the pilot from the CZ mailing list and web forum and forge.citizendium.org—and from any public releases of material derived from WP under the GFDL. As more people get invited to the pilot, maybe more info will become available. Casey Abell 15:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like just about everything on forge.citizendium.org about the pilot project has now been sealed off behind password protection. So there's even less information about the pilot project available than before. We'll just have to update the article with whatever tidbits we can glean from the CZ mailing list and web forum and from the Textop wiki, unless somebody with access decides to chip in. Casey Abell 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey's role

I left alone the comment that Jon Awbrey is "working closely" with Larry on CZ editorial policy. It's true that they've had some discussions about editorial policy on the Textop wiki. However, Awbrey does not appear to be a CZ insider. In particular, he doesn't seem to have access yet to the tightly controlled pilot project, which is why he's posting on the publicly accessible Textop wiki. According to comments on the CZ web forum, the pilot will be opened up to a wider range of participants within the next few days, though it appears that public access is still not close. It will be interesting to see if Awbrey gets into the pilot. Casey Abell 18:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Having your core policies written by someone banned from your main competitor for mass disruption and extensive sock puppetry, in other words ignoring policy, is telling. If any of Jon Awbrey's contributions to policy at Textop make it into CZ pilot, then it should be covered here. We'll know in a few days. FeloniousMonk 20:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncertain on the issue. I agree that Awbrey is at best a difficult editor. But Larry seems aware of Awbrey's issues from some of his comments about Awbrey's work. Another editor has removed the comment about Awbrey from the article. It really isn't at all clear that Awbrey is having much, if any, influence on Larry. And if you don't influence Larry, you don't influence CZ. Casey Abell 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's best to see what Awbrey's involvement in CZ develops into. If he is as obtuse, tendentious and opinionated as he was here, he'll probably be booted from there as well. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
He does fine on Wikinfo, but I think his tendency to engage in original research, welcome at Wikinfo, will soon land him in trouble at CZ. Fred Bauder 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
And he's doing a smashing job at WikipediaReview too. FeloniousMonk 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And that's his right. Better there than here anyway. Besides, if his 3.7 posts per day on WR represent 1.22% of the total posts, WR does not exactly appear to have a large following, does it? 303 posts? Bah. •Jim62sch• 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Awbrey's already having his troubles at CZ. See here and here. No big surprise. Casey Abell 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

David Marshall

Does anyone know what happened to David Marshall? He does not seem to be registered at the Citizendium Forum or Textop Wiki anymore. Farmer Kiss 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. On October 27 David blanked his user page on the Textop wiki with the edit summary: "delete cv. please do not restore." He hasn't been seen since on Citizendium-l, the web forum, or Textop. In an October 29 email Larry mentioned unspecified "personnel changes". Can't put anything in the article yet, anyway. Some stuff at forge.citizendium.org is once again available without password protection. There's a "developer list" of CZ insiders, and it doesn't include David Marshall. Casey Abell 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added the relevant information to the page. I have also made a proposal on my user page. David Marshall 10:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the information, David. By the way, don't worry about formatting the footnotes. There's no law that they have to be formatted a certain way. Check Criticism of Wikipedia, and you'll see maybe a couple dozen different formats. The proposal on your user page sounds interesting. You might contact the people at the Signpost to see if they would want to work on a weekly magazine of more general interest. Casey Abell 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a sad habit of mine to try to get things right—must keep taking the tablets. As to the proposal, I think wikis should actively take on the commercial publishers across the board of news, current interest, and more popular forms like comics. If Wikpedia can start at the top and do encyclopaedias, then it (or a group to be formed) should be interested in crossing over into all other published formats. Naturally, I have a plan to manage the risks. David Marshall 13:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry's provisional policy outline

Larry has released the first draft of his policy outline. On the Citizendium blog he specifically asked that this article not make hard-and-fast statements based on the provisional outline. (Larry's request is quoted in a footnote to the article.) Fair enough, though I have added some general comments that there will be dispute-resolution procedures on CZ. I have not gone into the details of those processes, which don't seem to have been nailed down completely yet. Of course, others are welcome to modify the article based on Larry's outline. Casey Abell 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-pedia or -dium

Granted that Citizendium rolls off the tongue better than Citizenipedia, but still, shouldn't the latter be the more consistant name? Tabletop 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper form of words, I believe, is: Citizendium = <Nowiki>Pedia</Nowiki>. Sir Humphrey Appleby 14:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pilot project main page

The main page of the pilot project is now accessible to the public, though everything else on the pilot remains sealed off. I put the link in the article. On the CZ blog Larry gave some figures for work on the pilot. I didn't put them in the article because they will date so quickly. The CZ web forum also has a list of articles being actively edited on the pilot, but again that list will date quickly. This thread includes a discussion about releasing pilot material in public (see a similar discussion above). Larry sounds dead set against any public releases, as does Zach.

In general, I'm going to boil down the sections of the article on the pilot, once CZ goes public. Not much else is happening in public right now, except the usual comments on the CZ mailing list about how terrible Wikipedia is (smile). Casey Abell 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Um...since when does Wikipedia limit itself only to things that are happening in public? Besides, there are public reports about the project on the blog. What's the matter Casey, the official CZ blog isn't a reliable source to you, while Talk:Citizendium is?
I find this all very interesting. As soon as CZ starts actually writing articles, over 100 editors, over 200 contributors total, 180 articles tagged "CZ Live" (not necessarily approved, mind you) after about a week...but no reportage here in Wikipedia-land about the good news. Why? Because it will date so quickly. Aha! But so what? It will always be a fact that we gained over Ph.D.-level 100 editors in the first nine days of the project. Surely that's always going to be interesting, if it's always going to be interesting what Charles Leadbetter speculated, in his blissful ignorance, while gazing into his mind-reading machine. Again, Casey, your biases are showing. There are all sorts of dates in the "History" (six-week old history) of the project. Why do these more recent successes not similarly merit quickly-dated mentions?
Also, the following is straightforwardly false, i.e., I have never actually said what this reports I said: "Sanger has stated in his essays that they will be forthcoming after the English language version is established and working successfully." I have said that they might be coming but we have not made that decision yet. --Larry Sanger 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We've changed a bit. Generally speaking a reliable source is now required. People writing about their own project is not a third party source. Fred Bauder 13:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
True, there's no way to independently verify Larry's stats because the pilot is off-limits to public view. But the article states only that Larry is reporting the stats, which is verifiable and sourced. Casey Abell 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we probably should make an exception for Larry, but that's what it is. It's OK if he blows his own horn a bit. Fred Bauder 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Um...the article doesn't limit itself to things that are happening in public. That's why there are long sections about the pilot project. As for your stats, I've put them in the article. There was no nefarious intent on my part, or on the part of anybody else who edits the article. I just thought the numbers would date quickly. But if you want them in the article, no problem. I've also changed the "will" to "may" in the sentence about non-English versions. Casey Abell 13:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Chipped in another stat update from Larry, this time from the CZ mailing list. Larry really seems to want stats in the article, so I'll add any I can find. Again, there's no way to independently verify the numbers, but the article only states that Larry is reporting the stats. Casey Abell 19:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizendium/Archive_1&oldid=1167729072"