User talk:HaeB/Citizendium approved errors

Hello Haeb, I'm a Citizendium constable and am able to make copyedit changes without having to re-approve an article. I will be putting this page on my WP watchlist, but if I don't get back here often enough, and there is something that you think needs immediate attention, please feel free to drop a note on my user talk page as it will contact me with through my email if my user page is changed. Anyone who is a member of Citizendium can also drop me a note on my Citizendium talk page. Thanks for taking the time to do this! -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt, thanks for the updates! The main purpose of this list is to study problems with CZ's approval process (and learn from them in case a similar process should be established on Wikipedia), but I am very glad it is in fact helping to improve Citizendium itself. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm another Citizendium Constable, but the grouchy one. I generally play Bad Cop to Matt's Good Cop. The last item in your list, Vertebral Subluxation, was corrected by me in August, over 4 months ago. So why is it still on the list? You've done a fine job, apparently, of *finding* trivial errors -- why don't you spent 5 minutes from time to time seeing if they've been fixed? In any case, I have just removed that item from the list. Like Matt, I can be reached by anyone at my Citizendium talk page Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Mr. Hayford, you should've taken your time (your childhood, specifically) to learn how to read, since the item you refer to doesn't actually say what you claim it does. Learning this very usefull skill might actually be helpful so that you don't make a complete fool of yourself in the future! Have a nice day! 189.105.111.67 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Peirce to come here with all guns blazing and disregard written instructions. No wonder so many authors and editors have resigned from Citizendium. Bullies don't get very far in teamwork or academic life. Richgreenbaum (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hi Hayford Pierce, you could have found the answer to your question yourself by reading the page a bit more attentively (as it has already been pointed out to you twice on the Citizendium forums [1][2]): This list is not restricted to current errors, it also lists errors that have already been corrected. This should have been obvious from the existence of the "Correction diff" column. For example, the correction to Vertebral Subluxation that you mention was already noted in the list, you removed the link together with the corresponding entry.

Your last statement is, unfortunately, false - you can only be reached there by people who are willing to give up part of their privacy and undergo the process necessary to become a Citizendium member. As described in my Wikimania talk, there is anecdotal evidence that this kind of closedness excludes a lot of valuable feedback and has prevented or delayed error corrections in other CZ articles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Haeb, I agree with your assessment about the "closedness excluding a lot of valuable feedback and has prevented or delayed error coreections in other CZ articles." It is also anecdotally noticable that the real names policy drastically cuts down on biased garb from fly-by partison trolls that enjoy the UseNet type experience, so there are pros and cons. Hopefully, we can find an avenue where we can open it up for outside feedback and corrections. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, if we can just find that "sweet spot." :) Meanwhile, I think Wikipedias policy of anonymity serves a very useful purpose and would not like to see it changed. I think the differences between the two is a healthy way to draw out the best ideas and knowledge from all walks of life. Again, thanks for your time. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing trivial copyedits in an unpaid online publication must make you feel very important, but I think it is fair to say that your agenda is showing. I suggest that you confine your criticisms to serious errors of fact or analysis, if you really intend to say anything of substance.85.72.248.116 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Baldwin-Edwards doesn't have the courage to put his name to that comment. You can run, but you can't hide. [3], [4], [5]. Richgreenbaum (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and other trivial mistakes

Haeb, I am a Citizendium author. In briefly reviewing your list of errors in our Approved articles, it seems to me that most of the errors you report are pretty trivial spelling and other similarly trivial mistakes. I am curious as to why you are willing to spend so much time looking for such errors in CZ articles. Would it not be more useful to spend that time looking for errors in WP articles? mbeychok (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (Real name: Milton Beychok)[reply]