CZ:Contributor Lists: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (New page: '''This is part of a proposal that is currently pending. Please do not use!''' == What are contributor lists? == Contributor lists are alphabetical lists of people who have contributed a...) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== What are contributor lists? == | == What are contributor lists? == | ||
Contributor lists are alphabetical lists of people who have contributed at least a couple of sentences to the article. | Contributor lists are alphabetical lists of people who have contributed at least a couple of sentences to the article. A list appears only after at least five contributors. | ||
== | == Why contributor lists at all? == | ||
It is a small honor that might motivate some people to contribute. | |||
== Why | == How do I get added to a list? == | ||
You add yourself, once you have contributed "two substantive sentences," or an equivalent amount of content such as an image or notes, to the article. | |||
== I created a list, or added myself to a list, but I don't see my name. Why not? == | |||
Probably because there are fewer than five names on the list. | |||
== Why don't you display fewer than five names? == | |||
Because a list of relatively few names would tend to put off people who feel uncomfortable joining what might appear to them to be a small "clique" or "club." Moreover, giving people credit only once the list of names reaches five in length will encourage more robust collaboration in the beginning of the authoring of an article, which is a very good thing. | |||
== Isn't the list meaningless if one can be added to it for | == Isn't the list meaningless if one can be added to it for contributing just a couple of sentences to the article? == | ||
It is | It isn't meaningless, because it is a list of people who have, after all, worked ''some'' on the article; most people cannot make that claim. We grant that it is a ''small'' honor--one that, again, will motivate some people to do work on the wiki and take pride in their work, even if very small. | ||
== Why not make the honor more meaningful? Why not restrict credit to "major authors," defined somehow? == | == Why not make the honor more meaningful? Why not restrict credit to "major authors," defined somehow? == | ||
Because, in short, to do that would be to recognize people as major authors. This would change the robustly collaborative culture of our project. Probably, this would make people less likely to contribute to articles that they aren't honored for writing. Other projects, such as the ''Encyclopedia of Earth'' and ''Scholarpedia,'' do recognize major authors, but they do not enjoy nearly the sort of robust collaboration that the ''Citizendium'' does. It is best that we not play fast and loose with the very engine--collaboration--that runs the wiki process. | Because, in short, to do that would be to recognize people as major authors. This would change the robustly collaborative culture of our project. Probably, this would make people less likely to contribute to articles that they aren't honored for writing. Other projects, such as the ''Encyclopedia of Earth'' and ''Scholarpedia,'' do recognize major authors, but they do not enjoy nearly the sort of robust collaboration that the ''Citizendium'' does. It is best that we not play fast and loose with the very engine--collaboration--that runs the wiki process. | ||
Revision as of 14:40, 9 March 2008
This is part of a proposal that is currently pending. Please do not use!
What are contributor lists?
Contributor lists are alphabetical lists of people who have contributed at least a couple of sentences to the article. A list appears only after at least five contributors.
Why contributor lists at all?
It is a small honor that might motivate some people to contribute.
How do I get added to a list?
You add yourself, once you have contributed "two substantive sentences," or an equivalent amount of content such as an image or notes, to the article.
I created a list, or added myself to a list, but I don't see my name. Why not?
Probably because there are fewer than five names on the list.
Why don't you display fewer than five names?
Because a list of relatively few names would tend to put off people who feel uncomfortable joining what might appear to them to be a small "clique" or "club." Moreover, giving people credit only once the list of names reaches five in length will encourage more robust collaboration in the beginning of the authoring of an article, which is a very good thing.
Isn't the list meaningless if one can be added to it for contributing just a couple of sentences to the article?
It isn't meaningless, because it is a list of people who have, after all, worked some on the article; most people cannot make that claim. We grant that it is a small honor--one that, again, will motivate some people to do work on the wiki and take pride in their work, even if very small.
Why not make the honor more meaningful? Why not restrict credit to "major authors," defined somehow?
Because, in short, to do that would be to recognize people as major authors. This would change the robustly collaborative culture of our project. Probably, this would make people less likely to contribute to articles that they aren't honored for writing. Other projects, such as the Encyclopedia of Earth and Scholarpedia, do recognize major authors, but they do not enjoy nearly the sort of robust collaboration that the Citizendium does. It is best that we not play fast and loose with the very engine--collaboration--that runs the wiki process.