User talk:Larry Sanger: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
m (Text replacement - "CZ:Nomination page" to "Archive:Citizendium Ballot for the Management Council")
 
(432 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|auto=short}}
{{archive box|auto=short}}


== Definitions: what are they and why do we need them? ==
==Resolution 12==
Excuse me for being stupid, but nowhere in all these discussions in various Forums and User Pages do I find a *clue* as to *why* we want a "definition" or as to *what* it is. All I can glean is that if an article such as [[Ray Casey]] currently has a Def. tab at the top, that means that there is *no* "definiton" and that one should therefore be written on the Def. tab page.
I'd like to cosponsor this along with David Volk, if that's okay. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 18:32, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
*Once this is written, apparently, in a truly existential act (or non-act) the Def. tab disappears!
**If the Def. tab is now invisible, then what good is it?
**What does the new definition (invisible, remember) accomplish? Something, apparently, or all this discussion about it would not be underway. But for a guy like me, who just wants to write simple-minded articles about [[Backhand (tennis)]] and [[Spareribs (barbecued)]], what am I missing? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:41, 12 May 2008 (CDT)


:Well...we decided to have definitions etc. back when we instituted subpages.  Their purpose can be ascertained on [[CZ:Related Articles]]: they make those subpages much more usable.  They have only recently become visible because Chris had the bright idea of how to move definitions to subpages from their current locations.
This is always OK with me. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


:Hmm, yes, we know that the def tab disappears.  That's its designed behavior (you should talk to [[User:Chris Day]] about this).  It is interesting that you find this disconcerting.  Tell this to Chris!  If you find it disconcerting, so do I. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:29, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
== Way to go ==
::Two problems seem to be emerging here.  One, the def tab is not liked by all, even as a reminder. Two, the noinclude code at the top of the definition subpage is causing confusion. One solution might be to axe the tab and the code at the top and go with a definition subpage that does not include the subpages template. After all if there is no tab link then readers will not surf onto that page, it will essentially be invisible until someone want to edit the definition. All we would lose would be a category that can show us our definition subpages that are not as part of a cluster.
::If we are going with a ''hidden'' def subpage then maybe we should just go with it being in the metadata? In the long term i envisage that the user interface with the metadata page will be very user friendly and adding the definition there will be as easy as typing into a text box.  If that is likely to be the case it might solve future problems to have the definition there from the start? Do you have a strong reason for having it on its own subpage? Basically, neither place is perfect, so I wonder if we need to think more long term. Maybe a computer expert is the right one to ask for an opinion on this? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:00, 12 May 2008 (CDT)


:::I agree that ''if'' editing the definition in the metadata were just as easy as typing it into its own text box, then I would support that change. But...it isn't as easy.  And, it probably won't become as easy anytime soon.  I'm not sure what future problems this might solve.  And, after all, when we ''do'' have a more automated metadata solution, presumably we'll have a lot more programming help and so we'll be able to switch the location then.  Sure, consult all relevant experts! I'm just concerned about keeping it maximally simple to use.
...with the Write-a-Thon blitz, thanks!


:::I don't mind removing the def tab.  As long as it's on the talk page, as it is now, that ought to be enough for our purposes.  ''But''--and this is something worth thinking and discussing some more--there is one decided advantage to keeping the def tab there.  It is that it is obviously a little "itch" that contributors have been "scratching."  And it's an itch that has been ''needed'' to be scratched.  So, if we were to remove the def tab, there would be both good and bad: on the one hand, we would simplify the subpage templates (for definitionless articles); on the other hand, we would not produce quite as many definitions (how many fewer, it's hard to say).  I'd leave this up to you, Chris... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:39, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
Wonder if we can have a stub-a-thon/stubmania day sometime?


::::'''What about the removal of the noinclude code and subpages template from the definition subpage?'''  Is there any good reason for keeping it?  Without a tab for the definition page in the cluster then no readers will be browsing the definition subpage.
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 20:59, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
::::Personally, i think the tab serves a useful role in causing an itch. I wonder whether we should keep that and the To-do list reminder for now. 
::::Another reason for not going the metadata location route is that the pre include size of the R template will increase, potentially by a lot. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:15, 13 May 2008 (CDT)


:::::Good points.  Yes, I don't mind removing {{tl|subpages}} from the Definition subpages.  No point to having it there if it's not going to be viewed by users.
It's not a bad idea... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


:::::OK I'm just going to play devil's advocate--I ''don't'' care, but maybe users ''would'' like to see a Definition page.  Want a single simple definition, that's all?  There it is.  Want more info?  Click the tabs.  By the way, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a little graphic (which we can take down after some months?) advertising the existence of more content, when it exists.  "Look above --> for more content on this topic."  And after all, sometimes people do search for definitions.  If we have a page ''titled'' "Term > Definition" we'll probably bring in traffic just from that.  At least there could be such a graphic/message on the Definition subpage.
== Happy birthday to you, dear Larry ==


:::::If we ''did'' have a non-disappearing Definition tab, I'm thinking that writing out "Definition" would be better than "Def" -- the former is clearer and more user-friendly rather than contributor-friendly.  But it would make me worried that, as on articles like [[Life]], there would be too many tabs!  I'm sure you have worried about wrapping tabs.  Remember, I warned this would be a problem with horizontal display of subpage links!!!
I started [[Maxwell equations]] earlier than I intended, in honor of your fortieth birthday. Happy birthday! --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:18, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


:::::I predict that if we don't include {{tl|subpages}} on the Definition subpages, some people will put it there not realizing that those subpages are used as templates, and will proceed to screw up Related Articles pages. I don't know how serious a problem this would be, but it probably would be an annoying little problem at least. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:26, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
:Thanks, Paul!  But...OK, what are the equations themselves?  They aren't on the page! :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:56, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
:::Your wish is my command, see [[Maxwell_equations|here]].--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:12, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


::::::Since i developed both I abstained from the horizontal/vertical vote since I didn't want my endorsement to color the debate. :) Often I will push both sides of a debate just to get feedback and make sure i have seen all the possible solutions. Besides we can always switch back to vertical if articles like life becomes a real problem, that is more about aesthetics than function.
::Happy [[SIPRNET]], [[point of presence]] (hit "minor" by accident), and a stubby [[Saudi Arabia]]. The day is still middle-aged. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:57, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
::::::I had not thought about people entering from an external search. That is a good a reason to keep tabs on the definition page. Obviously anything on that page, other than the definition, has to be within noinclude tags so if we went with a graphic we might as well go the whole hog with the the subpages template. I think you are also correct that it might be tempting for people to add the subpages template to the definition template if one is not there.  And that would really mess up the related articles pages. How about we leave everything as it is for a while and see how people respond after a month. In summary:
::::::#I'll make the red tab name read "definition" but keep its disappearing property once the defintion exists.
::::::#I'll keep the subpages template between the noinclude tags
::::::#I'll keep the to-do list reminder.
::::::#I'll tweek the definition pre-load text to try and make it more informative.
::::::[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:55, 13 May 2008 (CDT)


== 1CE ==
I started [[Netiquette]] and filled up at least one entry in each of the subpages, in honor of your birthday! [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 22:30, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


I solved that problem there was a template in the wrong place.  Not sure how I missed it. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:02, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, Howard and Supten! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


== disambig strategy  ==
Started a [[Hermeneutics]] stub as a present for you, Larry. Happy birthday! --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 07:32, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


''I think this got archived before you got a chance to respond to it, so I'll put a copy here...''
Larry, a new chemical that you probably have never heard before, [[Thiophosphoramidite]], for your birthday.
Enjoy, but don't smell it, cause it ain't roses, believe me! [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 10:02, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


Hi, I've finally gotten around to writing a draft proposal. You can see it at [[CZ:Proposals/Disambiguation mechanics‎]]; comments appreciated. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:02, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
And I open a [[Right-hand_screw_rule|bottle]] to drink to your next forty years, cheers! --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:24, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


==Merciless editing==
It's still pretty stubby, but I don't think I'm going to get through the requisite reading for an expansion before your birthday is over: [[Miguel Ángel Asturias]].  ¡Felicidades! --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 10:27, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


Hi, maybe it's time to change that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" that we inherited from Wikipedia? See [[Talk:Central Intelligence Agency‎#Huge deletions not justified]] for what brought this to mind. (The message is [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]] if you need the location.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 10:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Congrats, youngster. Here is my birthday article for you: [[Ama Ata Aidoo]]. --- [[User:Regina Bouillon|Regina Bouillon]] 19:11, 16 July 2008
::yeah, I removed stuff quoting a nonexistent government report that probably was a hoax and certainly fails all reliability tests. (ie quotes from a "document" that archivists have searched for and not found, indeed there is no evidence it existed in the first place.) Only one person claims to have seen this "official government document," and he lost his notes. The section removed had some quotes from the supposed document, but mostly was about its mystery status. A famous historian did make the quotes, but his citation was to the Kennedy papers and the Kennedy archivists say it never was there; the historian (Schlesinger) says he lent out his notes and never got them back and has no copies. If reliability means anything, this scores a 2 on a scale 1 to 100. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:37, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


I think I wrote the "edited mercilessly" bit back in 2001--amazing that it is still around.  I went ahead and changed it.
:40 yrs is very young. Is a new article still okay - 1 day late ? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 13:08, 16 July 2008 (CDT))
:here's a new article: happy birthday ! [[Yi Sunshin]]. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 13:30, 16 July 2008 (CDT))


Richard, my response is going to be the same as in so many other cases: you might have good reasons for doing what you do.  But CZ is a collaborative enterprise, and that means indulging in some discussion before making dramatic edits.  If making large deletions without prior discussion upsets other people in the project, as it usually does, it does not matter how well justified the deletions are (and I would agree that, ''if'' there is not another legitimate side to this issue, we probably don't want to include the material you deleted).  Besides, as you must know as well as anyone, we have [[CZ:professionalism#Reversion_and_deletion_as_unprofessional_behaviors|a policy that specifically forbids unexplained deletions]]. In fact, [[CZ:Constabulary_Blocking_Procedures#Offenses_which_will_result_in_a_warning_first.2C_then_a_ban|you can be banned for it after a warning]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:06, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
For a young guy like you, I made a [[Latin alphabet|stub]]. Just remember, next year, you turn 0x29. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:43, 16 July 2008 (CDT)
:P.S. I don't mean to make any decision or ruling or anything about the particular case in question; perhaps there was adequate discussion in advance in this case.  I suspect that this is a case yet again where what is called for is ''an intelligent compromise'' with [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]] in mind.  Without such compromises, we'll always be fighting.  Intelligent compromise is the heart and soul of intelligent collaboration. --LMS


== Gentle guidance ==
Unwrap [[Marcello Malpighi]], kid, accessories to follow.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 19:23, 16 July 2008 (CDT)
Maybe it is time to remind long-time editors about the '''gentle guidance''' clause, especially when dealing with authors who joined only 3 weeks ago.  I hate to see new people driven away, especially prolific ones.  [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 10:46, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


Hi David, could you give me a pointer to what you mean, by e-mail?  But such a reminder is probably a good idea on general principles. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:54, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Happy Birthday Larry!  I didn't realize you were only 11 years older than me; that is truly young! --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 23:52, 16 July 2008 (CDT)


==Bug==
Happy Birthday Larry! I began the [[ENSTA]] article yesterday as a little gift :) (for you and Citizendium !) !  [[User:Sebastien.worms|sebastien.worms]] 06:41, 17 July 2008 (CDT)
Larry i just want to alert you to a bug I found. The same problem exists in wikipedia too so this is nothing the new processor will improve. Basically in the current format the definitions cannot be used as a template directly, only as part a more convoluted template such as {{tl|R}} ([[User_talk:J._Noel_Chiappa#Need_help|More here]]).  The problem is that the line break we currently have on the definition page does not appear in the R template but does when the definition subpage is transcluded on its own.  Below is an examples.


<nowiki>{{R|Biology}}</nowiki>
Thanks so much to everyone! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:27, 17 July 2008 (CDT)
{{R|Biology}}
<nowiki>*{{:Biology/Definition}}</nowiki>
*{{:Biology/Definition}}


This is not a major problem since at present we only use definitions as part of a template. And possibly in the future too?  However, if you have plans to use the transcluded form directly from the definition subpage we need to remove the line break so that it is in the form of either:
:: A bit late from me (of course). And an apology. I did write you an article, but found when I tried to insert it that the topic had been blocked for Eduzendium, so I'll keep that back. So the best I could do was take [[Thomas Kuhn]] up a notch. Hope you'll accept that for now and forgive me. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:29, 27 July 2008 (CDT)


<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude><!--</nowiki></code><br><code><nowiki>-->Definition here.</nowiki></code>
:::: Thanks for your work on philosophy of science topics, Gareth! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:44, 27 July 2008 (CDT)


Or go with the following:
::::: [[Georges Cuvier]] now live (at 40 he showed that dinosaurs could fly; so some of us are hoping you'll do as much for us).[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:56, 28 July 2008 (CDT)


<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude>Definition here.</nowiki></code>
2009:<br />
When I just nominated an article for approval, the date rang a bell, and so I thought there might be some use for [[orchid]] here, Larry. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 07:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Rather than what we currently have:
::Hope you'll have (or was it yesterday?) a pleasant birthday with your family and friends. Happy birthday!--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 07:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude></nowiki></code><br><code><nowiki>Definition here.</nowiki></code>
:::Happy Birthday Dr. Sanger. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Two ways forward here.  Either change [[CZ:Definitions]] so that is does not suggest transcluding the defintion page directly or remove the line break from all definitions and rewrite the preload to reflect this policy. I favor rewriting CZ:Definitions and only using the definitions with a tempalte like {{tl|R}} or similar. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:10, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
You mean I haven't archived this page in over a year? Amazing!
:As you see I just went ahead with this and wrote the {{tl|Def}} template. Seems like a no brainer in retrospect. So for the /Defintion subpages we can keep the current format. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:45, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
:: Sounds good. (I knew what you meant.) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:46, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


==Regarding Bibliographies==
Thank you all!
 
I just arrived back from Russia and was out of commission for several days.  In fact, with jetlag, I might be out of commission for a few more, but I ''do'' intend to put in some much-needed CZ time in the near future.  Sorry for being AWOL. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 
2010?
 
2011
A bit belated, but my best wishes nonetheless. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Thanks, Daniel! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 
== good points ==
 
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1791.0/topicseen.html  I would investigate and see what else this user suggests. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 16:39, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
 
Replied on the forums. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
 
 
==Everything?==
Larry,
 
Somewhere today you asked about the Public/Related Articles: " Isn't "everything" a little too broad as a parent topic? And will we have an article titled "everything"? Interesting question...)" I saw your comment on the "Recent Changes" list for Sociology, but I'll be darned if I can find an original memo to reply to, so I'm posting here in the expectation you will see it.
 
I did that deliberately in part as a belated birthday present for you! And it got much the reaction I was expecting: interest. And yes, it seems to me a case can be made for at least a brief article by that title. I've long been intrigued by one of the management ontology projects in Toronto a few years ago (TOVE) that began an elaborate branching diagram with the term "Thing" and this is in much the same spirit. It's hard to get more parent than that!
 
One [[Thing|thing]] is clear and that is that [[Society]] most definitely is not a Parent topic of Public/Private and I will be removing it shortly. That usage throws neutrality right out the window and walks screaming and flailing right into the middle of some of the oldest and longest running theoretical issues in this area. The State/Society issue is a major part of it, but with respect to publics there are other issues as well. So, Society is definitely not a suitable parent for public.
 
As I thought about it, most dichotomies of public and private are, indeed, offered as universals to the extent that they do indeed seek to dichotomize everything. (Hence, the provocation.) What we really need here, I think, is some help from an epistemologist; No wait, we have one! And he's interested.
 
In short, I posted [[Everything]] in a rather lighthearted vein, and I would welcome any suggestions for alternatives, but there are some really meaty issues involved here, more than a few of which go right to the heart of your interests in this project. E.g. [[public domain]]
 
P.S.: I think both [[Thing]] and [[Everything]] are probably most appropriate topics for the philosophy workgroup. Suggestions for how we get them involved?
 
[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 20:47, 24 July 2008 (CDT)
 
Hi Roger, let me reply on [[Talk:Public]] so others can benefit. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:35, 25 July 2008 (CDT)
 
==EC Resolution==
Will you please make a Resolution out of [[CZ:Proposals/Pilot_to_allow_Citizens_to_take_credit_for_pages]] and place it to the EC? [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 23:16, 30 July 2008 (CDT)
 
Well, I'm not sure I'm so excited about it anymore.  I'll have a look again though. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:16, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
 
== biology week ==
 
so when should the announcements and press releases go out?  Surely, we should have advertisements of some sort out 1 month prior to the actual week itself.  august 22 is rapidly approaching [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 10:17, 13 August 2008 (CDT)
 
I totally agree, Tom.  It's something I've been intending to get started on myself, and I was hoping our new hire would also be working on it...we'll get moving soon, one way or another. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:14, 14 August 2008 (CDT)
 
==Ronnie Drew==
 
Just after noticing you mention that you like traditional Irish music. Would you be familiar with other  Irish folk artists? I'm just curious because I'm thinking of writing articles for Phil Coulter and Tommy Sands. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 10:45, 18 August 2008 (CDT)
 
Well, I'm not really into "Irish folk" but Irish traditional.  I don't know much about Coulter or Sands...but I did know about Ronnie Drew! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:31, 18 August 2008 (CDT)
 
== Subpages and code words  ==
 
Moved section to [[Talk:Gulf_War#Subpages_and_code_words|this talk page section]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:02, 21 August 2008 (CDT)
 
== Jimbo Wales ==
 
... is now labeling challenges of his claims as sole founder of ''Wikipedia'' as trolling. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=236425968&oldid=236383042 this].
 
While you're at it, would you mind modifying the "+" tab that adds a new section to "New section" or something similar?
 
Cheers, [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 19:27, 5 September 2008 (CDT)
 
Who cares?  :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:39, 6 September 2008 (CDT)
: True! [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 19:06, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
::The folks who maintain the Wikipedia article on you have managed to keep the opening sentence reading ''Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born 16 July 1968[1]) is an American philosopher, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the creator of encyclopedia Citizendium.[2][3][4]'' despite attempts by Jimbo fanboys to mess with it.  It's actually an example of how Wikipedia works, when it works - the folks defending that position have overwhelmed the other side with references, and if an uninvolved party gets called in to look at the dispute, he sees the references, and keeps the article saying that you co-founded Wikipedia. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:27, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
:::But think of the man hours wasted. That could also be cited as an example of why it does not work. Who has the time for such fights? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:53, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
::::Man centuries, you mean.  But it *does* work, in the way that a [[Rube Goldberg]] contraption works, at least on paper.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 13:01, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
::: Well, there are some excellent Wikipedians out there - in fact, I've had the opportunity to work alongside them, and a truly good, honest, kind, and productive Wikipedian is a blessing to the Wikipedia project. Unfortunately, the project is also spoiled by "editors" who are arrogant and fancy themselves as know-alls. [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 04:10, 11 September 2008 (CDT)
::::My point is not addressing the many users that genuinely want to write content.  That part works very well.  The problem is the random noise from the drive by vandals, some who are very good at making subtle changes. That is where the time is lost. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:13, 11 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:::::What are Man hours and Man centuries? Could someone explain the terminology? When I was in Wikipedia, I did defend Dr. Larry's claim to have co-founded Wikipedia. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 07:17, 12 September 2008 (CDT))
::::::Thanks, Chunbum.  A man-hour (or person-hour) is one hour of work performed ''by anyone''...similarly with man-days, man-years, etc. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:30, 12 September 2008 (CDT)
 
(unindent) I started at Wikipedia around late 2001, and there was no question then that Larry and Jimbo were co-founders. I've updated Conservapedia's LS article accordingly. Hey, Larry, was that you who signed in the other day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 
:Yes it was--my first and probably only edit there.  :-)  --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Sending off Endorsement Letter for Biology Week ==
 
Hi Larry, please see [[User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian#Endorsement_Letter]] and let us know whether it would be possible to send these mails from a citizendium account, preferably something like Biology_Week (at) Citizendium.org . Besides, I wonder whether there will be a press release on Biology Week and whether anyone is working on it. I think our PLoS text may provide a good basis for that. Thanks, [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 03:34, 13 September 2008 (CDT)
 
Excellent!
 
Do you want me to set up that e-mail address then, Daniel?  I will if you want me to.
 
As to the press release, the answer is that we want one but it doesn't exist yet.  Basically, there's no need to ask me; I set up the Biology Week pages so anybody could dive in and get to work organizing it! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:58, 13 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Actually I didn't add the header but I can fix it.  It does not have to be at the top of every page.  It could be restricted to the talk pages. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:31, 14 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::That would be a reasonable solution (talk pages only).  I do like having it on every page, though. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:25, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Is there any way I could horn in on the Citizendium email address thing in order to send out announcements to bloggers? Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 22:51, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::::It's a good idea, but I need to access the login info at my computer at home (I'm on the road).  E-mail me on Friday for it or simply start sending it out...you can quite legitimately say in the e-mail that you are a representative of CZ's Biology Workgroup. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:15, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
 
Why don't we do both. I'll start sending out emails, and then we can send the same folks reminder emails from an official address once the week starts. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 00:52, 18 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Right...remind me if I don't set it up soon. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:28, 18 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::First off, this is me reminding you again, Larry. Let me know when the CZ email address is online. Secondly, I was wondering if we or 43PR were going to be sending out any announcements by fax. I've been working on compiling a list of email addresses for prominent biology departments, and most are accessible online, but there are a few that only have fax numbers. Let me know either way. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 09:23, 19 September 2008 (CDT)
 
== Power outage ==
 
All--our power here in central Ohio took a massive hit and my Internet connection may be intermittent...
 
Also, I've got to get ready for a talk in L.A. in a few days. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:26, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Can't you divert some of that E-I-C power to batteries?
 
:Semi-seriously, I talk a bit about the Ohio Valley Blackout at [[System Control And Data Network]]. Know anyone who would like to write a case study on the specific incident?[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:56, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
 
I happen to know someone who ''could'' write the entry, but I don't know if he would like to! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:55, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
 
== Biology Week press release ==
As it's getting rather urgent, I put up a page to draft a [[CZ:Biology Workgroup/Biology Week planning/Shorter Press Release draft|press release for Biology Week]]. Some quotes from you, and others, would make it ready for release. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 17:19, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
 
Yep, I know.  I'm planning to put my own final touches on it on Friday morning, and send it out then.  We might be able to get 43PR to send it out for us, too... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:13, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
 
== Please join us for Biology Week! ==
 
<table><tr valign=top><td>
Hello Larry,
 
I am giving you this personal invitation to join us this week for Biology Week!
 
Please join us on the wiki and add or edit biology articles.  Also, please let your friends and colleagues who are biologists, biology students, or naturalists, know about Biology Week and ask them to join us, too.  Any way you can help make it an event would be most welcome.  Think of it as a [[CZ:Biology Workgroup|Biology Workgroup]] open house.  Let's see if we can kick up activity a notch!
 
Thanks in advance! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:51, 22 September 2008 (CDT)
</td><td>{{Biology open house}}</td></tr></table>
:Hmmm...not sure what to say about that :) [[User:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]] 09:40, 22 September 2008 (CDT)
:: :-) Just in case I forget.  ha ha --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:08, 22 September 2008 (CDT)
 
==semiauto-move feature==
Just trying to figure out how to make moving clusters move automated. Currently its really confusing even when you know what you are doing.  Also note movement on the subgroup proposal.  The thread in the initiatives folder is active again (subworkgroup thread). [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Yep, semi-automating cluster-moving would be good.  We really need to make it ''fully'' automated.  As to subworkgroups, I noticed... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:00, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::You can give it a test run by moving the metadata to a new name for any article.  You'll see some links appear above the subpage bar at the top.  They are all the links that need to be moved.  Once they have all been moved you just have to update the pagename field in the metadata.  I'm going to prettyify it, and it does not have every feature i envisage yet. Also it has not been fully tested, so beware. Fully automatic would be great if you know a programer. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Can you write instructions and link to them in an appropriate place or places?  I'll help test it out.  Then we should announce it... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:23, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
 
The only instruction you need is "make sure the very first move is the Metadata template". Instructions will then appear at the top of the page and allow you to go through the whole process.  What I intend to do, but have not yet, is to make it easy to place the appropriate speedy deletes. At present every redirect will be left in place.  In most cases this is not so bad.  But the old metadata page really should be deleted. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:28, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Forget all I mentioned here for now.  i have to abandon my first attempt with the semi-auto move template as I found a fatal flaw that affects any article with an apostrophe in the title (long story). [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:06, 28 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::How frustrating... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:22, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
 
I [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Forum#Question_about_magic_words asked a question here] on a mediawiki Q&A page. It does not mean that the semi-auto move function cannot be accomplished but the most seamless solution would not be possible.  The next best thing would involve having a field in the metadata template with the name of the new target. This is not that complex but i would prefer if the template kicked in as soon as '''any''' page is moved rather than requiring an entry in the metadata page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 08:53, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
 
:Chris, did you try localurl, as in:
::<code><nowiki>{{#ifeq: {{localurl:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} | {{localurl:Arthur's Seat}} | They are equal | NOT equal}}</nowiki></code>
:I have no idea what you're trying to do, so this may well be useless. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 09:58, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
::Excellent, that works!!! many thanks. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:27, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
 
== Your proposal "Article task and notification list" ==
 
Dear Larry, I'm afraid I have been slack in managing all the proposals. However, inspired by the [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon|Monthly Write-a-Thon]] and its theme "spring cleaning", I now want to clear out all the proposals that are merely gathering dust and push the rest forwards. I see you made a proposal "Article task and notification list" which unfortunately is still without a driver. I hope you'll find a driver within a few days, in which case, please have the driver update the proposal record at [[CZ:Proposals/New#Article task and notification list]]. Otherwise, I will remove the proposal and put it on the pile of driverless proposals. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 16:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
 
Thanks for getting back involved with this Jitse--it was badly needed.  I'm not going to be able to drive this proposal myself so I guess it goes into the pile... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:57, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
:I had not noticed this before.  It is just an extension of the todo list we already have to get the metadata completed.  It would be very easy to have subpage specific task etc. I just need to know what we want in the boxes. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:48, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
::At this point I suppose all you need is an editable box? When you say standard tasks this means you want to have a bank of standardised tasks that can be switched on or off? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:50, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Right--I think you have it.  The key line in my brief description is "This would serve a similar purpose to WP's various top-of-page notices."  I agree, it should not be very difficult.  Maybe the most difficult part would be in the design, because on the talk pages, the subpages template is generating something pretty confusing and messy.  You can think creatively about how to do this, but here is an idea.  I'd like to see a standard metadata page section, easy to read in text format (which loads only when the talk page is loaded).  All the bits are set to 0 or N, and in order to make a notice, all you have to do is set it to 1 or Y.  On the talk page, where the notices display, there should be a clearly-labelled link back to the metadata section where they can be edited.
 
:::Again, you might have a better way of doing this. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:36, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
 
::::The proposal is now on the junk pile ([[CZ:Proposals/Driverless]]), but Chris, if you want to put some work in it, I would say that you just go ahead. You're subpage supremo anyway, so I think it's more efficient to bypass the whole proposal thingy. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== We are back ==
 
Sorry for the downtime.  One of our servers, which doesn't usually go down, went down...it's back up.  My e-mail still isn't working, not sure why.
 
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:20, 9 October 2008 (CDT)
 
== I'm outta here ==
 
Please remove my name from the list of contributors to Citizendium. I have no use for your attack dogs -- e.g., on the forum discussion about my suggested subpage to the manga article.
 
Timothy Perper
 
[[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 
This is wholly unnecessary, and at the risk of sounding like Jimmy Wales, just one big misunderstanding.  Let me get back home and deal with the situation then. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== Page moves disabled? ==
 
Larry - are page moves disabled?  And where do I go to request a move be made, if I don't (want to/feel comfortable with) moving a cluster? [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:Hi Anthony, nice to see you.  No, page moves aren't disabled, or they shouldn't be.
 
:Are others having this problem?  If so, it must be because of the recent MediaWiki update. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::Yes, for a week or so now.  No Move tab at the top of my page, either in FF or IE. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Still?  Howard moved something the other day ([http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Log/move 16th October]). [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, as of the moment of me typing this, there is no Move tab up there. I saw that Howard did indeed move something the other day and figured that he was using his old CIA and NSA contacts to lend him a helping hand.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::Makes perfect sense. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::I e-mailed bugs and now we just have to hope the guys will do something.  ;-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== Testing ==
 
Testing testing --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== Finalizing the approval of [[Accidental release source terms]] was supposed to occur yesterday ==
 
Larry, the finalizing of approval of the [[Accidental release source terms]] was supposed to occur yesterday. Matt Innis usually does that chore, but he seems to be unavailable. So I also tried Ruth Ifcher, but no luck there either. Chris Day has said that he would take care of it if someone would authorize him to do so. Would you please authorize Chris? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 
It's all right with me if Chris does this.  On account of his work on the subpages template, Chris is already a sysop and should have all the permissions that he should need in the system to approve articles. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:Done.  I was not sure if I could do it, not being a constable. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::Since so many of our constables are not responding, I think this is a perfectly suitable expedient.  Thanks for taking up the slack1 --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== your assistance please... ==
 
{{nocomplaints}}
 
George, please contact me and/or the Constabulary via e-mail if you have complaints about other Citizens.  Complaining about another Citizen's behavior puts him on the spot, and on the defensive, which is why [[CZ:Professionalism]] doesn't permit it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Community boosting ==
 
How was I to know that the purpose of the page was to boost the community? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 16:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Do you really mean to say it wasn't obvious? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
No, it wasn't, I thought you expected an honest evaluation.
 
I've read in the meantime the  [http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-editcouncil/2008-November/date.html  recent discussion] (I wasn't aware of its existence) and see my two main points confirmed: (i) People become irritated  easily when using e-mail and/or the Web and (ii) editors are too easily overruled (or, at least, I seem to be not the only one who think so; I see now that a VIP left CZ for that reason a couple of days ago).--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Well, I ''did'' expect an honest evaluation; if you can't honestly recommend CZ, you shouldn't write anything on that page, I guess.
 
You wouldn't be aware of the existence of the cz-editcouncil discussion because the list is of the Editorial Council.  I just thought in all honestly that you would find the discussion interesting and relevant, and I was evidently right!
 
The editor who left CZ recently was ''not'' overruled.  He, for whatever reasons, likes to think and say so, but he is incorrect, and I've explained why several times.  His definition of "overruled" seems to be: disagreed with by the Editor-in-Chief.  Hence, whenever I disagree with an editor, I overrule him?  Of course not.  In fact, the problem that I personally had with the article in question still remains.
 
Also, even if it were a case of an editor being overruled, in this case it was the Editor-in-Chief who did the overruling.  So that particular controversy isn't about the prerogatives of editors vs. authors, but about the prerogatives of the Editor-in-Chief vs. editors! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
:Larry, I appended a paragraph, please have a look.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
::Looks fine with me then.  Thanks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==Greetings too from Martin Cohen==
 
Hulo Larry, and gang of editors/ authors!
 
Thanks for you message, glad to be here, at the best part of the project methinks. You've got the principles absolutely right, and the technology works, we just need the content now. I hadn't realised there was so much to be done before CZ reaches 'critical mass' - enough material for people to start using it as a real reference work - at which point everyone will flock here and we'll need to spend our time correcting pages rather than writing them.
 
I put some details of what I plan to do on the 'philosophy talk' page too, and am getting down to work straight away - we must get those key philosophers 'rolled out'!
 
I'm going to copy this to my own talk page as well.
 
Venceremos!
 
[[User:Martin Cohen|Martin Cohen]] 13:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
(Goodnes,, I'm an 'oldie' here...)
 
Excellent, thanks!  Oh, believe me, we've got a lot of oldies here.  ;-)-
 
We definitely need a lot of work done in philosophy, that's for sure. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==One click moves all subpages==
When did the option to move subpages get added? (or has it always been there?) This is going to make moving clusters much much easier.  if you don't know what I'm talking about try and move a page with clusters and note that one of the options is to move all subpages along with the article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Huh?  I didn't notice!  Yay!  It must have been included in the most recent MW update, which we did a few weeks back (as you know).  Totally...basically, moving a cluster is now a simple two-step process. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 
I'll update that ''move cluster'' link on the talk page to reflect this change (that was a nightmare procedure so I'm glad to see that go).  I also note that the automated moves got messed up in that update so other functions might not be behaving as we expect. Stephens upload wizard comes to mind, although I have not seen anything odd to date. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Sounds great. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Help? ==


Hi Larry,
Hi Larry,


Saw your post on the CIA article regarding bibliographies and just thought I should pop my head up (As usual!) Generally the task is to get as much information on the article itself. It is as much psychological as anything else to have the bibliographies on the article page at one time; it is under the principle that when the entire article is finished, then the bibliography can be moved to the subpage. Furthermore, a small 'further reading' section containing parts of the bibliography is useful within an article, and sometimes its just easier to leave the entire bibliography there until the article gets to the stage of polishing up things; such as leaving a 'further reading' section. Just thought I should let you know this is my (And probably Richards, from my observations and dealings with him) method for writing articles and why I don't fill out the subpages straight away. I hope this makes sense. (Beginning to feel like it doesn't) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 19:38, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
Sorry to "bug" you as it were, but the update a few weeks ago appears to have broken a template I was working on.  Is there any documentation on the changes implemented in the new version?--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 04:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 
Try [[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Derek_Harkness/Skin]]...I don't know that much about the technical details, I'm afraid. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 
==CZ in French==
Hello, I wish to let you know that I fully agree with your statement ''The people who want to hide behind pseudonyms, who want to play governance games in order to push their biases, and who want to prove their maturity and enlightenment by putting up pictures of naked little girls, can stick with Wikipedia''. I have experienced that the same disfunction exists in the "WP in French". Therefore, am I waiting for the "CZ in French" creation. May I recommend not to wait until a great amount of bilingual Authors have joined CZ. May I recommend to start "CZ in French" with bilingual managers + French-speaking Authors. I believe that this push would fit the growth with quality strategy of CZ.  Best regards.[[User:Thierry Henri Cauchois|Thierry Henri Cauchois]] 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:Thanks for the push, Thierry--it is hard enough to manage CZ in English, but perhaps we should just set up the wikis and let those who are interested in the projects in other languages just get started. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
::There are a dozen or so articles I wrote in French several years ago for the French WP that could be imported (from the moment I stopped editing them, so that they are entirely mine), which would at least add a few items.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
::: Thanks for answering. My analysis is based on two facts : 1- a huge amount of good quality articles already exists on WP in French; 2- a number of French WP contributors (or past contributors) are willing to contribute another way (a serious one). If importing articles from WP fits to CZ strategy, I would recommend for CZ to create the framework in French, then to select French CZ Authors entitled to start import (it is important to reach rapidly a critical mass of articles). In addition, being a user of the German WP, I have noticed its high quality standard. Perhaps is the same quick start possible. Friendly.[[User:Thierry Henri Cauchois|Thierry Henri Cauchois]] 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::::I will certainly give it some thought (again). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Business world ==
 
Larry, I think that your community's encyclopedic coverage of the business world is severely lacking.  (As you may know, I'm the founder/operator of a site that would call itself an encyclopedic business directory, so I may be shooting myself in my own foot by communicating this to you, but...)  I would like to know your policy about entities writing about themselves, or (heaven forbid) paying a third-party encyclopedist to write about themselves.  As an example, I have added the (non-paid) encyclopedic entry about [[National Fuel Gas]].  Note, I didn't bother with cleaning up formatting for your environment here, because I don't know if we're on the same level-set regarding the provenance of info about corporations.  What is your opinion about such content as this article, and does it matter to you whether money has exchanged hands to generate said initial content (assuming, of course, that the tone and style of the work is encyclopedic and not marketing puffery)? -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:We have already thought about this and established two relevant, interrelated policies: [[CZ:Policy on Topic Informants]] and [[CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion]].
 
:In short, realistically speaking, I don't think it is possible to set up a system in which PR firms are permitted to write ''neutral'' prose for their clients.  PR firms are specifically paid to make their clients look good.  We are, shall we say, in a different business.  I should think all of this would be obvious to anyone who understands the ethics of reference publishing.  Evidently, the ethics of business directory publishing is different. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::At no point did I mention "public relations firms", and I am not in the PR business.  Your jumping to the "PR" label is similar to what Jimmy Wales did in August 2006, which many feel was a big mistake, because it just "drove underground" the efforts of people genuinely interested in disseminating encyclopedic information about entities with which they were affiliated.  I won't bore you with examples.  I also still seek your opinion about the writing tone and relevance to Citizendium of [[National Fuel Gas]].  I will now go and read the two policies you highlighted. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 16:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::It would seem that your opinion may be in contradiction with CZ policy:  "You may not, even if you are a topic informant, start an article about yourself, or any company, organization, website, or other entity, especially marketable entity, with which you are closely associated."  Would you consider a paid encyclopedist to have a "close association" with the organization that he (relatively speaking) briefly researches, synthesizes, and publishes about -- especially considering that the content would then be released into the CC-by-sa realm, to be managed by literally anyone?  My answer would be a clear "no", but I'll await your answers to this question and the one above about [[National Fuel Gas]]. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:::I don't really care what Jimmy Wales said.  Sure, you didn't say PR firms; ''I'' did.  Obviously, someone who is paid by a company to write about the company is acting as a PR agent for the company.  But no important issues turn on whether we apply "PR firm" or "PR agent" in this case.  Call them, simply, agents.  My concerns still apply; they are substantive, not reducible to semantics.
 
:::You are obviously correct when you say that people affiliated with a company may sincerely wish to disseminate correct, even neutral information about the company.  But that observation does not reply to the concern I have, namely, that ''if we adopt it as a general policy'' that agents of commercial enterprises (or of nonprofit or government enterprises, for that matter) may edit articles about their enterprises, we both lose credibility and have to doublecheck all information that these inherently biased agents insert.  The correct answer to your question, about whether the paid encyclopedist has a close association with an enterprise, depends entirely on who pays the encyclopedist, now doesn't it?  If, say, someone were sheerly out of the goodness of his heart decide to pay someone to work on CZ articles about businesses, and it could be proven that this person were not acting as anybody's agent but merely adding lots of useful information because it's so useful, well, I think that would be OK.  But ''surely'' you aren't actually saying any such person, supported by a sheerly civic-minded entity, exists?
 
:::You may not understand our policy.  I think any agent would be welcome to start business-related articles, post interviews, etc., in the TI: namespace.  It would then be up to regular Citizens to decide whether to import those, or edited versions of them, to the main namespace.
 
:::If you think about it, for articles submitted by company agents, our Citizens would have to do due diligence in checking any potentially biased or self-serving information.  Either we do this before the articles are posted in the main namespace, or we do it after.  I think we should do it before, simply because we don't want to outstrip the volunteer resources we have.
 
:::After all this discussion, I'm afraid I don't have time to look into [[National Fuel Gas]]--I'm very, very busy with multiple projects these days.  You could always ask on the Forums or on the talk page of that article...I'm betting some people will be willing to join in.  There are several active people who understand the relevant policies.  But I think I should ask whether National Fuel Gas had any understanding with you about your inserting it into CZ.  In other words, were you acting as their agent, or were you merely adding information about the company?  If you ''weren't'' acting as an agent, and you are trying to make a point by adding the article (I assume thanks are in order, by the way!), then what is your point? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::::Your concerns about your site's credibility are of merit.  I am simply going to predict, however, that by the year 2020, Citizendium will have less than 25% of the Fortune 1000 firms documented with articles, unless you or someone else decides to simply scrape them from another source.  This, too, will have adverse effects on your site's credibility -- "a compendium with 25% coverage of the largest organizations on the planet?", people will chortle.  Regardless, your position is actually very good for me in the long run, as a proprietor of a business directory site who would rather not have you as competition.  I was mostly asking you these questions to allay any underlying pangs of Catholic "guilt" I might have, for not helping your encyclopedia with its development of business entity articles.  You're coming up on two years of public content building, and you have articles only about [[National Fuel Gas]] and [[Nintendo]] in the Business Workgroup category subheading for the letter "'''N'''".  Yesterday, it was only [[Nintendo]]. 
 
::::The National Fuel Gas company has no idea who I am, and I have no payment relationship or history whatsoever with them.  The "point" of that article is simply to demonstrate the "tone" and "style" of how a paid encyclopedist ''might'' write an article about a company, without technically being a "public relations" agent of the company.  I would offer you about a dozen examples of ''paid'' articles that I've created, but then they would get deleted from Wikipedia, and after two years of their thriving there, I'd really hate to so foolishly sabotage my good content.  So, I doubled your site's coverage of the "N" companies, and now I'll be on my way, since your concerns about bias and "self-serving" content outweigh your concerns about lack of coverage.  I can live with that, and I still wish you the best of luck with your concept. I worry, though, that you will have a pristine but tiny compendium that only 1% of Internet users will ever visit. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::The same article exists at WP, word for word. There has been no attempt to modify it for the CZ article as it stands. So, assuming that you want to leave it here, it has to have the WP template attached to it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::Even if the authorship of both articles is entirely my own, and the origination of the words therein predates its being uploaded to either Wikipedia or to Citizendium?  I mean, if you want to get technical about [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:National_Fuel_Gas&action=history chickens and eggs], let's be careful.  I would be particularly offended if the article received a "WP template", when it was created on December 10, 2006, by me, long before Wikipedia copied it from my site. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::::Thanks for your concern, Gregory.
 
:::::::As to the article and crediting WP, simply put a notice at the top of the talk page saying that you are the sole author of the article (if, in fact you are!) and then nobody will check the "from WP" checkbox.  But if anyone from WP has made any edits to this article, i.e., if even a comma was from a Wikipedian, we have to credit WP as a source.
 
:::::::You can also feel free to credit MyWikiBiz.com at the bottom of the article just as we credit Wikipedia as a source for WP-started articles.  But then, people will probably also want, on the talk page, your above disclaimers to me about your lack of involvement with National Fuel Gas. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Open letter to Larry Sanger ==
 
As per Larry's request, I have deleted this entire thread and moved it to:
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,73.0.html in the Non-Member's Forum Discussion. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Specialized editor ==
 
Larry, I see some articles that are ready for approval.  Could I be made specialist editor for the following categories based on my indicated experience below?
 
#Boxing: 2-time state amateur champion and long-time fan
#Bowling: 1-time city league champion and long-time bowler
#Soccer: 10+ years playing and paid referee of youth soccer leagues for several years
#Sailing: Have sailed on boats ranging from 16' cats to 44' yachts (island living is sooo tough!)
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 
Hi David, I am impressed!
 
Could you send me some more details by e-mail please? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 
==Holy Schnikes ==
My edit above seems to be attributed to Chris Day.  Do we have a new bug? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk%3ALarry_Sanger&diff=100436312&oldid=100436250 That] is way bizarre.  I will see what the tech guys say about it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 
:Not bizarre, I copied and pasted it here from [[Talk:Larry Sanger]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 
::Doh! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== categories revisited ==
 
Larry, how did you get the talk page categories to only show the article name?  Would it be possible to do a similar trick for the template namespace such that any category on the metadata template would only show up in a category list as just BASEPAGENAME (not Template:BASEPAGENAME/Metadata)? I should add, this is asking for one extra thing compared with the current talk namespace, as in that case a category on a 'Talk:Article/Draft' type page will be listed as "Article/Draft" not "Article" in the category list. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
A "magic word" probably, but what template are you referring to? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:All the metadata templates, but I imagine what ever rule is in place will be valid for all templates. Do you want the long version, although, if it's not possible then the whole thing is moot anyway.  See the bottom of my talk page, response to Matt, to get a bit of a feel for what I am thinking. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
::I'm still confused.  As you know, I haven't worked on the subpage templates & metadata templates associated with subpages to any significant degree since you took them over.  Do you mean the metadata templates for the userinfo system?  Sorry... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
:::No, the one for clusters, ''i.e.'' [[Template:Biology/Metadata]]. Here is the problem.  When workgroups or a status are changed in the metadata of a cluster the categories do change on the article and subpages but these changes do not get registered in the relevant categories unless an actual edit is made to the page.  Consequently, we have to make minor edits every time after a change in the metadata to make the article names appear in the correct category lists. 
 
:::I am beginning to realise that this is going to be a big problem as our size increases. One solution is to have all the categories on the metadata template.  Then, as changes are made to the metadata, all the categories will "register" immediately. This does not mean no category links will appear in the articles or the subpages, there can still be links based on the information in the metadata.  We already do this on the draft pages, look at the top of  [[Biology/Draft]] and [[Chemical_engineering/Draft]],  you'll see links to categories but there are no workgroup categories on the page. This is still a short explanation but might help you understand the problem better.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
::::That does sound like a prickly problem...I'd need to think more about it.  It might have a server-side solution; might be a good idea to run it by the bugs guys.  Well, I'm off to bed...also, if the problem would be handily solved by putting categories on the metadata page, as you suggest, then why not do that? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I would, but then every category would have a list of article names stating with "Template" and ending with "/Metadata".  Apart from being an eyesore, it would also be much harder to parse the information. This brings us full circle ;)  See my initial comment above. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Gotcha.  I'd have to do research, it'd take time...maybe I'll be able to help, but don't count on it...sorry! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::By the way, you said, "how did you get the talk page categories to only show the article name," thereby implying that I had performed this feat.  I was asking, ''where'' do you think I performed the feat?  If you could point me to my performance I might be able to explain it.  :-)  --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Great, the proverbial needle in a haystack.  I'll see if i can root it out. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== M.C. Lake article ==
:what's a biology editor doing by tearing out an entire section?  I can't and won't have that.  I won't finish the article if that's going to be the case.  i thought this '''wasnt''' wikipedia.  [[User:S. W. Kolterman|S. W. Kolterman]] 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::I sent an e-mail to try and explain the confusion.  I take responsibility here, I did not explain my edits. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Looks like Chris was just moving sections to subpages, which is something we do here...in fact, this is one of the ways we aren't like Wikipedia.  See [[CZ:Subpages]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Blurriness ==
 
Not "worried," Larry, just provoking thought. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 
:And that you are doing, Russell.  I appreciate it.  Some calm, careful reflection on all these matters is definitely needed. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 
::Mostly my own thoughts.  On the [http://historywiki.emich.edu/ HW] we are also having the same sort of sorting out "what the heck are we doing here?"  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]]
 
== Traffic ==
 
Larry, have you been watching CZ's page views over the last month?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 
:Yes, I have!  Pretty amazing, isn't it--I can't account for it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::[[Homeopathy]]? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I do not know which measure of CZ page views you used but I had been testing an [http://www.alexa.com/site/download Alexa toolbar] on one of my computers from about Dec 17 on (for other purposes) and switched it off on Feb 2 after I saw this discussion. I guess this explains much of the variability in [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/citizendium.org their CZ page view stats] during that period. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Could one person have made that much of a difference?  Hmm...  ;-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Daniel, I think that Russell and Chris are talking about the Forums page views which increased very dramatically recently... and the Alexa statistics are about Citizendium page views which hasn't changed much recently. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::''Could one person have made that much of a difference?  Hmm...''  If so, then lets all add Alexa toolbars! :-)  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::If my guess goes into the right direction, this would also indicate that none of the CZ regulars edits CZ via a browser with active Alexa toolbar. My next guess, then, would be that many of the users of these toolbars also contribute to WP - yet another (though certainly minor) reason why the two projects fare differently in terms of commonly used traffic stats.
 
:::::::In terms of whether one person could have such a visible effect: "reach" (dunno exactly what this signifies, but perhaps the number of different IPs accessing the site) has not changed during that period but "rank" and "page views" did, so I think it is possible. And if you ''really'' wanna know, it would be easy to do an experiment of this sort: Matt could choose a few of the regulars and ask them (perhaps better in private) to use such toolbars (perhaps not always but following a suitable protocol) when editing CZ for the next four weeks or so, and after this period, their identity could be revealed and the observed pattern in the graph compared to their activity on the wiki (alternatively, if we all trust him, he could write a report without revealing the identities). But we may have more pressing things to do... --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Trying to understand ==
 
Hi, Larry: I note that [[:CZ:Proposals/New]] lists three New proposals. I also note that [[:CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council]] lists Active proposals before the Editorial Council (many of which have been sitting there over six months).
 
* How does a New proposal get to be an Active proposal?
* Also, why are those Active proposals still sitting there without the Editorial Council being notified to vote on them?
* Who is responsible for moving Active proposals to a vote?
* And who is responsible for moving New proposals to Active proposals?
 
I'm not complaining ... I'm just trying to understand how the proposal system works and you are the only one I thought could explain it to me. Many thanks in advance, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:I'm a little confused as well. My understanding is that as Secretary of the Editorial Council, I become responsible for moving these into the process once introduced, but, after they have been, it is the role of the (currently vacant, I believe) Proposals Manager (or Driver?) to making sure they progress. The role of the Secretary is, other than certain technical details when the Proposal is newly submitted, to be the parliamentary authority for that procedure. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::I saw [[CZ:Proposals/All|this list]] yesterday.  I'm willing to devote some time to these proposals.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Milt, thanks for asking.  Many of your questions about how the proposals system is ''supposed'' to work are answered on [[Archive:Proposals/Policy]].  But we've been falling down on the job here with our proposals system.  The system is meant to be a combination of bottom-up (people making proposals) and top-down (other people if necessary take over proposals as "drivers," and a Proposals Manager.  But, no doubt because many people have lost interest, our Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen, appears to have lost interest, and I have failed to follow up myself (I'm supposed to be managing him).  But, especially with an active (or newly active) Proposals Manager, the system can still move forward.  I've just e-mailed Jitse.
 
Answering some more specific items Milt above:
 
''> How does a New proposal get to be an Active proposal? ''
 
A complete proposal needs to be made, i.e., not just the yellow box, but the page that comes up when you click on the "Complete proposal" link.  If this is done and the proposal is in order, according to the system, the Proposals Manager is supposed to move the proposal to the appropriate proposal list page.
 
''> Also, why are those Active proposals still sitting there without the Editorial Council being notified to vote on them? ''
 
Because nobody has made them into full-blooded resolutions yet.  All Editorial Council resolutions need sponsors.  The mere fact that a proposal appears on [[CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council]] does not make it automatically a resolution (though perhaps it should).  If they have sponsors, proposals can be converted into resolutions very easily, in an almost perfunctory way.  See [[Archive:Proposals/Policy#Decisionmaking_groups|this section]].
 
''> Who is responsible for moving Active proposals to a vote?''
 
It depends on the type of proposal.  Again, see [[Archive:Proposals/Policy#Decisionmaking_groups|this section]], and bear in mind that not all decisions may be made by vote, though many will be.
 
''> And who is responsible for moving New proposals to Active proposals?''
 
The Proposals Manager.
 
Now from Howard:
 
''> My understanding is that as Secretary of the Editorial Council, I become responsible for moving these into the process once introduced,''
 
Here are what the rules say.  From [[Archive:Proposals/Policy#Decisionmaking_groups]], speaking only about ''Editorial Council'' proposals (not other kinds): "If the driver is not a Council member, and no Council member is ready to sponsor the proposal/issue and make it into a resolution, then e-mail the Secretary of the Council (Howard C. Berkowitz). The Secretary then has the responsibility of posting (if necessary) repeated calls for sponsorship. If no Council member will sponsor the resolution after three calls, it may be considered declined."
 
Other than that, the Secretary of the Editorial Council has no responsibility here.
 
''> but, after they have been, it is the role of the (currently vacant, I believe) Proposals Manager (or Driver?) to making sure they progress.''
 
I don't think Jitse has actually resigned.  We'll find out soon enough.
 
''> The role of the Secretary is, other than certain technical details when the Proposal is newly submitted, to be the parliamentary authority for that procedure.''
 
I'd have to look, but strictly speaking the Secretary is the head of the Rules Committee (currently consisting of...drumroll please...you), which is the parliamentary authority, but it is the Chair that ultimately decides the interpretation of rules.  The Secretary has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules governing the Proposals System, which is a project-wide system governed ultimately by little ol' me (with input from the Executive Committee).
 
As usual, this is all revisable, none of this is written in stone, and some of it will certainly have to change with some things we've been talking about in the forums recently.
 
And from Russell:
 
''> I'm willing to devote some time to these proposals.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]]''
 
Hi Russell, thanks for your offer--do you mean you're willing maybe to take over as a driver of several proposals, or perhaps even Proposals Manager?
 
>>>>I mean that I'll look at them, try to resuscitate some.  Proposals' Manager?  Let me sleep on that one..... [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::A user page isn't really the place to get into this, but you had told me that the role of the Editorial Council, which I had thought was defined by [[CZ: Editor Policy#Editorial Council]], was redefined by Resolution 0001 to be limited to the approval of proposals. I believe these two sources are not reconciled, but, if the Proposal System is not under the Editorial Council, then I have difficulty understanding what responsibilities, if any, actually reside with the Editorial Council. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::I think you must have misunderstood me, or I said something confusing myself--or quite possibly both.  However that is, the fact is that there is a difference between a proposal in the Proposals System, on the one hand, and a Resolution that is before the Editorial Council, on the other.  I think this is very clear from the combination of [[Archive:Proposals/Policy]] and [[CZ:Editorial Council Rules of Procedure]].  As to what responsibilities reside with the Editorial Council, please examine those two documents as well as [[CZ:Editor Policy#Editorial Council]].  And I hope there's no reason to "get into" anything at all here.  Please just read the documents themselves, and if you have any quick questions, I'll be happy to answer them here to the best of my ability.  If you have any objection, deeply insightful or constitutional or otherwise, the forum would probably be the best place for that. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Larry, have you had any luck contacting Jitse regarding the logjam in the processing of proposals? Or has anyone else offered to serve as the Proposals Manager? I am sure you agree that something simply has to be done to clear up that logjam. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::Milt, I've tried again by e-mail earlier today--let's wait a bit more.  I agree completely about the logjam.  I'm sorry for my own failure to break it up. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::Larry, I don't mean to be a pest ... but the proposal logjam really must be cleared. As a member of the Editorial Council, I know that we haven't been asked to vote on a proposal for many months now. Surely, if Jitse were going to respond, he would have done so by now. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::Milt, sorry...you are right.  Jitse did respond and said he would be happy if someone would take over for him.  We just need to make a call for volunteers on that front... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::Don't wait for me.  I had started looking over some proposals but I'm in a fit of grading right now and don't see where I'll have more than a few hours a week for CZ until May.  But, Milt's right, we should get moving on things.  Could there be an easy form to turn a proposal into a resolution?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 
 
==Kid's pages==
 
Larry, I thought that you might find a new page that I am working on of interest:
 
[[USA education, preschool]]
 
Not sure about how to classify it besides the fact that it is education.  I did not want to just call it Preschool, because there is items in there that are USA centered (US History people, US Holidays, etc.), but I don't have a problem with other copying the page and modifying it for other countries.
 
Also, are you in charge of maintaining the MediaWiki code?  If so, is there the possability to set things up so that images can be directly referenced from Wikipedia commons?  I want to add images to articles, but I am not interested in downloading them from Wikipedia to just upload them here, especially if I would be required to find all contact info, licenses, etc.  I know that I am being lazy, but I am also being honest.
 
My main gripe with Wikipedia was that there is images ( and content) that I don't think children should have access to, but they have a great selection of images.  So I would like to work on Gallery pages for this site. [[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Melissa, first, by all means, please do compile galleries here--we love them.  And since you ask: I'm not in charge of maintaining the MediaWiki code, and frankly I don't think there would be a lot of support for leaning on Wikipedia's servers in the way you suggest, especially because we ''do'' require the contact information; we're trying to be good Citizens in every sense, you see.
 
But now about your preschool project.  It looks great!  But I would ask you to do two things.  The first is to move the lists to a [[CZ:Catalogs]] subpage of the preschool article, or else to the CZ: namespace (that might be better), because what you are compiling is a list of topics that preschoolers study.  Possibly [[CZ:Kiddiwiki]] or [[CZ:Kidipedia]], but I think those names might already be taken.
 
Some topics on the list really aren't suitable as topics for CZ articles, such as "above and below."  But this isn't a problem if you are meaning to start "kid pages."  In that case, what I would have you do is write at least a brief description of the project you'd like to start, put it on the forums so people can discuss it, and then announce the proposal on Citizendium-L (or, ask me to do so), so we can get as many people as possible working on it with you.  I might contribute.  I do quite a bit of this sort of stuff for my little boy. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 
P.S. my comment from yesterday on [[Talk:USA education, preschool]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:Larry, please excuse me for getting into this ... but I thought the following post by Melissa in the Forums a few days ago might better explain her idea about getting images from Wikimedia Commons:
<blockquote>
I had recently installed a personal MediaWiki, so I have recently played around with the LocalSettings.php file.  There are variables that are easy to setup to allow accessing images on http://commons.wikipedia.org.  Is it possible to get this setup, so we can add Commons images to our articles? Here is the code:<BR><BR>
  $wgForeignFileRepos[] = array(<br>
  'class'                  => 'ForeignAPIRepo',<br>
  'name'                    => 'shared',<br>
  'apibase'                => 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php',<br>
  'fetchDescription'        => true, // Optional<br>
  'descriptionCacheExpiry'  => 43200, // 12 hours, optional<br>
  'apiThumbCacheExpiry'    => 43200, // 12 hours, optional, but required for local thumb caching );
<BR><BR>
I have tested this on my personal Wiki and it works.  I am not sure for a high traffic site like this what other variables will need to be set. <BR><BR>
Melissa Newman</blockquote>
 
Also, see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Milton_Beychok#Images Here] where both Chris Day and I felt it would sure make life easier to get images from Commons much more easily than can be done now. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:OK, I will reply there. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 
===Catalog vs. curriculum===
I understand the concept that people want the list of article names on a sub-page.  I understand the concept of a catalog.  The only problem that I have with that name is that most people who would be interested in the information that I would be creating in the format that I am creating would be looking for the information under the name curriculum.  Even if the concept of a catalog is the same thing, the terminology is not the terminology used in the field.  A list of topics on what is taught in a grade level is called a curriculum.  If you are talking about several years of schooling in one or more subjects it is called a sequence.  It might also be referred to as a list of topics.
 
If I saw catalog under Preschool, I would expect to find a list of merchants, books, or apparateuses that would help me to teach a preschooler the curriculum.  Bibliography is a list of books and possibly tapes and movies.  But I would not expect to find ETA Cuisenaire (a company that makes educational apparatuses) listed there or Carolina science (a company that sells science equipment).
 
Maybe the problem is that I have never seem a catalog page like the ones that you are creating on this wiki. When I get a catalog in the mail, it is a list of items that I can buy or a list of companies that I can buy from.
 
[[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::Melissa, I may be wrong but I believe that you can name a subpage "Curriculum" if you so wish. Contact Chris Day who is our subpage guru. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Melissa, your argument is an argument for scrapping the name "Catalog" altogether, which I'm actually sympathetic with (in favor of "Tables").  Please see [[CZ:Catalogs]] and [[CZ:Subpages]] if you haven't yet.  I do not encourage ad hoc names for subpages; standardization of information types is a good thing and we should stick to it as much as possible.
 
::::All this being said, again I have to ask what the purpose of this whole effort is.  If (1) it is ''merely'' to develop a list of topics of interest for preschool education, then a Catalog is ''exactly'' the right place to put it, under our current system, and your frustration will then be with the ''name'' for the information type we have (alternatively described as a table, information summary, compendium, almanac, or catalog).  But if (2) it is instead to develop a new system kid pages, such pages really belong either in another namespace (my off-the-cuff preference, subject to more cogitation and discussion) or possibly in a new subpage type (not so good, for a variety of reasons).  Could you clarify if you want to do (1) or (2), or something else? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Larry, please excuse me for entering this conversation and I promise not to interrupt again after this.  However,  [[CZ:Article-specific subpages]] indicates fairly clearly that we may create article-specific subpages ... does it not? Or am I missing something? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::That was written as part of a proposal, it has not been discussed in detail and certainly not been to the editorial council. Obviously I disagree with Larry on this point :) ([[CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages%3F|I wrote the proposal]]), and I could expand on my reasons but this is not the place. I might add that after an extended discussion I could see the idea in a new light. The idea was precipitated from a comment about usability on [[User_talk:Petréa_Mitchell/Archive2|Petréa Mitchell's talk page]] that was precipitated by [[User:Petréa_Mitchell/A_Plea_For_Usability#Changes_that_can_enhance_usability|an essay]] that Petréa wrote.  In short, it is not official. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::By golly, let's get it in front of the Council sooner rather than later! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::: I vote 100% a million times over for a separate namespace for a student encyclopedia.  As for if there should be a separate one for children and students, I will leave that final decision to you as "Editor-in-Chief".  I think that it can go either way.  Now going into begging mode ... pretty please with cherries on top and marshmallow topping setup a separate namespace for students!  I promise to put my name on the workgroup.  [[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Just to be clear I think these are two distinct issues. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::::::Chris--agreed.  Melissa--starting a whole new (complementary, but also rather different) project is another issue that certainly has to come before the Editorial Council.  In the meantime, I think continuing to discuss the general concept, and figuring out both what would be best according to general editorial requirements, and according to the existing community's preferences, would be a good way to spend some time...
 
::::::::::Actually, come to think of it, what we really need to do is feel out the CZ community and other potentially interested parties to see if there is enough interest in actually starting up the project.  The very last thing I want to do is start a project that there just won't be enough people to support.  I would put out some feelers myself, to gauge interest, but...ugh, I don't have time right now! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::Here is a summary of things I have already written on the forums. I like the idea of a new namespace with a different unique header, to separate the projects.  In that way a distinct subpages structure can be used (it could even have vertical tabs). I think workgroups should not have a role but I could see a role for K12 specific subgroups for CZ authors with an interest in contributing to both projects. I like the idea of limited links between the projects (possibly a tab on CZ articles when a K12 version exists in the other namespace).  One technical issue is that the hyperlinks in the K12 namespace should automatically be restricted to that namespace rather than linking to main space. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::Chris, what effect would your proposal of a new namespace have on our servers? Even with my high-speed cable service, CZ is maddeningly slow very often. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have no clue. I wonder if the slowness might be due to the subpages template drawing too many resources. The sooner the subpages structure is hard wired the better but as a non-programmer I don't even know what is possible. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Sorry, I brought out the indent, because it was going too far inwards. 
 
::::First, the technical answer about the slowness.  This is most likely due to the fact that the pages are not accessed that often, so they are always being processed.  I think that there is a way to say that all of the pages in a certain namespace should be generated into cache.  Look at the programs in the maintenance directory of the source code.  The expiry of those pages can also be set to be a longer time period than the main pages (for example, a year unless we know that they are changed.  If the sub-pages are always generated automatically, then there is going to be slowness issue.  But again, if the pages are cached as html, there should not be an issue.  Everything goes back to the cache and the expiry of the cache.  There are also several different versions of cache, but I have never personally played around with a cache server.
 
::::Back to the discussion at hand.
 
::::If you plan to put out the feelers within this specific group, the only people you are going to find that are going to express a strong interest is myself and you Larry.  I have not seen strong positives from anybody else.  The people who would be interested are not here at the current time.  The people that would be interested are currently writing their own blogs, writing their own curriculum, homeschooling their children, helping the Gutenburg project, communicating on homeschooling websites and yahoo forums, trying to start their own website without much success, or just plain given up.  People have tried to start kid specific wikis, but from what I have seen, they are just not able to build a strong enough foundation to even get their foot off the ground.  A person looks at the website and it just has the feeling of being dead.
 
::::In any project, there is several components.  First, there is the physical source code.  Second, there is the look and feel of the site.  The third is the foundation of the templates.  Fourth is the foundation of the images and other media (country flags, standard medical images, historical sites of interest, pictures of works of art, audio of famous music, etc.).  Fifth is the foundation of the articles.  What articles need to definitely be included and what is extra?  Britannicas children's encyclopedia (stories) has 15 volumes with about 1000 articles.  First encylopedias that I have seen have 500 at most, because what would be separate articles in another encyclopedia would be put into one article on a first encyclopedia.  A student encyclopedia would have 5000 articles at most, but more likely 3000.  Although in my own database adding in idioms and stories can easily bring a hard article count to over 6,000.
 
::::The main issue is images.  Wikipedia has a great resource of images, but they also have a bunch of image categories that are not appropriate for children.  "category:          ren"?  And that is just one example.  There is no way to filter wikipedia images, because there is logic to the categories.  "Category:Missionary position" has a parent category of "category:man on top".
 
::::Using any wiki for student research is not a good idea.  The foundation of student research skills should be built upon traditional sources (aka books).  Once this website is more established, will the view of this website change?  I don't really know.  I will personally go with the general view of how librarians and teachers respond to this project.
 
::::I like the format of how this website is setup -- a gallery page for every article.  The sub-page concept makes a nice design.
 
::::How many levels of encyclopedia do we need?  Preschoolers: I can't see a parent reading to their child from a computer screen.  They will look at images together, and they will listen to sound together, but I have never read to my preschooler from a website.  My preschooler likes to see the picture of the bear and click on the button to hear the bear growl.  Plus, one can buy a preschool/first encyclopedia for $20 from ebay.  I think that preschoolers needs can be met through gallery pages on a different project. 
 
::::Junior level:  This is the story level.  The pages are presented in story format.  The images that preschoolers need, this group needs.  The images that this group needs, the next higher group needs.  So in my opinion, this group's needs can be met through a story or read-aloud sub page of the next level up.  The next level up is the student level.
 
::::Having the student encyclopedia being a sub-page of the adult pages is not a good idea, because it goes back to the original problem of images.  The images that adults need and want are going to be different than what students need and want.  There will be overlap, but there will also be differences.  The three levels of students can share a namespace, but student and adults can't share a space.
 
::::Will the image issue make even sharing the same namespace an issue?  In the end, that may be true.  Adults feel very strongly about not having any restrictions on their content.  Children need restrictions.  This is done in movies, music, magazines, stores, and a host of other areas.  To expect that not to be an issue on a website is not realistic.  Although, this website was built upon the concept of family friendliness.  Will the combination of that and gallery pages be enough of a general protection?  It may take a couple of years to get an answer to that.
 
::::As for the catalog issue ... until the issue of where the physically place the student pages or even if they should be allowed, should be settled before the issue of catalog pages.  Changing "curriculum" to "catalog" is a one line change. Even if I made 10 pages, it would still be a small change.  Changing where student pages are physically located is a big change.  That is why that issue should have a higher priority.
 
::::[[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 14:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 
(undent more) Melissa you wrote: "''If you plan to put out the feelers within this specific group, the only people you are going to find that are going to express a strong interest is myself and you Larry.  I have not seen strong positives from anybody else. ''". I think you need to look harder.  While there are those who have said they would not have any interest in participating it is not correct to say there is no support. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Put me on the support list. Seeing the work that Melissa has put out in the short time that she has been here, I don't doubt she can create the interest to attract others with her passion. :-) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:Melissa--interesting thoughts, and we have similar goals insofar as I'm teaching my little boy a lot of things now, too, and we intend to homeschool him (basically, we already are doing so).  But, I'm puzzled--if you think there isn't going to be any interest in the project, you're declaring that the project will not succeed from the get-go, aren't you?  A community-built project requires lively interest if it is to succeed.
 
:I'd love to do this, but when I put my manager's/boss hat on, I have to wonder if we ''can.''  The quite possible lack of a quorum is one big concern.  Then, frankly, I would like to partner with a publisher, one that is also a Web publishing company with Web 2.0 experience, to create a brand new wiki.  If CZ takes this on, it will overextend me, personally, even further--and that would not be good for anybody, believe me.  Notice, Melissa, you say we need to do this, this, and that.  ''Who'' is going to do this, this, and that, or see to it that these things are done?  Who else but me?  Of course, if there were someone that I knew, who I knew I could trust to do a great job (working full time--that's what it takes to start up a new project like this), and who could take on a children's project in the CZ fold, then I might support the idea.  But I don't know of such a person.
 
:I agree that most parents of preschoolers won't look at Web pages--that idea actually seems silly to me, on consideration.  Instead, there needs to be individual pages, something like what you see on http://www.brillkids.com/ -- PowerPoint-type presentations.  I've actually toyed with the idea of somehow partnering with BrillKids on a little kid's encyclopedia.  The entries would take the form of multimedia slideshows.  What they are doing at present is, frankly, pretty low-quality, and it is derivative of the work of Glenn Doman, which in my nonexpert opinion has some problems.
 
:Finally, I agree that easy image-grabbing or -uploading is absolutely required.  New software is needed to make this as easy as possible.  Basically, there needs to be a browser extension that allows people to drag and drop images from Flickr & Wikimedia Commons.  Without this, it will be way too hard to create the articles, and the project will probably die due to the difficulty of using the MediaWiki system to host images.  This is another reason I say that we would probably have to partner with someone. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::Larry, the technical difficulties with images on this project are a result of the editorial decisions made by the editorial board, not technical issues.  MediaWiki allows one to include an image from a URL, upload an image from a URL, include images from wiki commons.  There is also extension on MediaWiki for importing images from flickr based on commons license.  It all goes back to the LocalSettings.php file and adding a few extensions.  But as you said previously, you don't want to be bound by Wikipdia comons.  As for allowing uploads by URL, it should be allowed under certain groups.  For example, any author / editor of the workgroup media should have access to this feature.  Or maybe say all editors have access to this feature.  I just tried to set it up on my own MediaWiki install.  The MediaWiki part is easy.  The only snag I ran into was php curl libraries.
 
::As for who is going to be responsible.  If you want somebody full time, are you going to pay them a salary?  If you are willing to pay for a full-time editor/writer, I can get you somebody by tomorrow.  Also, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?  Do we setup the foundation and look for people or do we look for people and then setup the foundation?  I vote for setting up the foundation first.  If things really don't work out, we merge the already written articles back into the main namespace, if appropriate.  An SQL script can accomplish that in a couple of minutes.  Otherwise they just get deleted.  You can also develop interest by looking at numberous startups of kid wikis.  Contact the owner and just ask them if they want to continue on their own or merge into one group.  All of the usernames on the MediaWiki discussion about this topic is another source.
 
::Also, we can start the project as a namespace on this project, and then if it grows beyond this project, we can branch off into our own project.  Then we just setup a wikifarm where the links to the there wiki can have shortcuts with the same namespace as what we currently have.  This will make it a clean break.  But that would mean that we should select a namespace name that can easily be used in this type of notation.  For example, instead of having a namespace of "student", it should be "stu" or "sz", as somebody else suggested.  This is similar to wikipedia's format for foreign language pages being referenced. 
 
::One other point, it is much easier to setup the foundation for a student project when one has access to the server to take advantage of server scripts and other things.  I can work on things locally, and then I can just export the articles, zip the images, and then import them to somebody who has server and sysop privileges.  I already have 6,000 articles in my personal database.  They are idioms, source text of public domain short stories (Aesop's fables, fairy tales, mythology, folklore, etc.), country articles from wikipedia, US state articles from wikipedia, and a bunch of templates for formatting.  I did not rewrite anything.  Nor have I added images to the database.  I just linked to commons.  But the foundation is there, even if the text needs to be rewritten. [[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 
===Student Citizenidum Quorum issues===
:::Melissa, could you perhaps more specifically address the more specific, core points I made in my post above?  Specifically, lack of quorum, who is going to get it started (not me), and whether it actually has any point if parents aren't going to look at wiki web pages with their kids (but need ppt or similar format). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Sorry it took a bit for me to get back.  I need to think things over myself ... plus other things external to this.
 
::::As for who could lead it, you mentioned full time.  Volunteer and full time don't go hand in hand unless you want a retired person.  This is run by a foundation.  Wikipedia is a foundation and it has a core group of 5 people that are paid full time salary.  If you are looking for a core group that is dedicated full time, would that entail a salary?  Here is a list of people I know off the top of my head are available and will to do the job, provided there is a salary.  Some can work full time while others can work part-time to split a job.  All would jump at the change to work from home on a project like this.
 
::::*Melissa Newman.  Graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology.  I can handle the technical oversight, organization, etc.  I have self studied educational theories and what is expected knowledge for the elementary school years.  Very experienced in low level library and detailed work.  Did software engineering work for the FDA (through other companies) -- software requirements, software design, data mapping, unit testing, and user manuals -- writing low level library code -- writing code to do data conversion/manipulation, data tagging, and data organization.
::::*Kedma Cantor.  Graduate from University of Judaism in California.  She can handle the education side.  She enjoys writing, and she has an education degree.  Plus she has experience managing schools, adult education, family educational activities, etc.
::::*Johanna Cohen.  She is trained to be a editor by her mother.  She is a graduate of Yale in Asian studies.  She is also a certified social worker.
::::*Johanna's mother.  She is an experienced editor, and a retired lawyer.
::::*Jody Green.  Certified social work and certified doula.
::::*Tzippy Shiller.  Graduate from Yale in Nursing.  Currently at home to care for a newborn baby.
::::*Friend of Kedma's that enjoys story writing.
 
::::Plus, if I spread the word to homeschooling boards, I could get 10 more people easily.
 
::::I think that we have two different visions for a this project.  Power point is used to entertain.  I am interested in creating a tool that parents would have confidence in.  This is similair to the concept that Wikipedia is a tool. 
 
::::The project that you are envisioning, ppt presentations, flash, and other entertainment would be best to partner with Webkinz (http://www.webkinz.com)  That is the current "in" website for children 6 - 13.  It is cartoonish, flashy, fun, etc.  It is also safe.  There is chat and email, but it is controlled.  For example, a child can type in "boy" and "friend", but not "boy friend".  This restriction is due to the fact that the makers of the website believe that children under 13 should not be talking about boyfriends through email and chat.  Plus there is restrictions to prevent the giving out of person info (phone, address, etc.).  Plus the entertainment part of the website is made up of rooms.  It would be very easy for them to make up a room called "library" that could contain educational videos on a variety of topics or it could even have simple encyclopedia articles that could be read to the child.  The goal would be fun research as opposed to the more serious research that would come with school reports.  If a child wants to take their webkinz on vacation, they could take them to France as opposed to just some generic island or cruise ship.  Then they could learn about France by looking at the travel brochure.  On a Presidential election day, the webkinz could go and vote.  Once the project goes into the webkinz world, the ideas could be endless.
 
::::But that is a whole project in itself.  The images and sound would be handled by Webkinz the company (if it is not broke, don't fix it), and the content would have to handled by true professional experts, aka Master's in Elementary Education.  It is a valid project, very useful, worth the investment, but not what I am envisioning.
 
::::What I an envisioning is a useful tool for students.  Due to the nature of a wiki, I would envision it more to be a starting point in doing research than an ending point.  If we make the valid assumption that teachers will not accept this site as a valid research site for 10 years, then the obvious question would be what would the value of it until it proves to be reliable?  If I was a student why would I want to go to this site?
 
::::My teacher gives me a report on Ancient Egypt.  What now?  It is a pretty big topic.  What are some ideas for narrowing it down?  I could write a report about the Nile River and its importance.  I could write a report about clothing and its social meaning; religion; pyramids; bible stories; King Tut; housing; slavery; customs and traditions; holidays;  A paragraph about each of these to give a general introduction would accomplish this.  A digest format would work.  Maybe even create a tab called "report ideas".
 
::::Now that I have my topic.  I am going to need some books.  What are some good books to check out from the library?  What dewey decimal number do I look under for books?  Some nice sound files of music from that period would be nice.  What about art work and other images?  What about video?  The "bibliography" or "reference" tab could handle the outside references.  The "gallery", "sound", and "video" tab could handle the non-text issues.
 
::::I envision that parents and teachers to use the website for the video, sound, and images.  If the pages are formatted to print out nicely (layout is thought about instead of text just being typed), teachers could print out the text to have kids read in class.  Parents may go on it with their kids.  They could go to the animals gallery page, see the picture of the bear and click on the sound of the bear.
 
::::I don't really think that flash and ppt are required, because a reference site is a tool to look up information.  It is not a place to go to get entertained.  It does not need to be boring, but it does not require flash and ppt.  Look at how kids encylopedia's are setup.  They are generally 2 - 8 pages with graphics, colorful layout, and one page dedicated to questions.  Some good examples are Kids Discover magazine, Backyard magazine, Scholastic weekly reader, Scholastic Children's Encyclopedia, etc.
 
::::The valid question that I did ask myself was, "With Encarta at the level that it is right now and it is free, do we need anything else?"  The problem is that you are stuck with what the Encarta board provides and nothing more.  A parent or teacher cannot add to it.  For example, both Encarta and Wikipedia have "The Crossing of the Delaware" painting, but Encarta's is smaller than wikipedia's.
 
::::The bottom line is that everything goes back to the original issues.  Wikipedia has a whole bunch of images that are great, but due to their free form format with no controls it is not a place that most parents that understand fully what Wikipedia truly is would want their children to freely browse.
 
::::Media wiki provides a way to access images without having have access to commons.  This accomplished by allowing access to upload.mediawiki.org, but restricting access to commons.wikipedia.org.  The only way to take advantage of this is to create another MediaWiki website that allows images to be access that are desirable, but does not display images that are not desirable.
 
::::One of your own personal goals was to create a family friendly environment.  Kids need a safe place to be able to do research.  The concept of this website is great, but from the articles I have read and the feedback that I have gotten on the forums, your current set of editors are mostly college professors that are comfortable writing at a college level. 
 
::::I have other thoughts and issues that I can talk to you about in a more private format, if you desire.  But I think that this is enough for now.  I am still continuing on things off line for right now.  [[User:Melissa Newman|Melissa Newman]] 16:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 
== Physics editorship for Paul Wormer ==
 
Larry, Paul Wormer wants to become a Physics Editor. In my opinion, he is eminently qualified to be one. I am sure that Daniel Mietchen would agree that Paul is very qualified to be Physics Editor. I would hazard a guess that Paul has worked on more Physics articles in CZ than anyone else.
 
Can you please see that Paul is made an Editor? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:I support the request, as previously stated [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_Wormer#Physics_editorship on Paul's talk page]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::Guys--Paul Wormer is now a Physics Editor!  In the future, however, please make your recommendation by e-mail...in case the answer has to be "no," as it sometimes does. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Restart of proposal system ==
 
Hello. Due to a lack of activity and attention on my part, the Proposal System has ground to a halt and discussion on all proposals has stopped. I decided to clean out the system by marking all proposals as inactive and removing their drivers. This also happened to your proposals [[CZ:Proposals/Self-Correction Policy|"Self-Correction Policy"]] and [[CZ:Proposals/Pilot to allow Citizens to take credit for pages|"Pilot to allow Citizens to take credit for pages"]]. I would be delighted if you decide that you want to take one or both proposals up again. You can do this by updating the proposal record(s), which can now be found at [[CZ:Proposals/Driverless]]. Please do not hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. Yours, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (Proposals Manager)
 
Hi Jitse.  That's fine--does this mean that you have decided to stay on as Proposals Manager? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
It means that I feel responsible for the tasks I took on. To be honest, once you know what needs to be done it's not an onerous task, as long as you keep on top of it, so I won't mind staying on. My mistake was to let it slip for a while, and then the amount of stuff that needs to be done becomes rather overbearing. I think it's fair to say that given my track record, there are better candidates out there. So if anybody wants to take it over from me, then let me know and I'll help with the transition. Otherwise, I guess I'll stay on by default. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
As always, admirably clear.  I say let's keep you on for now, unless someone shows up and offers to take over.  You can also make it clear on your user page or elsewhere, if you want, that you're willing to give up the post to someone motivated to take it over. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Instructions (just testing) ==
 
'''Welcome to the Dispute Resolution System.'''  Please use this page to report problems of all sorts—personal, editorial, or other conflicts you might have with others in the Citizendium community.  It is closely watched by many people, so you should see a rapid response to new problems you submit.
 
'''Types of problems to submit''' include intractable editorial disagreements between authors or editors, appeals of editorial or constabulary decisions, violations of policy, and low-key but unacceptable patterns of abuse on the part of individuals.
 
'''How to submit a problem:'''
* To submit a problem, edit this page and start a new section. Give the section a heading by typing == and ==, between which you write a brief, neutral, dispassionate description of the problem.
* Below the section heading, describe the problem ''concisely'' and, again, neutrally and dispassionately.  Be sure to include links to any pages where the dispute is ongoing or abuse is evident.
* Sign your name by typing four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>).
 
'''What will happen next?'''  Constables, Mediators, and Editorial Review Committee members monitor this page.  At least one of them should post an analysis, refer the matter to the proper group, and tell you what will happen next.  If there is any disagreement about where the matter should go, the Editor-in-Chief will be called in.
 
'''All attempts to debate or resolve problems on this page will be deleted from this page.''' The purpose of this page is only to clarify and refer problems, not to resolve them.
 
----
 
The above is being discussed [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2530.60.html here.] --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
==Query==
Larry, would be possible to start a new Workgroup for Statistics? See here for [[Talk:Statistics#No consultation?|background]]. Don't know if it would be right for now, but it could be something to keep in mind for the future. [[User:Hendra I. Nurdin|Hendra I. Nurdin]] 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Hendra--yes, it would.  The strategy would be simply to make a quick resolution to the Editorial Council.  If no one else does this soon, please remind me and I'll do it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 
:Hi Larry, just wanted to check if anyone has submitted a quick resolution about the above to the EC. Thanks. [[User:Hendra I. Nurdin|Hendra I. Nurdin]] 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 
::Hendra, do really need a new Workgroup for Statistics now that we have just adopted (via a vote of the Editorial Council on Resolution 0014) to allow the formation of subgroups? It would be quite easy now to form a Statistics subgroup ... just contact [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Hendra, I agree with Milt's answer (thanks Milt). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Oh, OK, I was not aware of this subgroup development. Well, if in your opinion subgroup's the best way to do this then I'll just leave it at that (though I guess those who view statistics as a separate discipline will probably not agree to putting it as a subgroup of math). [[User:Hendra I. Nurdin|Hendra I. Nurdin]] 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Hendra, a subgroup may be affiliated with up to 3 main workgroups ... in other words, a Statistic subgroup may be a subgroup of up to 3 main workgroups. It would not be limited to merely being a subgroup of the Mathmatics main workgroup. Read [[:CZ:Subgroups]] in detail. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== Energy (science) ==
 
Larry, Milton and I tried hard to answer your critical questions on the talk page of [[Energy (science)|energy]]. I hope you're satisfied with the result. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 
==Thank you==
 
Hi Larry! Thank you for your warm welcome. I hope to be a useful art editor in Citizendium. Sincerely, ([[User:Marika Herskovic|Marika Herskovic]] 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
 
== Open Letter ==
 
Hi Larry.  I left a note on your WP talk page as well.  I think it would be perfectly acceptable to post an open letter on either your user page or user talk page.  I understand it wouldn't receive the wide audience it might at Jimbo's page in the short run, but perhaps over the long-haul it would gather a wider audience.  Hope I'm not out of line (either here or there) by doing this, but I guess the "In for a penny - In for a pound" saying often finds it's way to my door.  Best. [[User:Ched Davis|Ched Davis]] 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 
Well, that's an idea--but I guess one copy, on [http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ the blog,] is enough as far as I'm concerned.  Although I'm about to post an edit to the copy clarifying that the letter is GFDL and can be posted freely. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== On user page history ==
 
I've used my Constabulary powers to move this entire discussion to a more appropriate place in the Forums at: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2648.0.html [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 
That's groovy with me. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== We now have users Sekhar Talluri and Talluri Sekhar ?? ==
 
Hi, Larry: Just for your info if you were not already aware of it, the same person now has two different user pages. One is [[User:Sekhar Talluri]] and the other is [[User:Talluri Sekhar]]. Could you straighten that out?
[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:It's under control for the moment, Milton, trust me. Speaking as a Constable. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.  I'll fix it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Hi, Larry, the explanation is as per the email I sent you. We just need to make sure that he remains an *editor*! Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::::I'll get it!  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Thanks for getting on top of this & fixing my mistake... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::It wasn't so much a mistake you made, I think, as just trying to play catch-up with getting this guy approved as an editor who had *also* put in his wrong email address. Complications.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::We got you covered :) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 
== A near name clash ==
Larry, spotted this accidentally while surfing the internet:
 
Citizendia http://www.citizendia.org/
 
It's a wikipedia mirror and judging by the date at the bottom of the page, only just started up (17 March 2009). No idea who runs it. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:I searched BetterWhois.com and that came up with the following Romanian registrant
 
<pre>
Domain Name:CITIZENDIA.ORG
Created On:16-Sep-2006 16:49:58 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Apr-2009 00:30:31 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Sep-2010 16:49:58 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant Name:Bogdan Giusca
Registrant Organization:Bogdan Giusca
Registrant Street1:Str. Schitului, nr.11 Bl.11B
Registrant Street2:Ap 15 Et.2
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Bucuresti
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:032042
Registrant Country:RO
Registrant Phone:+40.213467348
Registrant Email:bogdan2005@yahoo.co.uk
Admin ID:GODA-259443627
Admin Name:Bogdan Giusca
Admin Organization:Bogdan Giusca
Admin Street1:Str. Schitului, nr.11 Bl.11B
Admin Street2:Ap 15 Et.2
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Bucuresti
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:032042
Admin Country:RO
Admin Phone:+40.213467348
</pre>
 
:According to the same source Citizendium.org was created On:12-Sep-2006 00:21:42 UTC (4 days earlier).
 
:--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::Apparently he is an admin on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bogdangiusca , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdangiusca & http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdan_Giusca .[[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Very interesting.
 
:::But no, according to the record above, it was created September 16, one day after my original announcement.  There was no one using anything remotely like Citizendium--it got no hits at all from Google--and I'm pretty sure I would have checked "Citizendia," because I'm very thorough about that sort of thing when picking names.  [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/citizendia.org Nobody knows about them]...anyway, I am inclined to send them a mail telling them to shut down, because of the obvious confusability of names and direct competitive and misleading nature of site. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::::I guess Bogdan Giusca is making money out of the site (he has ads) and won't easily give in.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::People deliberately use near miss sites like wikipedai for advertising. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
== Moved the following from [[Talk:Larry Sanger]] ==
 
== Specialized editor ==
Larry, I see some articles that are ready for approval.  Could I be made specialist editor for the following categories based on my indicated experience below?
 
#Boxing: 2-time state amateur champion and long-time fan
#Bowling: 1-time city league champion and long-time bowler
#Soccer: 10+ years playing and paid referee of youth soccer leagues for several years
#Sailing: Have sailed on boats ranging from 16' cats to 44' yachts (island living is sooo tough!)
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 
Hi David, sorry for the long delay in replying to this, but...well...the question is whether you can articulate knowledge of the subject reliably.  Engaging in a sport doesn't make you an expert.  Have you written or done anything else that establishes an expertise?  Refereeing is a definite credential, more than being a champion (no offense, I'm sure you can kick my ass and everybody's on CZ!).  For instance I've taught Irish fiddle for a living, am on first-name basis with some famous fiddlers, and have played for 14 years...but I wouldn't call myself an expert by any means.  And I think I know how to recognize the real experts.  Maybe you could follow up by e-mail? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:If I make stick my own two cents in -- with all due respect to David and his credentials, I really don't think that they are enough to enable him to be called an Editor. An important part of the CZ ethos, and public cachet, is that Approved articles are approved by credentialed experts. And that the development of articles is guided by experts. To take extreme examples, would, could, should, [[Mickey Mantle]] and [[Pancho Gonzales]], two of the greatest players ever in their respective sports, be given editorships here because of their other-worldly physical skills? I think that I'd prefer to have [[Red Smith]] and [[Bud Collins]], say, be given editorships. I myself used to play tennis on a pretty high level, just below that of the very best, and I've followed it fairly closely over the years. And I've written a number of fictional works that have been published by *real* publishers, and paid for, as well as having an undergraduate degree in English from a prestigious university, but if I were offered the opportunity to be made a Sports or Literature editor, I would instantly turn it down.  I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in either field, and I'm *very* far from being qualified. In sum, I think it best that, regarding Editorships, we stick with our existing policy.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 
==Eamil address? ==
Larry, I emailed bugs the instant the cite went down, but I don't think anyone saw it for hours.  Could you remind me what your email address is so next time I can send an email directly to you at the same time?
Of course, send it privately to my email address. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 
It's sanger@citizendium.org -- thanks -- sending the notice to both places is the best way.
 
I'm very sorry we haven't gotten on top of it, but I'm waiting on one of our tech guys at this point... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::Does email to bugs or sanger@citizendium.org get through when the system is down? I was thinking more of your gmail or yahoo account. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Mail to me & bugs almost always gets through because it's on a different server.  The forums and blog usually stay up too.  I hardly ever check blarneypilgrim@yahoo.com but I'm more inclined to if sanger@citizendium.org is inaccessible. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 
==Hawaiian alphabet==
Hi Larry, I'm a really new author (got to get past the WP habit of saying "editor"), and have written two articles, [[Gobioides broussonnetii]], and [[Hawaiian alphabet]]. The first one is merely a copy of the version I wrote on wikipedia, but the second one is new, fresh, and is up to Citizendiums standards. Thus, I feel it is ready to be approved. Unfortunately, there are four editors tottal, spanning two workgroups, that would be considered an "expert" in the subject. Unfotunately, none of them seem to be around. Could you take a look at [[Hawaiian alphabet]] and either A)make the decision yourself, or B)forward my request to an active editor with experience in the field?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 
:Drew, the job of helping to get articles approved, if warranted, is handled by our Approvals Manager who is Joe Quick. I strongly suggest that you contact him, '''not''' on his user page but at [[User talk:Approvals Manager]]. Getting an article approved can often require quite a while, so be prepared to be patient. Joe will do his best to help you. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 
::Milton answered correctly.  I was travelling...more on Drew's user talk page. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Just wondering, where were you traveling?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 
== New subpage type to accomodate content to be transcluded onto Welcome page as AOTW ==
 
Hi Larry,
please take a look at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21681.html#msg21681 this message] and comment whether you'd agree to put this stuff into a dedicated subpage, primarily for articles being approved or nominated for approval, and for those nominated for display on the Welcome page. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:There is also a need for Proof subpages in mathematics, discussed at several places in the forums recently (e.g. [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2747.msg22305.html#msg22305 here]). Please comment on how to proceed. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 
:: ... and [[CZ talk:How to add a new subpage type|here]] as well [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 
== Relicensing GFDL content ==
 
Hi Larry,
please take a look at these [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2628.msg21150.html#msg21150 two] [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2747.msg21963.html#msg21963 messages] on the relicensing of content originally imported from GFDL-licensed sources, and comment. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 
== Process for justifying, testing and installing extensions on Citizendium ==
 
I raised a question on the technical issues forum that one of the respondents suggested you may be more qualified to answer. Specifically, I asked [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2788.0.html how it is decided to add an extension to Citizendium]? The motivation for this question is that the availability of more powerful tools on Citizendium could attract contributors who in their absence might be inclined to work on Wikipedia or other information warehouse stores [pun intended :-D]. In my original post I gave an example of a set of tools that might provide such benefit. Some background might be useful. I originally contemplated writing a book and contributing it to Wikibooks. For various reasons that seems less likely now. However, during the process of scoping out the work, it became apparent that the tools for adding content metadata in mulit-wiki-page works (e.g., table of contents numbers in wiki section and page titles, references, footnotes and citation annotations, indexes) in Mediawiki based wikis are lacking. The Cite extension presumes references and citations exist on the same page. Table of contents numbering cannot be transcluded into section or page titles. There is no support for automatically building indexes, either on the same page or across multiple pages. Providing better tools such as these might attract contributors to Citizendium. [I think I can make a case that multi-wiki-page article support is relevant to Citizendium]
 
However, this specific example is unimportant (other than as evidence that the existence of such tools might be a differentiator for Citizendium). I am actually interested in the more general question of what decision processes exist, if any, to justify, test and install extensions on Citizendium. Off the top of my head, at least the following criteria would be important. 1) Are there good justifications for adding the extension (I have always found it curious that the Hiero extension is installed on most Mediawiki based wikis)? 2) Is the extension properly tested so its installation is unlikely to introduce either stability or performance problems on the site? 3) Is the extension compatible with the version of Mediawiki used by Citizendium? These are examples of criteria. I am interested on your take on these and whether you believe others are as or more important.
 
Finally, I should mention that I have, over the last couple of weeks, been corresponding with the Mediawiki developers (i.e., using wikitech-1) on the topic of regression testing. In my view the Mediawiki software has significant QA issues and there is a good possibility that if this is not corrected, one day it will fall over and have difficulty standing up again. I notice that Citizendium runs on 1.13.2 (modified). So, one consideration in this issue is the stability of the base code and how this affects the desirability of adding new extensions. Any thoughts, insights or other comments? [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 
== "because of a peculiarity in the MediaWiki system" ==
 
I just noticed this in the review form. There should be a $wgAccountRequestMinWords variable to change or remove the requirement. [[User:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]] 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:Aaron, we just had a new registrant that said he had tried to register but never heard from us.  He applied three more times before he realized that he had not used 50 words in the bio.  We finally did get his last application.  Could the problem above be why we never got it?  If so, that might be a very big deal because we definitely have not had the number of apps that we should.  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
::I don't understand what either of you are saying.  Are you saying that we should rewrite the requirements so that we do NOT require 50 words AND redo the system so that applications are not rejected if they don't have 50 words?  Or are you saying that we should keep the requirement BUT redo the system so that the application is sent anyway, even if there aren't 50 words?  Or are you saying that there is NO notice at the top of the page of a failed application saying that the 50 word are needed?  I logged out yesterday, then tried to send in a test application with only 10 words written: I got a notice (not a large one, but at least it was there) at the top of the application page saying that 50 words were needed. IF I COULD FIND THE DAMN editing page for THIS part, I would make that notice much BIGGER.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Normally the notice is bigger, but the site CSS is making it small. The CSS class 'errorbox' can control this. At any rate, that UI message above is worded as if it the 50 word requirement is a weird obstacle that has to be worked around. My point was that if it is problematic, then it can simply be changed. [[User:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]] 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Well, there's no problem if an applicant actually writes 50 words and then clicks the submit button.  If he *doesn't* write 50 words, and clicks the submit button, the same application page remains in front of him, now with a little notice on top of the page that he has to write 50 words.  A professor in Holland finally got accepted last week after emailing the Constabulary that he had been trying in vain for two months to join.  He had never paid any attention to the 50-word requirement.  It was a result of that that I added the CAPS stuff about the 50 words.  I'd ALSO like to have that notice at the top of the failure page in LARGER letters.... But I can't find the page in order to edit it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::So then the "peculiarity" is not that it isn't sent but that the message is too small. Changing [[MediaWiki:common.css]] is the way to may it bigger. [[User:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]] 21:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I've [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=100626264&oldid=100524248 imported] future MW CSS (in shared.css) for these items. CZ may want different colors or what not. [[User:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]] 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
== The danger of relying uncritically on things ==
 
Hello.  I just read Kathryn Schulz's interview of you.  You said:
: I think it's pretty dangerous to rely in an uncritical way on Wikipedia.
:
I've been telling students for some time that it's pretty dangerous to rely uncritically on correctly functioning calculators.  (And that's without even mentioning the habit of so many of them of using calculators as anesthetics.)  But I think properly functioning calculators are good things.  So if you meant your comment as anything more than the weakest of criticisms that would also apply to calculators, you should beef it up.
:
(This may be related to the issue of relying uncritically on spell checkers.  They won't tell you that "intercession" and "intersession" are two different things.  Hence a school's academic calendar says "Intercession: December 20th&ndash;January 4th".) [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
: PS: If you like Google Maps, you'll probably love Google Earth. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 
It mussed bee awl rite. The spell chequer tolled mi sew. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 
== Congratulations Larry! ==
 
You did it, way to go! Thanks for everything!! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:Yes, thanks for getting the project started, Larry! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::You're welcome and thanks for sticking with it and making it happen! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Congratulations on starting and keeping Citizendium afloat.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 
==You've been Nominated!==
Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium.  They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see.  To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[Archive:Citizendium Ballot for the Management Council|Nomination page].  Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC).  Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:
 
===Article 54===
 
*In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one).  This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
*Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions. 
*Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
*Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date  of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter. 
*Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions.  Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
*All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
*In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.
 
If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name. 
 
Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.
 
[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
== [[Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church]] ==
 
Just to let you know I've invited the Ombudsman. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 
== A sight for sore eyes ==
 
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ%3ACitizendium_Ballot_for_the_Management_Council&action=historysubmit&diff=100771429&oldid=100771425 And not a moment too soon. ;-)] [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:50, 13 May 2011 (CDT)
 
Thanks, Matt! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:28, 13 May 2011 (CDT)
 
== WP Hierarchy ==
 
Larry: I have tried to outline the way WP is organized at [[Wikipedia#Administration]], but the structure is fairly complicated. I wonder if you might take a look at this discussion and determine whether I have the whole story here.
 
Many thanks, [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 
Hi John, I replied on the talk page. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 
== Funding ==
 
Two items could be added to the "WE NEED YOUR HELP!" box.  Something such as "Current funds for servers will be exhausted 2013-13-13."  Also "Donations this month total $xxx.xx; the monthly requirement is $yyy.yy."  And of course, the numbers need updating daily at least.  BTW, I tried to register for a forum but didn't receive approval.  Might have chosen the wrong forum. Regards, ... [[User:Peter Lyall Easthope|Peter Lyall Easthope]] 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
:I agree that we need updates much more frequently, and "daily at least" seems to be a good thing to strive for (as long as there have been changes during that day). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::Peter, has anyone approved your request to join the forums yet?
::If you want daily updates, you really need someone other than me to be treasurer!  Monthly is the best I'll be able to handle.  I'll try to update the page soon. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is here.  Approval for the forum is no longer needed, thanks.  Ideally the financial status would be updated by software.  Not sure how.  Can any bank account be read by software? Regards, ... [[User:Peter Lyall Easthope|Peter Lyall Easthope]] 06:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Larry, as far as I can see from [[CZ:Financial report]], we have funds remaining to keep the servers running on the order of one month. Is this correct? --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
::Daniel, nope--we have over $2,000, as I have just stated at [[CZ:Financial report]].  I have paid for several months out of my own pocket and am not asking to be reimbursed.  There were also several other, very generous donations.  No funds that were deposited to the Paypal account I set up for CZ were transferred to my own bank accounts--all of those funds are all still there.  I will be transferring them soon, however, to Hayford's new CZ Paypal account. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Larry. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 06:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 
Ok, now we have faced up to reality about the role of the financial representative, how about the role of Management Council member next. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 07:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:You mean I haven't been participating, perhaps, David?  I can't quite tell what you mean.  But if that's what you mean, I am of course perfectly willing to "face up to reality" regarding my non-participation.  I would be happy to step aside.  Frankly, between my new projects and family, I don't have time for CZ.  I volunteered for the Management Council only because I had the impression that warm bodies were lacking. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 
::I see... I guess you didn't notice that during the election you were not unopposed, and in fact your nearest opponent received only two votes less than you? Anyway, now that you mention it I notice you haven't voted on any MC matter for three and a half months or so, and if you don't have time for CZ like you say I guess we can assume you won't be voting on any more matters. Nevertheless according to CZ rules it is up to you whether you wish to continue to occupy the position in place of someone who may have the time. My gut instinct would be to give that someone the chance. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 15:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


: As long as you don't mind it when others move your bibliographies to bibliography subpages, and don't ask others not to move them, that's fine with me.  It would be easier, however, if you just started the bibliographies on the subpages--or, of course, you could [[CZ:proposals|propose]] to make your practice standard practice...since you are defending your behavior, it looks like you want to do that (i.e., change our standard practices).  :-)  Anyway, I'd rather not try to ''force'' people to change their behavior if they're doing a lot of good work, even if their behavior is against our rules, unless they really make a nuisance of themselves. :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:08, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
:::Nah, Larry's doing just fine.  I doubt seriously that most would have re-donated had he not rejoined the effort. Larry's value is just being who he is. Not many have that distinction.  You'll get a chance to run next time, David. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


::I agree with Denis. When we're drafting an article it's much easier to have the bibliog at the botton so we can keep track of what is covered. When the article is mostly done then move to its separate page.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:24, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
::::I disagree with David Finn about you resigning, Larry. The MC is working just fine (we have passed 4 motions this month) and there is no reason for you to resign right now. If you feel you do not have the time to participate, you can request a temporary leave of absence and then resign after March. That will avoid triggering a special election, which I am sure most of us do not want. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


:: I was going to suggest the 'Further Reading' thing (i.e. selecting a few of the best things which one would suggest for a novice looking to take their next steps ina  field, and sticking that at the bottom of the article) as a policy change, but it's mired in my ToDo list somewhere... :-) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 13:34, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
:::::I wonder how honourary MC positions would be viewed by the Charter or the Citizens who voted. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


:::Well, the articles are written for readers, and if they see bibliographies in two different places, they'll be confused.  So I have a suggestion: open another window!  :-) 
::::::All I can say is that it reflects well on the project that you care enough to make an issue of it, David.  If people actually care about being in control of it, it's still reasonably robust.  Well, I ''think'' that's a valid inference. :-)  --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not opposed to "Further Reading" and making that ''distinct'' from the bibliography; I'm not even opposed to having that as part of the main article.  But actually, it would be best to keep "further reading" fairly short and include extensive annotations, if its function really is indicated by the description "further reading" (these are a few pointers we'd give to someone who we pretend ''really intends to read more about the topic now''), and is distinct in function from that of bibliography.  It would serve the purpose of a brief, beginner's introduction to the literature on the topic.  If it were annotated and in prose form, then there is no inconsistency with the idea that other kinds of information can be found on subpages: this is prose general information about the topic, i.e., it's a prose description of the best sources to learn more about the topic.  ''And,'' that would be a great thing to make a proposal out of, you know... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:57, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


:::: Its too small an issue to get the EC council involved in; Is there a specific article policy that doesn't allow a further reading section? [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
:::::::Some of us certainly do care, Larry. Actually, you have already identified one of the main problems, that we have far too small a community to support such a rigidly formal system of governance.
:::::::Larry, I am sure you are aware of how many people contribute to this site. It works out that there are far less contributors than elected officials.
:::::::I'll say that again - we have more elected officials than we have contributors. More officials than we have warm bodies.


::::: Denis, about whether the Editorial Council needs to be involved, you are guessing; and you don't need to guess about how a proposal is decided on if you use [[CZ:Proposals]].  Nope, there is no policy that doesn't allow such a section.  If you want to add such a section, do so. However, I don't believe anyone has been doing so.  And, for the sake of uniformity and "least surprise," it would be good to make such a good idea "official policy." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:43, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
:::::::Dan is saying that if you don't have the time to do MC business then you can take a leave of absence right up to the next elections, but I hope you will agree that such a thing would be a gross manipulation of the Charter. The people who voted (and there were more voters than elected officials, you got over 30 votes as did your nearest opponent) weren't voting just to keep the system in place at all costs, they were voting for individuals to be on the MC and are entitled to get what they voted for, don't you think?


:::: Larry, what you propose is pretty much what I'd like to see. You can see one that's starting down that road at [[Michael Faraday/Draft#Further reading]], although some entries aren't deeply annotated yet (I don't have all these works). Can it be an annotated list, as there, or do you really prefer prose? I would think prose really would look ugly if we include things like publisher, ISBN's, etc.
:::::::Dans idea seems to be to protect the idea of the MC at all costs, even if it means him sitting up there all on his own telling us all what to do. The danger of course with leaving the MC solely in the hands of one individual is that MC business ceases to be about and for the community and more about what that individual wants. That is why we need either MC participation or reverting to a looser more informal style of management, like you suggested on the forum.
:::: I would like to make it formal policy because I'd like to see ''all'' (well, as near as practical) our articles eventually include a really nice Further Reading section like that. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:25, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


:::::: I stand corrected, then, about whether anyone has added "Further reading" sections yet!  But in this case, I agree--this "Further reading" is not really prose, but just looks like an annotated bibliography, and we have an already-established place for those ([[CZ:Bibliography]] subpages :-) ).
:::::::I appreciate that you may not have the time for this function, Larry. Dan says that there is no standard set for active MC participation, but you are as aware as the rest of us that when we voted we were expecting a certain level of participation regardless. For that reason I think it entirely appropriate to consider resignation as there is always a chance that someone who does have the time will step in. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


:::::: Let me be clear.  What I am trying to prevent from happening is strong-willed editors and authors (you know who you are) from just going off on their own duplicating effort, or do things that, when our work is taken all together, are essentially incoherent.  I am largely in favor of people doing what they want, when they want, and ''trying'' new approaches to formatting.  But at some point, for the sake of ''usability,'' we should make an effort to articulate a uniform policy.
Larry's MC position is not ''honorary''.  He has served as the CZ treasurer for the past 7 months when no one else was willing to do so. He has participated in MC discussions, if infrequently. There is no standard set in the charter for what constitutes active participation. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


:::::: Basically, as I see it, in the long run, people (both users and contributors) will understand very well what the difference is between an article and what belongs on subpages, but in order for that to happen, ''we'' must get clearer on the distinction. Here is how I make the distinction in my own mind: the stuff that goes on an article page is ''a general prose introduction to the topic,'' of a general encyclopedic sort, together with any supporting notes.  The stuff that goes on subpages is all other ''types'' of information.  I assume that some reasonably clear distinction ''can'' be drawn between prose encyclopedic introductions, on the one hand, and information that is in the form of lists, tables, images, charts, diagrams, other media, raw data, and so forth.
:Dan, when asked on the forum about our finances you said that "You need to contact the treasurer, not the MC". It seems that one day the treasurer is not an MC function, and the next it magically is, the only difference being which way you want to portray things. Is that a correct observation? And by the way, I said ''would be viewed'' - future tense, no? If you as MC chair are offering out leaves of absence as a way of perpetuating a system that obviously isn't working then you are creating honourary MC memberships, and that seems a clear manipulation of the Charter. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


:::::: Given this general distinction, which I ''hope'' I am not alone in making, it follows that anything that takes the form of a mere list of books really belongs on the Bibliography page. A prose introduction to the literature, as one sometimes finds at the end of chapters of some textbooks, could be reasonably construed as part of "a general prose introduction to the topic."  Merely annotated bibliographic entries are exactly what we want completed, well-developed bibliographies to contain, after all.  (I see that Chris is saying something like this below.)
::The person who is appointed treasurer need not be a member of the MC and is not, by virtue of that appointment, an MC member. The treasurer has the responsibility of paying the bills and providing a monthly financial report. Larry took on that role because we could find no one else to do it. In a sense he was acting pro tempore until the MC could find someone to do the job. Consequently, his work as the treasurer is legitimately viewed as MC work.


:::::: ''If'' we think that "Further reading" sections are better cast as merely annotated bibliographies, then there is no reason that they cannot be standard first sections in bibliographies.  We simply begin all our bibliographies with sections titled "Further Reading" or perhaps "Essential Literature" or something like that. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:43, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
::The MC chair does not offer leaves of absence. Any MC member has the option of asking for a leave of absence of up to 120 days. To view this as a manipulation of the charter only serves to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of its content. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


::::: I see no reason why bibliographies cannot be like that too. After all, if editors are taking time to select various sources, rather than the bibliography being a comprehensive list, I think it would be useful to see some reasoning that led to the editorial decision.  The best review articles in biology even bullet the articles they cite that have a high impact on the field, along with a brief explanation for the bullet status.  While I like the further reading to compliment to the potentially larger bibliography we must be careful that they do not become overlong. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:34, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
Let me do an end run around this: I'm going to start participating, at least a little more, in the MC. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


:::::: Oh, I want to see more info in Bibliographies too! Organized into article/books/original sources, annotations on each entry, yadda-yadda! (That was to be in the proposal too.) But I take your point about 'not too long' - is a fixed limit on the number of entries (say, a half-dozen) the way to go; or what kind of guideline can we give? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:48, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
Now what was the topic in this section?  Umm ... oh yes, funding! The financial report with monthly updates is good.  My request for daily updates is retracted. Still I wonder about putting the last three or so months in a location which a casual reader won't miss.  Nothing like perilously low funds to motivate a donation. Regards, ... [[User:Peter Lyall Easthope|Peter Lyall Easthope]] 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::A case by case, but common sense approach might be the best route to go here. But I think three to six is a reasonable limit. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:53, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
::::::::I agree with some such limit too. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:43, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


== Eduzendium: General Microbiology ==
Actually, Peter, I'm no longer the treasurer... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The [[CZ:Biol 201: General Microbiology]] experiment seems to have been a success. Most of the students have completed excellent posts on microbes. I was pleasantly surprised with the participation. All pages are now open to edits from the broader community (and some pages need cleanup). I'll probably try this again next Spring when Microbiology 201 resumes. --[[User:John J. Dennehy|John J. Dennehy]] 11:14, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


This is excellent!  I'm so glad!  You have made my day!
== Nominations for Management and Editorial Councils ==


You would be doing us a great service by posting something (even as short as what you have above) on Citizendium-L and Citizendium-Editors.  A little testimonial on [[CZ:Eduzendium]] or another (new? [[CZ:Eduzendium Testimonials]]?) page would also be a great service. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:22, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
You have been nominated for seats on both the [[CZ:Management Council|Management]] and [[CZ:Editorial Council|Editorial]] Councils in the [[CZ:Election July-August 2013|July-August Special Election]]. The nominator was myself. To accept or decline these nominations, please visit the Nominations page [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Nominations#Management Council candidates and links to their Statements|here]] (for the Management Council seat) and [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Nominations#Editorial Council Author candidates and links to their Statements|here]] (for the Editorial Council Author seat) by midnight UTC on July 27th. You may write an election statement for each if you wish (linked from the Nominations page).


::[[Eduzendium Testimonials]]--[[User:John J. Dennehy|John J. Dennehy]] 16:29, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
The Management Council seat runs until June 30th, 2014 or June 30th, 2015 (the successful candidate with the fewest votes receiving the shorter term) and the Editorial Council seat expires on December 31st, 2013. In the event that [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/1|Referendum 1]] is passed, all seats will expire on June 30th, 2014. Thanks! [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 17:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:52, 8 March 2024

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11


Resolution 12

I'd like to cosponsor this along with David Volk, if that's okay. --Robert W King 18:32, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

This is always OK with me. --Larry Sanger 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Way to go

...with the Write-a-Thon blitz, thanks!

Wonder if we can have a stub-a-thon/stubmania day sometime?

Aleta Curry 20:59, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

It's not a bad idea... --Larry Sanger 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Happy birthday to you, dear Larry

I started Maxwell equations earlier than I intended, in honor of your fortieth birthday. Happy birthday! --Paul Wormer 11:18, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, Paul! But...OK, what are the equations themselves? They aren't on the page!  :-) --Larry Sanger 15:56, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
Your wish is my command, see here.--Paul Wormer 04:12, 16 July 2008 (CDT)
Happy SIPRNET, point of presence (hit "minor" by accident), and a stubby Saudi Arabia. The day is still middle-aged. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:57, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

I started Netiquette and filled up at least one entry in each of the subpages, in honor of your birthday! Supten Sarbadhikari 22:30, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, Howard and Supten! --Larry Sanger 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Started a Hermeneutics stub as a present for you, Larry. Happy birthday! --Tom Morris 07:32, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Larry, a new chemical that you probably have never heard before, Thiophosphoramidite, for your birthday. Enjoy, but don't smell it, cause it ain't roses, believe me! David E. Volk 10:02, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

And I open a bottle to drink to your next forty years, cheers! --Paul Wormer 10:24, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

It's still pretty stubby, but I don't think I'm going to get through the requisite reading for an expansion before your birthday is over: Miguel Ángel Asturias. ¡Felicidades! --Joe Quick 10:27, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Congrats, youngster. Here is my birthday article for you: Ama Ata Aidoo. --- Regina Bouillon 19:11, 16 July 2008

40 yrs is very young. Is a new article still okay - 1 day late ? (Chunbum Park 13:08, 16 July 2008 (CDT))
here's a new article: happy birthday ! Yi Sunshin. (Chunbum Park 13:30, 16 July 2008 (CDT))

For a young guy like you, I made a stub. Just remember, next year, you turn 0x29. Anthony Argyriou 13:43, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Unwrap Marcello Malpighi, kid, accessories to follow. --Anthony.Sebastian 19:23, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Happy Birthday Larry! I didn't realize you were only 11 years older than me; that is truly young! --Robert W King 23:52, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Happy Birthday Larry! I began the ENSTA article yesterday as a little gift :) (for you and Citizendium !) ! sebastien.worms 06:41, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks so much to everyone! --Larry Sanger 12:27, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

A bit late from me (of course). And an apology. I did write you an article, but found when I tried to insert it that the topic had been blocked for Eduzendium, so I'll keep that back. So the best I could do was take Thomas Kuhn up a notch. Hope you'll accept that for now and forgive me. Gareth Leng 16:29, 27 July 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for your work on philosophy of science topics, Gareth! --Larry Sanger 20:44, 27 July 2008 (CDT)
Georges Cuvier now live (at 40 he showed that dinosaurs could fly; so some of us are hoping you'll do as much for us).Gareth Leng 14:56, 28 July 2008 (CDT)

2009:
When I just nominated an article for approval, the date rang a bell, and so I thought there might be some use for orchid here, Larry. --Daniel Mietchen 07:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you'll have (or was it yesterday?) a pleasant birthday with your family and friends. Happy birthday!--Paul Wormer 07:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Dr. Sanger. Meg Ireland 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean I haven't archived this page in over a year? Amazing!

Thank you all!

I just arrived back from Russia and was out of commission for several days. In fact, with jetlag, I might be out of commission for a few more, but I do intend to put in some much-needed CZ time in the near future. Sorry for being AWOL. --Larry Sanger 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2010?

2011 A bit belated, but my best wishes nonetheless. --Daniel Mietchen 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel! --Larry Sanger 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

good points

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1791.0/topicseen.html I would investigate and see what else this user suggests. Tom Kelly 16:39, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Replied on the forums. --Larry Sanger 23:48, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


Everything?

Larry,

Somewhere today you asked about the Public/Related Articles: " Isn't "everything" a little too broad as a parent topic? And will we have an article titled "everything"? Interesting question...)" I saw your comment on the "Recent Changes" list for Sociology, but I'll be darned if I can find an original memo to reply to, so I'm posting here in the expectation you will see it.

I did that deliberately in part as a belated birthday present for you! And it got much the reaction I was expecting: interest. And yes, it seems to me a case can be made for at least a brief article by that title. I've long been intrigued by one of the management ontology projects in Toronto a few years ago (TOVE) that began an elaborate branching diagram with the term "Thing" and this is in much the same spirit. It's hard to get more parent than that!

One thing is clear and that is that Society most definitely is not a Parent topic of Public/Private and I will be removing it shortly. That usage throws neutrality right out the window and walks screaming and flailing right into the middle of some of the oldest and longest running theoretical issues in this area. The State/Society issue is a major part of it, but with respect to publics there are other issues as well. So, Society is definitely not a suitable parent for public.

As I thought about it, most dichotomies of public and private are, indeed, offered as universals to the extent that they do indeed seek to dichotomize everything. (Hence, the provocation.) What we really need here, I think, is some help from an epistemologist; No wait, we have one! And he's interested.

In short, I posted Everything in a rather lighthearted vein, and I would welcome any suggestions for alternatives, but there are some really meaty issues involved here, more than a few of which go right to the heart of your interests in this project. E.g. public domain

P.S.: I think both Thing and Everything are probably most appropriate topics for the philosophy workgroup. Suggestions for how we get them involved?

Roger Lohmann 20:47, 24 July 2008 (CDT)

Hi Roger, let me reply on Talk:Public so others can benefit. --Larry Sanger 09:35, 25 July 2008 (CDT)

EC Resolution

Will you please make a Resolution out of CZ:Proposals/Pilot_to_allow_Citizens_to_take_credit_for_pages and place it to the EC? Supten Sarbadhikari 23:16, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

Well, I'm not sure I'm so excited about it anymore. I'll have a look again though. --Larry Sanger 17:16, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

biology week

so when should the announcements and press releases go out? Surely, we should have advertisements of some sort out 1 month prior to the actual week itself. august 22 is rapidly approaching Tom Kelly 10:17, 13 August 2008 (CDT)

I totally agree, Tom. It's something I've been intending to get started on myself, and I was hoping our new hire would also be working on it...we'll get moving soon, one way or another. --Larry Sanger 22:14, 14 August 2008 (CDT)

Ronnie Drew

Just after noticing you mention that you like traditional Irish music. Would you be familiar with other Irish folk artists? I'm just curious because I'm thinking of writing articles for Phil Coulter and Tommy Sands. Denis Cavanagh 10:45, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

Well, I'm not really into "Irish folk" but Irish traditional. I don't know much about Coulter or Sands...but I did know about Ronnie Drew! --Larry Sanger 21:31, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

Subpages and code words

Moved section to this talk page section. --Larry Sanger 11:02, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

Jimbo Wales

... is now labeling challenges of his claims as sole founder of Wikipedia as trolling. See this.

While you're at it, would you mind modifying the "+" tab that adds a new section to "New section" or something similar?

Cheers, Thomas H. Larsen 19:27, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Who cares?  :-) --Larry Sanger 12:39, 6 September 2008 (CDT)

True! Thomas H. Larsen 19:06, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
The folks who maintain the Wikipedia article on you have managed to keep the opening sentence reading Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born 16 July 1968[1]) is an American philosopher, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the creator of encyclopedia Citizendium.[2][3][4] despite attempts by Jimbo fanboys to mess with it. It's actually an example of how Wikipedia works, when it works - the folks defending that position have overwhelmed the other side with references, and if an uninvolved party gets called in to look at the dispute, he sees the references, and keeps the article saying that you co-founded Wikipedia. Anthony Argyriou 12:27, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
But think of the man hours wasted. That could also be cited as an example of why it does not work. Who has the time for such fights? Chris Day 12:53, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
Man centuries, you mean. But it *does* work, in the way that a Rube Goldberg contraption works, at least on paper.... Hayford Peirce 13:01, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
Well, there are some excellent Wikipedians out there - in fact, I've had the opportunity to work alongside them, and a truly good, honest, kind, and productive Wikipedian is a blessing to the Wikipedia project. Unfortunately, the project is also spoiled by "editors" who are arrogant and fancy themselves as know-alls. Thomas H. Larsen 04:10, 11 September 2008 (CDT)
My point is not addressing the many users that genuinely want to write content. That part works very well. The problem is the random noise from the drive by vandals, some who are very good at making subtle changes. That is where the time is lost. Chris Day 09:13, 11 September 2008 (CDT)
What are Man hours and Man centuries? Could someone explain the terminology? When I was in Wikipedia, I did defend Dr. Larry's claim to have co-founded Wikipedia. (Chunbum Park 07:17, 12 September 2008 (CDT))
Thanks, Chunbum. A man-hour (or person-hour) is one hour of work performed by anyone...similarly with man-days, man-years, etc. --Larry Sanger 08:30, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

(unindent) I started at Wikipedia around late 2001, and there was no question then that Larry and Jimbo were co-founders. I've updated Conservapedia's LS article accordingly. Hey, Larry, was that you who signed in the other day? --Ed Poor 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was--my first and probably only edit there.  :-) --Larry Sanger 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sending off Endorsement Letter for Biology Week

Hi Larry, please see User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian#Endorsement_Letter and let us know whether it would be possible to send these mails from a citizendium account, preferably something like Biology_Week (at) Citizendium.org . Besides, I wonder whether there will be a press release on Biology Week and whether anyone is working on it. I think our PLoS text may provide a good basis for that. Thanks, Daniel Mietchen 03:34, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Excellent!

Do you want me to set up that e-mail address then, Daniel? I will if you want me to.

As to the press release, the answer is that we want one but it doesn't exist yet. Basically, there's no need to ask me; I set up the Biology Week pages so anybody could dive in and get to work organizing it! --Larry Sanger 06:58, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Actually I didn't add the header but I can fix it. It does not have to be at the top of every page. It could be restricted to the talk pages. Chris Day 14:31, 14 September 2008 (CDT)
That would be a reasonable solution (talk pages only). I do like having it on every page, though. --Larry Sanger 12:25, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
Is there any way I could horn in on the Citizendium email address thing in order to send out announcements to bloggers? Thanks, Brian P. Long 22:51, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
It's a good idea, but I need to access the login info at my computer at home (I'm on the road). E-mail me on Friday for it or simply start sending it out...you can quite legitimately say in the e-mail that you are a representative of CZ's Biology Workgroup. --Larry Sanger 23:15, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

Why don't we do both. I'll start sending out emails, and then we can send the same folks reminder emails from an official address once the week starts. Thanks, Brian P. Long 00:52, 18 September 2008 (CDT)

Right...remind me if I don't set it up soon. --Larry Sanger 19:28, 18 September 2008 (CDT)
First off, this is me reminding you again, Larry. Let me know when the CZ email address is online. Secondly, I was wondering if we or 43PR were going to be sending out any announcements by fax. I've been working on compiling a list of email addresses for prominent biology departments, and most are accessible online, but there are a few that only have fax numbers. Let me know either way. Thanks, Brian P. Long 09:23, 19 September 2008 (CDT)

Power outage

All--our power here in central Ohio took a massive hit and my Internet connection may be intermittent...

Also, I've got to get ready for a talk in L.A. in a few days. --Larry Sanger 12:26, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

Can't you divert some of that E-I-C power to batteries?
Semi-seriously, I talk a bit about the Ohio Valley Blackout at System Control And Data Network. Know anyone who would like to write a case study on the specific incident?Howard C. Berkowitz 12:56, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

I happen to know someone who could write the entry, but I don't know if he would like to! --Larry Sanger 13:55, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

Biology Week press release

As it's getting rather urgent, I put up a page to draft a press release for Biology Week. Some quotes from you, and others, would make it ready for release. --Tom Morris 17:19, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

Yep, I know. I'm planning to put my own final touches on it on Friday morning, and send it out then. We might be able to get 43PR to send it out for us, too... --Larry Sanger 23:13, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

Please join us for Biology Week!

Hello Larry,

I am giving you this personal invitation to join us this week for Biology Week!

Please join us on the wiki and add or edit biology articles. Also, please let your friends and colleagues who are biologists, biology students, or naturalists, know about Biology Week and ask them to join us, too. Any way you can help make it an event would be most welcome. Think of it as a Biology Workgroup open house. Let's see if we can kick up activity a notch!

Thanks in advance! --Larry Sanger 08:51, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

Welcome to CitizendiumArticles related to flightInvertebrate biologyPopulation biologyHumanArticles related to DNAArticles related to pollenCZ:Biology Workgroup/Biology WeekArticles related to chloroplastsArticles related to treesArticles related to bacteriaArticles related to fungiEvolution of CetaceansBig catArticles related to metabolismInsectCore articles
The first Biology Week took place here from Sep 22-28, 2008.
Hmmm...not sure what to say about that :) Aaron Schulz 09:40, 22 September 2008 (CDT)
:-) Just in case I forget. ha ha --Larry Sanger 12:08, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

semiauto-move feature

Just trying to figure out how to make moving clusters move automated. Currently its really confusing even when you know what you are doing. Also note movement on the subgroup proposal. The thread in the initiatives folder is active again (subworkgroup thread). Chris Day 22:57, 27 September 2008 (CDT)

Yep, semi-automating cluster-moving would be good. We really need to make it fully automated. As to subworkgroups, I noticed... --Larry Sanger 23:00, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
You can give it a test run by moving the metadata to a new name for any article. You'll see some links appear above the subpage bar at the top. They are all the links that need to be moved. Once they have all been moved you just have to update the pagename field in the metadata. I'm going to prettyify it, and it does not have every feature i envisage yet. Also it has not been fully tested, so beware. Fully automatic would be great if you know a programer. Chris Day 23:03, 27 September 2008 (CDT)
Can you write instructions and link to them in an appropriate place or places? I'll help test it out. Then we should announce it... --Larry Sanger 23:23, 27 September 2008 (CDT)

The only instruction you need is "make sure the very first move is the Metadata template". Instructions will then appear at the top of the page and allow you to go through the whole process. What I intend to do, but have not yet, is to make it easy to place the appropriate speedy deletes. At present every redirect will be left in place. In most cases this is not so bad. But the old metadata page really should be deleted. Chris Day 23:28, 27 September 2008 (CDT)

Forget all I mentioned here for now. i have to abandon my first attempt with the semi-auto move template as I found a fatal flaw that affects any article with an apostrophe in the title (long story). Chris Day 01:06, 28 September 2008 (CDT)
How frustrating... --Larry Sanger 08:22, 29 September 2008 (CDT)

I asked a question here on a mediawiki Q&A page. It does not mean that the semi-auto move function cannot be accomplished but the most seamless solution would not be possible. The next best thing would involve having a field in the metadata template with the name of the new target. This is not that complex but i would prefer if the template kicked in as soon as any page is moved rather than requiring an entry in the metadata page. Chris Day 08:53, 29 September 2008 (CDT)

Chris, did you try localurl, as in:
{{#ifeq: {{localurl:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} | {{localurl:Arthur's Seat}} | They are equal | NOT equal}}
I have no idea what you're trying to do, so this may well be useless. -- Jitse Niesen 09:58, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
Excellent, that works!!! many thanks. Chris Day 12:27, 29 September 2008 (CDT)

Your proposal "Article task and notification list"

Dear Larry, I'm afraid I have been slack in managing all the proposals. However, inspired by the Monthly Write-a-Thon and its theme "spring cleaning", I now want to clear out all the proposals that are merely gathering dust and push the rest forwards. I see you made a proposal "Article task and notification list" which unfortunately is still without a driver. I hope you'll find a driver within a few days, in which case, please have the driver update the proposal record at CZ:Proposals/New#Article task and notification list. Otherwise, I will remove the proposal and put it on the pile of driverless proposals. -- Jitse Niesen 16:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for getting back involved with this Jitse--it was badly needed. I'm not going to be able to drive this proposal myself so I guess it goes into the pile... --Larry Sanger 16:57, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

I had not noticed this before. It is just an extension of the todo list we already have to get the metadata completed. It would be very easy to have subpage specific task etc. I just need to know what we want in the boxes. Chris Day 00:48, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
At this point I suppose all you need is an editable box? When you say standard tasks this means you want to have a bank of standardised tasks that can be switched on or off? Chris Day 00:50, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
Right--I think you have it. The key line in my brief description is "This would serve a similar purpose to WP's various top-of-page notices." I agree, it should not be very difficult. Maybe the most difficult part would be in the design, because on the talk pages, the subpages template is generating something pretty confusing and messy. You can think creatively about how to do this, but here is an idea. I'd like to see a standard metadata page section, easy to read in text format (which loads only when the talk page is loaded). All the bits are set to 0 or N, and in order to make a notice, all you have to do is set it to 1 or Y. On the talk page, where the notices display, there should be a clearly-labelled link back to the metadata section where they can be edited.
Again, you might have a better way of doing this. --Larry Sanger 07:36, 2 October 2008 (CDT)
The proposal is now on the junk pile (CZ:Proposals/Driverless), but Chris, if you want to put some work in it, I would say that you just go ahead. You're subpage supremo anyway, so I think it's more efficient to bypass the whole proposal thingy. -- Jitse Niesen 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We are back

Sorry for the downtime. One of our servers, which doesn't usually go down, went down...it's back up. My e-mail still isn't working, not sure why.

--Larry Sanger 11:20, 9 October 2008 (CDT)

I'm outta here

Please remove my name from the list of contributors to Citizendium. I have no use for your attack dogs -- e.g., on the forum discussion about my suggested subpage to the manga article.

Timothy Perper

Timothy Perper 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is wholly unnecessary, and at the risk of sounding like Jimmy Wales, just one big misunderstanding. Let me get back home and deal with the situation then. --Larry Sanger 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Page moves disabled?

Larry - are page moves disabled? And where do I go to request a move be made, if I don't (want to/feel comfortable with) moving a cluster? Anthony Argyriou 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, nice to see you. No, page moves aren't disabled, or they shouldn't be.
Are others having this problem? If so, it must be because of the recent MediaWiki update. --Larry Sanger 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for a week or so now. No Move tab at the top of my page, either in FF or IE. Hayford Peirce 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Still? Howard moved something the other day (16th October). Chris Day 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, as of the moment of me typing this, there is no Move tab up there. I saw that Howard did indeed move something the other day and figured that he was using his old CIA and NSA contacts to lend him a helping hand.... Hayford Peirce 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Chris Day 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I e-mailed bugs and now we just have to hope the guys will do something.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 04:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Testing

Testing testing --Larry Sanger 17:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Finalizing the approval of Accidental release source terms was supposed to occur yesterday

Larry, the finalizing of approval of the Accidental release source terms was supposed to occur yesterday. Matt Innis usually does that chore, but he seems to be unavailable. So I also tried Ruth Ifcher, but no luck there either. Chris Day has said that he would take care of it if someone would authorize him to do so. Would you please authorize Chris? Milton Beychok 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all right with me if Chris does this. On account of his work on the subpages template, Chris is already a sysop and should have all the permissions that he should need in the system to approve articles. --Larry Sanger 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I was not sure if I could do it, not being a constable. Chris Day 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Since so many of our constables are not responding, I think this is a perfectly suitable expedient. Thanks for taking up the slack1 --Larry Sanger 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

George, please contact me and/or the Constabulary via e-mail if you have complaints about other Citizens. Complaining about another Citizen's behavior puts him on the spot, and on the defensive, which is why CZ:Professionalism doesn't permit it. --Larry Sanger 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Community boosting

How was I to know that the purpose of the page was to boost the community? --Paul Wormer 16:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really mean to say it wasn't obvious? --Larry Sanger 17:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, I thought you expected an honest evaluation.

I've read in the meantime the recent discussion (I wasn't aware of its existence) and see my two main points confirmed: (i) People become irritated easily when using e-mail and/or the Web and (ii) editors are too easily overruled (or, at least, I seem to be not the only one who think so; I see now that a VIP left CZ for that reason a couple of days ago).--Paul Wormer 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did expect an honest evaluation; if you can't honestly recommend CZ, you shouldn't write anything on that page, I guess.

You wouldn't be aware of the existence of the cz-editcouncil discussion because the list is of the Editorial Council. I just thought in all honestly that you would find the discussion interesting and relevant, and I was evidently right!

The editor who left CZ recently was not overruled. He, for whatever reasons, likes to think and say so, but he is incorrect, and I've explained why several times. His definition of "overruled" seems to be: disagreed with by the Editor-in-Chief. Hence, whenever I disagree with an editor, I overrule him? Of course not. In fact, the problem that I personally had with the article in question still remains.

Also, even if it were a case of an editor being overruled, in this case it was the Editor-in-Chief who did the overruling. So that particular controversy isn't about the prerogatives of editors vs. authors, but about the prerogatives of the Editor-in-Chief vs. editors! --Larry Sanger 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Larry, I appended a paragraph, please have a look.--Paul Wormer 08:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine with me then. Thanks. --Larry Sanger 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings too from Martin Cohen

Hulo Larry, and gang of editors/ authors!

Thanks for you message, glad to be here, at the best part of the project methinks. You've got the principles absolutely right, and the technology works, we just need the content now. I hadn't realised there was so much to be done before CZ reaches 'critical mass' - enough material for people to start using it as a real reference work - at which point everyone will flock here and we'll need to spend our time correcting pages rather than writing them.

I put some details of what I plan to do on the 'philosophy talk' page too, and am getting down to work straight away - we must get those key philosophers 'rolled out'!

I'm going to copy this to my own talk page as well.

Venceremos!

Martin Cohen 13:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Goodnes,, I'm an 'oldie' here...)

Excellent, thanks! Oh, believe me, we've got a lot of oldies here.  ;-)-

We definitely need a lot of work done in philosophy, that's for sure. --Larry Sanger 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One click moves all subpages

When did the option to move subpages get added? (or has it always been there?) This is going to make moving clusters much much easier. if you don't know what I'm talking about try and move a page with clusters and note that one of the options is to move all subpages along with the article. Chris Day 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't notice! Yay! It must have been included in the most recent MW update, which we did a few weeks back (as you know). Totally...basically, moving a cluster is now a simple two-step process. --Larry Sanger 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll update that move cluster link on the talk page to reflect this change (that was a nightmare procedure so I'm glad to see that go). I also note that the automated moves got messed up in that update so other functions might not be behaving as we expect. Stephens upload wizard comes to mind, although I have not seen anything odd to date. Chris Day 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. --Larry Sanger 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Larry,

Sorry to "bug" you as it were, but the update a few weeks ago appears to have broken a template I was working on. Is there any documentation on the changes implemented in the new version?--David Yamakuchi 04:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Try [[1]]...I don't know that much about the technical details, I'm afraid. --Larry Sanger 06:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CZ in French

Hello, I wish to let you know that I fully agree with your statement The people who want to hide behind pseudonyms, who want to play governance games in order to push their biases, and who want to prove their maturity and enlightenment by putting up pictures of naked little girls, can stick with Wikipedia. I have experienced that the same disfunction exists in the "WP in French". Therefore, am I waiting for the "CZ in French" creation. May I recommend not to wait until a great amount of bilingual Authors have joined CZ. May I recommend to start "CZ in French" with bilingual managers + French-speaking Authors. I believe that this push would fit the growth with quality strategy of CZ. Best regards.Thierry Henri Cauchois 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the push, Thierry--it is hard enough to manage CZ in English, but perhaps we should just set up the wikis and let those who are interested in the projects in other languages just get started. --Larry Sanger 17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a dozen or so articles I wrote in French several years ago for the French WP that could be imported (from the moment I stopped editing them, so that they are entirely mine), which would at least add a few items.... Hayford Peirce 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. My analysis is based on two facts : 1- a huge amount of good quality articles already exists on WP in French; 2- a number of French WP contributors (or past contributors) are willing to contribute another way (a serious one). If importing articles from WP fits to CZ strategy, I would recommend for CZ to create the framework in French, then to select French CZ Authors entitled to start import (it is important to reach rapidly a critical mass of articles). In addition, being a user of the German WP, I have noticed its high quality standard. Perhaps is the same quick start possible. Friendly.Thierry Henri Cauchois 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I will certainly give it some thought (again). --Larry Sanger 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Business world

Larry, I think that your community's encyclopedic coverage of the business world is severely lacking. (As you may know, I'm the founder/operator of a site that would call itself an encyclopedic business directory, so I may be shooting myself in my own foot by communicating this to you, but...) I would like to know your policy about entities writing about themselves, or (heaven forbid) paying a third-party encyclopedist to write about themselves. As an example, I have added the (non-paid) encyclopedic entry about National Fuel Gas. Note, I didn't bother with cleaning up formatting for your environment here, because I don't know if we're on the same level-set regarding the provenance of info about corporations. What is your opinion about such content as this article, and does it matter to you whether money has exchanged hands to generate said initial content (assuming, of course, that the tone and style of the work is encyclopedic and not marketing puffery)? -- Gregory J. Kohs 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We have already thought about this and established two relevant, interrelated policies: CZ:Policy on Topic Informants and CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion.
In short, realistically speaking, I don't think it is possible to set up a system in which PR firms are permitted to write neutral prose for their clients. PR firms are specifically paid to make their clients look good. We are, shall we say, in a different business. I should think all of this would be obvious to anyone who understands the ethics of reference publishing. Evidently, the ethics of business directory publishing is different. --Larry Sanger 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
At no point did I mention "public relations firms", and I am not in the PR business. Your jumping to the "PR" label is similar to what Jimmy Wales did in August 2006, which many feel was a big mistake, because it just "drove underground" the efforts of people genuinely interested in disseminating encyclopedic information about entities with which they were affiliated. I won't bore you with examples. I also still seek your opinion about the writing tone and relevance to Citizendium of National Fuel Gas. I will now go and read the two policies you highlighted. -- Gregory J. Kohs 16:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that your opinion may be in contradiction with CZ policy: "You may not, even if you are a topic informant, start an article about yourself, or any company, organization, website, or other entity, especially marketable entity, with which you are closely associated." Would you consider a paid encyclopedist to have a "close association" with the organization that he (relatively speaking) briefly researches, synthesizes, and publishes about -- especially considering that the content would then be released into the CC-by-sa realm, to be managed by literally anyone? My answer would be a clear "no", but I'll await your answers to this question and the one above about National Fuel Gas. -- Gregory J. Kohs 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care what Jimmy Wales said. Sure, you didn't say PR firms; I did. Obviously, someone who is paid by a company to write about the company is acting as a PR agent for the company. But no important issues turn on whether we apply "PR firm" or "PR agent" in this case. Call them, simply, agents. My concerns still apply; they are substantive, not reducible to semantics.
You are obviously correct when you say that people affiliated with a company may sincerely wish to disseminate correct, even neutral information about the company. But that observation does not reply to the concern I have, namely, that if we adopt it as a general policy that agents of commercial enterprises (or of nonprofit or government enterprises, for that matter) may edit articles about their enterprises, we both lose credibility and have to doublecheck all information that these inherently biased agents insert. The correct answer to your question, about whether the paid encyclopedist has a close association with an enterprise, depends entirely on who pays the encyclopedist, now doesn't it? If, say, someone were sheerly out of the goodness of his heart decide to pay someone to work on CZ articles about businesses, and it could be proven that this person were not acting as anybody's agent but merely adding lots of useful information because it's so useful, well, I think that would be OK. But surely you aren't actually saying any such person, supported by a sheerly civic-minded entity, exists?
You may not understand our policy. I think any agent would be welcome to start business-related articles, post interviews, etc., in the TI: namespace. It would then be up to regular Citizens to decide whether to import those, or edited versions of them, to the main namespace.
If you think about it, for articles submitted by company agents, our Citizens would have to do due diligence in checking any potentially biased or self-serving information. Either we do this before the articles are posted in the main namespace, or we do it after. I think we should do it before, simply because we don't want to outstrip the volunteer resources we have.
After all this discussion, I'm afraid I don't have time to look into National Fuel Gas--I'm very, very busy with multiple projects these days. You could always ask on the Forums or on the talk page of that article...I'm betting some people will be willing to join in. There are several active people who understand the relevant policies. But I think I should ask whether National Fuel Gas had any understanding with you about your inserting it into CZ. In other words, were you acting as their agent, or were you merely adding information about the company? If you weren't acting as an agent, and you are trying to make a point by adding the article (I assume thanks are in order, by the way!), then what is your point? --Larry Sanger 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns about your site's credibility are of merit. I am simply going to predict, however, that by the year 2020, Citizendium will have less than 25% of the Fortune 1000 firms documented with articles, unless you or someone else decides to simply scrape them from another source. This, too, will have adverse effects on your site's credibility -- "a compendium with 25% coverage of the largest organizations on the planet?", people will chortle. Regardless, your position is actually very good for me in the long run, as a proprietor of a business directory site who would rather not have you as competition. I was mostly asking you these questions to allay any underlying pangs of Catholic "guilt" I might have, for not helping your encyclopedia with its development of business entity articles. You're coming up on two years of public content building, and you have articles only about National Fuel Gas and Nintendo in the Business Workgroup category subheading for the letter "N". Yesterday, it was only Nintendo.
The National Fuel Gas company has no idea who I am, and I have no payment relationship or history whatsoever with them. The "point" of that article is simply to demonstrate the "tone" and "style" of how a paid encyclopedist might write an article about a company, without technically being a "public relations" agent of the company. I would offer you about a dozen examples of paid articles that I've created, but then they would get deleted from Wikipedia, and after two years of their thriving there, I'd really hate to so foolishly sabotage my good content. So, I doubled your site's coverage of the "N" companies, and now I'll be on my way, since your concerns about bias and "self-serving" content outweigh your concerns about lack of coverage. I can live with that, and I still wish you the best of luck with your concept. I worry, though, that you will have a pristine but tiny compendium that only 1% of Internet users will ever visit. -- Gregory J. Kohs 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The same article exists at WP, word for word. There has been no attempt to modify it for the CZ article as it stands. So, assuming that you want to leave it here, it has to have the WP template attached to it. Hayford Peirce 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if the authorship of both articles is entirely my own, and the origination of the words therein predates its being uploaded to either Wikipedia or to Citizendium? I mean, if you want to get technical about chickens and eggs, let's be careful. I would be particularly offended if the article received a "WP template", when it was created on December 10, 2006, by me, long before Wikipedia copied it from my site. -- Gregory J. Kohs 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, Gregory.
As to the article and crediting WP, simply put a notice at the top of the talk page saying that you are the sole author of the article (if, in fact you are!) and then nobody will check the "from WP" checkbox. But if anyone from WP has made any edits to this article, i.e., if even a comma was from a Wikipedian, we have to credit WP as a source.
You can also feel free to credit MyWikiBiz.com at the bottom of the article just as we credit Wikipedia as a source for WP-started articles. But then, people will probably also want, on the talk page, your above disclaimers to me about your lack of involvement with National Fuel Gas. --Larry Sanger 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Open letter to Larry Sanger

As per Larry's request, I have deleted this entire thread and moved it to: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,73.0.html in the Non-Member's Forum Discussion. Hayford Peirce 03:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Specialized editor

Larry, I see some articles that are ready for approval. Could I be made specialist editor for the following categories based on my indicated experience below?

  1. Boxing: 2-time state amateur champion and long-time fan
  2. Bowling: 1-time city league champion and long-time bowler
  3. Soccer: 10+ years playing and paid referee of youth soccer leagues for several years
  4. Sailing: Have sailed on boats ranging from 16' cats to 44' yachts (island living is sooo tough!)

David E. Volk 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, I am impressed!

Could you send me some more details by e-mail please? --Larry Sanger 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Schnikes

My edit above seems to be attributed to Chris Day. Do we have a new bug? David E. Volk 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That is way bizarre. I will see what the tech guys say about it. --Larry Sanger 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bizarre, I copied and pasted it here from Talk:Larry Sanger. Chris Day 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Doh! --Larry Sanger 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

categories revisited

Larry, how did you get the talk page categories to only show the article name? Would it be possible to do a similar trick for the template namespace such that any category on the metadata template would only show up in a category list as just BASEPAGENAME (not Template:BASEPAGENAME/Metadata)? I should add, this is asking for one extra thing compared with the current talk namespace, as in that case a category on a 'Talk:Article/Draft' type page will be listed as "Article/Draft" not "Article" in the category list. Chris Day 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A "magic word" probably, but what template are you referring to? --Larry Sanger 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All the metadata templates, but I imagine what ever rule is in place will be valid for all templates. Do you want the long version, although, if it's not possible then the whole thing is moot anyway. See the bottom of my talk page, response to Matt, to get a bit of a feel for what I am thinking. Chris Day 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still confused. As you know, I haven't worked on the subpage templates & metadata templates associated with subpages to any significant degree since you took them over. Do you mean the metadata templates for the userinfo system? Sorry... --Larry Sanger 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the one for clusters, i.e. Template:Biology/Metadata. Here is the problem. When workgroups or a status are changed in the metadata of a cluster the categories do change on the article and subpages but these changes do not get registered in the relevant categories unless an actual edit is made to the page. Consequently, we have to make minor edits every time after a change in the metadata to make the article names appear in the correct category lists.
I am beginning to realise that this is going to be a big problem as our size increases. One solution is to have all the categories on the metadata template. Then, as changes are made to the metadata, all the categories will "register" immediately. This does not mean no category links will appear in the articles or the subpages, there can still be links based on the information in the metadata. We already do this on the draft pages, look at the top of Biology/Draft and Chemical_engineering/Draft, you'll see links to categories but there are no workgroup categories on the page. This is still a short explanation but might help you understand the problem better. Chris Day 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That does sound like a prickly problem...I'd need to think more about it. It might have a server-side solution; might be a good idea to run it by the bugs guys. Well, I'm off to bed...also, if the problem would be handily solved by putting categories on the metadata page, as you suggest, then why not do that? --Larry Sanger 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I would, but then every category would have a list of article names stating with "Template" and ending with "/Metadata". Apart from being an eyesore, it would also be much harder to parse the information. This brings us full circle ;) See my initial comment above. Chris Day 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'd have to do research, it'd take time...maybe I'll be able to help, but don't count on it...sorry! --Larry Sanger 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you said, "how did you get the talk page categories to only show the article name," thereby implying that I had performed this feat. I was asking, where do you think I performed the feat? If you could point me to my performance I might be able to explain it.  :-) --Larry Sanger 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Great, the proverbial needle in a haystack. I'll see if i can root it out. Chris Day 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

M.C. Lake article

what's a biology editor doing by tearing out an entire section? I can't and won't have that. I won't finish the article if that's going to be the case. i thought this wasnt wikipedia. S. W. Kolterman 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to try and explain the confusion. I take responsibility here, I did not explain my edits. Chris Day 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Chris was just moving sections to subpages, which is something we do here...in fact, this is one of the ways we aren't like Wikipedia. See CZ:Subpages. --Larry Sanger 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blurriness

Not "worried," Larry, just provoking thought. Russell D. Jones 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And that you are doing, Russell. I appreciate it. Some calm, careful reflection on all these matters is definitely needed. --Larry Sanger 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Mostly my own thoughts. On the HW we are also having the same sort of sorting out "what the heck are we doing here?" Russell D. Jones

Traffic

Larry, have you been watching CZ's page views over the last month? Russell D. Jones 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have! Pretty amazing, isn't it--I can't account for it. --Larry Sanger 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy? Chris Day 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not know which measure of CZ page views you used but I had been testing an Alexa toolbar on one of my computers from about Dec 17 on (for other purposes) and switched it off on Feb 2 after I saw this discussion. I guess this explains much of the variability in their CZ page view stats during that period. --Daniel Mietchen 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Could one person have made that much of a difference? Hmm...  ;-) --Larry Sanger 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, I think that Russell and Chris are talking about the Forums page views which increased very dramatically recently... and the Alexa statistics are about Citizendium page views which hasn't changed much recently. Milton Beychok 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Could one person have made that much of a difference? Hmm... If so, then lets all add Alexa toolbars! :-) D. Matt Innis 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If my guess goes into the right direction, this would also indicate that none of the CZ regulars edits CZ via a browser with active Alexa toolbar. My next guess, then, would be that many of the users of these toolbars also contribute to WP - yet another (though certainly minor) reason why the two projects fare differently in terms of commonly used traffic stats.
In terms of whether one person could have such a visible effect: "reach" (dunno exactly what this signifies, but perhaps the number of different IPs accessing the site) has not changed during that period but "rank" and "page views" did, so I think it is possible. And if you really wanna know, it would be easy to do an experiment of this sort: Matt could choose a few of the regulars and ask them (perhaps better in private) to use such toolbars (perhaps not always but following a suitable protocol) when editing CZ for the next four weeks or so, and after this period, their identity could be revealed and the observed pattern in the graph compared to their activity on the wiki (alternatively, if we all trust him, he could write a report without revealing the identities). But we may have more pressing things to do... --Daniel Mietchen 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying to understand

Hi, Larry: I note that CZ:Proposals/New lists three New proposals. I also note that CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council lists Active proposals before the Editorial Council (many of which have been sitting there over six months).

  • How does a New proposal get to be an Active proposal?
  • Also, why are those Active proposals still sitting there without the Editorial Council being notified to vote on them?
  • Who is responsible for moving Active proposals to a vote?
  • And who is responsible for moving New proposals to Active proposals?

I'm not complaining ... I'm just trying to understand how the proposal system works and you are the only one I thought could explain it to me. Many thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as well. My understanding is that as Secretary of the Editorial Council, I become responsible for moving these into the process once introduced, but, after they have been, it is the role of the (currently vacant, I believe) Proposals Manager (or Driver?) to making sure they progress. The role of the Secretary is, other than certain technical details when the Proposal is newly submitted, to be the parliamentary authority for that procedure. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw this list yesterday. I'm willing to devote some time to these proposals. Russell D. Jones 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Milt, thanks for asking. Many of your questions about how the proposals system is supposed to work are answered on Archive:Proposals/Policy. But we've been falling down on the job here with our proposals system. The system is meant to be a combination of bottom-up (people making proposals) and top-down (other people if necessary take over proposals as "drivers," and a Proposals Manager. But, no doubt because many people have lost interest, our Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen, appears to have lost interest, and I have failed to follow up myself (I'm supposed to be managing him). But, especially with an active (or newly active) Proposals Manager, the system can still move forward. I've just e-mailed Jitse.

Answering some more specific items Milt above:

> How does a New proposal get to be an Active proposal?

A complete proposal needs to be made, i.e., not just the yellow box, but the page that comes up when you click on the "Complete proposal" link. If this is done and the proposal is in order, according to the system, the Proposals Manager is supposed to move the proposal to the appropriate proposal list page.

> Also, why are those Active proposals still sitting there without the Editorial Council being notified to vote on them?

Because nobody has made them into full-blooded resolutions yet. All Editorial Council resolutions need sponsors. The mere fact that a proposal appears on CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council does not make it automatically a resolution (though perhaps it should). If they have sponsors, proposals can be converted into resolutions very easily, in an almost perfunctory way. See this section.

> Who is responsible for moving Active proposals to a vote?

It depends on the type of proposal. Again, see this section, and bear in mind that not all decisions may be made by vote, though many will be.

> And who is responsible for moving New proposals to Active proposals?

The Proposals Manager.

Now from Howard:

> My understanding is that as Secretary of the Editorial Council, I become responsible for moving these into the process once introduced,

Here are what the rules say. From Archive:Proposals/Policy#Decisionmaking_groups, speaking only about Editorial Council proposals (not other kinds): "If the driver is not a Council member, and no Council member is ready to sponsor the proposal/issue and make it into a resolution, then e-mail the Secretary of the Council (Howard C. Berkowitz). The Secretary then has the responsibility of posting (if necessary) repeated calls for sponsorship. If no Council member will sponsor the resolution after three calls, it may be considered declined."

Other than that, the Secretary of the Editorial Council has no responsibility here.

> but, after they have been, it is the role of the (currently vacant, I believe) Proposals Manager (or Driver?) to making sure they progress.

I don't think Jitse has actually resigned. We'll find out soon enough.

> The role of the Secretary is, other than certain technical details when the Proposal is newly submitted, to be the parliamentary authority for that procedure.

I'd have to look, but strictly speaking the Secretary is the head of the Rules Committee (currently consisting of...drumroll please...you), which is the parliamentary authority, but it is the Chair that ultimately decides the interpretation of rules. The Secretary has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules governing the Proposals System, which is a project-wide system governed ultimately by little ol' me (with input from the Executive Committee).

As usual, this is all revisable, none of this is written in stone, and some of it will certainly have to change with some things we've been talking about in the forums recently.

And from Russell:

> I'm willing to devote some time to these proposals. Russell D. Jones

Hi Russell, thanks for your offer--do you mean you're willing maybe to take over as a driver of several proposals, or perhaps even Proposals Manager?

>>>>I mean that I'll look at them, try to resuscitate some. Proposals' Manager? Let me sleep on that one..... Russell D. Jones 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

--Larry Sanger 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A user page isn't really the place to get into this, but you had told me that the role of the Editorial Council, which I had thought was defined by CZ: Editor Policy#Editorial Council, was redefined by Resolution 0001 to be limited to the approval of proposals. I believe these two sources are not reconciled, but, if the Proposal System is not under the Editorial Council, then I have difficulty understanding what responsibilities, if any, actually reside with the Editorial Council. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you must have misunderstood me, or I said something confusing myself--or quite possibly both. However that is, the fact is that there is a difference between a proposal in the Proposals System, on the one hand, and a Resolution that is before the Editorial Council, on the other. I think this is very clear from the combination of Archive:Proposals/Policy and CZ:Editorial Council Rules of Procedure. As to what responsibilities reside with the Editorial Council, please examine those two documents as well as CZ:Editor Policy#Editorial Council. And I hope there's no reason to "get into" anything at all here. Please just read the documents themselves, and if you have any quick questions, I'll be happy to answer them here to the best of my ability. If you have any objection, deeply insightful or constitutional or otherwise, the forum would probably be the best place for that. --Larry Sanger 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Larry, have you had any luck contacting Jitse regarding the logjam in the processing of proposals? Or has anyone else offered to serve as the Proposals Manager? I am sure you agree that something simply has to be done to clear up that logjam. Regards, Milton Beychok 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Milt, I've tried again by e-mail earlier today--let's wait a bit more. I agree completely about the logjam. I'm sorry for my own failure to break it up. --Larry Sanger 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Larry, I don't mean to be a pest ... but the proposal logjam really must be cleared. As a member of the Editorial Council, I know that we haven't been asked to vote on a proposal for many months now. Surely, if Jitse were going to respond, he would have done so by now. Milton Beychok 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Milt, sorry...you are right. Jitse did respond and said he would be happy if someone would take over for him. We just need to make a call for volunteers on that front... --Larry Sanger 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't wait for me. I had started looking over some proposals but I'm in a fit of grading right now and don't see where I'll have more than a few hours a week for CZ until May. But, Milt's right, we should get moving on things. Could there be an easy form to turn a proposal into a resolution? Russell D. Jones 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Kid's pages

Larry, I thought that you might find a new page that I am working on of interest:

USA education, preschool

Not sure about how to classify it besides the fact that it is education. I did not want to just call it Preschool, because there is items in there that are USA centered (US History people, US Holidays, etc.), but I don't have a problem with other copying the page and modifying it for other countries.

Also, are you in charge of maintaining the MediaWiki code? If so, is there the possability to set things up so that images can be directly referenced from Wikipedia commons? I want to add images to articles, but I am not interested in downloading them from Wikipedia to just upload them here, especially if I would be required to find all contact info, licenses, etc. I know that I am being lazy, but I am also being honest.

My main gripe with Wikipedia was that there is images ( and content) that I don't think children should have access to, but they have a great selection of images. So I would like to work on Gallery pages for this site. Melissa Newman 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Melissa, first, by all means, please do compile galleries here--we love them. And since you ask: I'm not in charge of maintaining the MediaWiki code, and frankly I don't think there would be a lot of support for leaning on Wikipedia's servers in the way you suggest, especially because we do require the contact information; we're trying to be good Citizens in every sense, you see.

But now about your preschool project. It looks great! But I would ask you to do two things. The first is to move the lists to a CZ:Catalogs subpage of the preschool article, or else to the CZ: namespace (that might be better), because what you are compiling is a list of topics that preschoolers study. Possibly CZ:Kiddiwiki or CZ:Kidipedia, but I think those names might already be taken.

Some topics on the list really aren't suitable as topics for CZ articles, such as "above and below." But this isn't a problem if you are meaning to start "kid pages." In that case, what I would have you do is write at least a brief description of the project you'd like to start, put it on the forums so people can discuss it, and then announce the proposal on Citizendium-L (or, ask me to do so), so we can get as many people as possible working on it with you. I might contribute. I do quite a bit of this sort of stuff for my little boy. --Larry Sanger 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. my comment from yesterday on Talk:USA education, preschool. --Larry Sanger 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Larry, please excuse me for getting into this ... but I thought the following post by Melissa in the Forums a few days ago might better explain her idea about getting images from Wikimedia Commons:

I had recently installed a personal MediaWiki, so I have recently played around with the LocalSettings.php file. There are variables that are easy to setup to allow accessing images on http://commons.wikipedia.org. Is it possible to get this setup, so we can add Commons images to our articles? Here is the code:

$wgForeignFileRepos[] = array(
'class' => 'ForeignAPIRepo',
'name' => 'shared',
'apibase' => 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php',
'fetchDescription' => true, // Optional
'descriptionCacheExpiry' => 43200, // 12 hours, optional
'apiThumbCacheExpiry' => 43200, // 12 hours, optional, but required for local thumb caching );

I have tested this on my personal Wiki and it works. I am not sure for a high traffic site like this what other variables will need to be set.

Melissa Newman

Also, see Here where both Chris Day and I felt it would sure make life easier to get images from Commons much more easily than can be done now. Milton Beychok 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will reply there. --Larry Sanger 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Catalog vs. curriculum

I understand the concept that people want the list of article names on a sub-page. I understand the concept of a catalog. The only problem that I have with that name is that most people who would be interested in the information that I would be creating in the format that I am creating would be looking for the information under the name curriculum. Even if the concept of a catalog is the same thing, the terminology is not the terminology used in the field. A list of topics on what is taught in a grade level is called a curriculum. If you are talking about several years of schooling in one or more subjects it is called a sequence. It might also be referred to as a list of topics.

If I saw catalog under Preschool, I would expect to find a list of merchants, books, or apparateuses that would help me to teach a preschooler the curriculum. Bibliography is a list of books and possibly tapes and movies. But I would not expect to find ETA Cuisenaire (a company that makes educational apparatuses) listed there or Carolina science (a company that sells science equipment).

Maybe the problem is that I have never seem a catalog page like the ones that you are creating on this wiki. When I get a catalog in the mail, it is a list of items that I can buy or a list of companies that I can buy from.

Melissa Newman 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Melissa, I may be wrong but I believe that you can name a subpage "Curriculum" if you so wish. Contact Chris Day who is our subpage guru. Milton Beychok 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Melissa, your argument is an argument for scrapping the name "Catalog" altogether, which I'm actually sympathetic with (in favor of "Tables"). Please see CZ:Catalogs and CZ:Subpages if you haven't yet. I do not encourage ad hoc names for subpages; standardization of information types is a good thing and we should stick to it as much as possible.
All this being said, again I have to ask what the purpose of this whole effort is. If (1) it is merely to develop a list of topics of interest for preschool education, then a Catalog is exactly the right place to put it, under our current system, and your frustration will then be with the name for the information type we have (alternatively described as a table, information summary, compendium, almanac, or catalog). But if (2) it is instead to develop a new system kid pages, such pages really belong either in another namespace (my off-the-cuff preference, subject to more cogitation and discussion) or possibly in a new subpage type (not so good, for a variety of reasons). Could you clarify if you want to do (1) or (2), or something else? --Larry Sanger 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Larry, please excuse me for entering this conversation and I promise not to interrupt again after this. However, CZ:Article-specific subpages indicates fairly clearly that we may create article-specific subpages ... does it not? Or am I missing something? Milton Beychok 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That was written as part of a proposal, it has not been discussed in detail and certainly not been to the editorial council. Obviously I disagree with Larry on this point :) (I wrote the proposal), and I could expand on my reasons but this is not the place. I might add that after an extended discussion I could see the idea in a new light. The idea was precipitated from a comment about usability on Petréa Mitchell's talk page that was precipitated by an essay that Petréa wrote. In short, it is not official. Chris Day 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
By golly, let's get it in front of the Council sooner rather than later! --Larry Sanger 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I vote 100% a million times over for a separate namespace for a student encyclopedia. As for if there should be a separate one for children and students, I will leave that final decision to you as "Editor-in-Chief". I think that it can go either way. Now going into begging mode ... pretty please with cherries on top and marshmallow topping setup a separate namespace for students! I promise to put my name on the workgroup. Melissa Newman 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear I think these are two distinct issues. Chris Day 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Chris--agreed. Melissa--starting a whole new (complementary, but also rather different) project is another issue that certainly has to come before the Editorial Council. In the meantime, I think continuing to discuss the general concept, and figuring out both what would be best according to general editorial requirements, and according to the existing community's preferences, would be a good way to spend some time...
Actually, come to think of it, what we really need to do is feel out the CZ community and other potentially interested parties to see if there is enough interest in actually starting up the project. The very last thing I want to do is start a project that there just won't be enough people to support. I would put out some feelers myself, to gauge interest, but...ugh, I don't have time right now! --Larry Sanger 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a summary of things I have already written on the forums. I like the idea of a new namespace with a different unique header, to separate the projects. In that way a distinct subpages structure can be used (it could even have vertical tabs). I think workgroups should not have a role but I could see a role for K12 specific subgroups for CZ authors with an interest in contributing to both projects. I like the idea of limited links between the projects (possibly a tab on CZ articles when a K12 version exists in the other namespace). One technical issue is that the hyperlinks in the K12 namespace should automatically be restricted to that namespace rather than linking to main space. Chris Day 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Chris, what effect would your proposal of a new namespace have on our servers? Even with my high-speed cable service, CZ is maddeningly slow very often. Milton Beychok 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no clue. I wonder if the slowness might be due to the subpages template drawing too many resources. The sooner the subpages structure is hard wired the better but as a non-programmer I don't even know what is possible. Chris Day 22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I brought out the indent, because it was going too far inwards.
First, the technical answer about the slowness. This is most likely due to the fact that the pages are not accessed that often, so they are always being processed. I think that there is a way to say that all of the pages in a certain namespace should be generated into cache. Look at the programs in the maintenance directory of the source code. The expiry of those pages can also be set to be a longer time period than the main pages (for example, a year unless we know that they are changed. If the sub-pages are always generated automatically, then there is going to be slowness issue. But again, if the pages are cached as html, there should not be an issue. Everything goes back to the cache and the expiry of the cache. There are also several different versions of cache, but I have never personally played around with a cache server.
Back to the discussion at hand.
If you plan to put out the feelers within this specific group, the only people you are going to find that are going to express a strong interest is myself and you Larry. I have not seen strong positives from anybody else. The people who would be interested are not here at the current time. The people that would be interested are currently writing their own blogs, writing their own curriculum, homeschooling their children, helping the Gutenburg project, communicating on homeschooling websites and yahoo forums, trying to start their own website without much success, or just plain given up. People have tried to start kid specific wikis, but from what I have seen, they are just not able to build a strong enough foundation to even get their foot off the ground. A person looks at the website and it just has the feeling of being dead.
In any project, there is several components. First, there is the physical source code. Second, there is the look and feel of the site. The third is the foundation of the templates. Fourth is the foundation of the images and other media (country flags, standard medical images, historical sites of interest, pictures of works of art, audio of famous music, etc.). Fifth is the foundation of the articles. What articles need to definitely be included and what is extra? Britannicas children's encyclopedia (stories) has 15 volumes with about 1000 articles. First encylopedias that I have seen have 500 at most, because what would be separate articles in another encyclopedia would be put into one article on a first encyclopedia. A student encyclopedia would have 5000 articles at most, but more likely 3000. Although in my own database adding in idioms and stories can easily bring a hard article count to over 6,000.
The main issue is images. Wikipedia has a great resource of images, but they also have a bunch of image categories that are not appropriate for children. "category: ren"? And that is just one example. There is no way to filter wikipedia images, because there is logic to the categories. "Category:Missionary position" has a parent category of "category:man on top".
Using any wiki for student research is not a good idea. The foundation of student research skills should be built upon traditional sources (aka books). Once this website is more established, will the view of this website change? I don't really know. I will personally go with the general view of how librarians and teachers respond to this project.
I like the format of how this website is setup -- a gallery page for every article. The sub-page concept makes a nice design.
How many levels of encyclopedia do we need? Preschoolers: I can't see a parent reading to their child from a computer screen. They will look at images together, and they will listen to sound together, but I have never read to my preschooler from a website. My preschooler likes to see the picture of the bear and click on the button to hear the bear growl. Plus, one can buy a preschool/first encyclopedia for $20 from ebay. I think that preschoolers needs can be met through gallery pages on a different project.
Junior level: This is the story level. The pages are presented in story format. The images that preschoolers need, this group needs. The images that this group needs, the next higher group needs. So in my opinion, this group's needs can be met through a story or read-aloud sub page of the next level up. The next level up is the student level.
Having the student encyclopedia being a sub-page of the adult pages is not a good idea, because it goes back to the original problem of images. The images that adults need and want are going to be different than what students need and want. There will be overlap, but there will also be differences. The three levels of students can share a namespace, but student and adults can't share a space.
Will the image issue make even sharing the same namespace an issue? In the end, that may be true. Adults feel very strongly about not having any restrictions on their content. Children need restrictions. This is done in movies, music, magazines, stores, and a host of other areas. To expect that not to be an issue on a website is not realistic. Although, this website was built upon the concept of family friendliness. Will the combination of that and gallery pages be enough of a general protection? It may take a couple of years to get an answer to that.
As for the catalog issue ... until the issue of where the physically place the student pages or even if they should be allowed, should be settled before the issue of catalog pages. Changing "curriculum" to "catalog" is a one line change. Even if I made 10 pages, it would still be a small change. Changing where student pages are physically located is a big change. That is why that issue should have a higher priority.
Melissa Newman 14:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent more) Melissa you wrote: "If you plan to put out the feelers within this specific group, the only people you are going to find that are going to express a strong interest is myself and you Larry. I have not seen strong positives from anybody else. ". I think you need to look harder. While there are those who have said they would not have any interest in participating it is not correct to say there is no support. Chris Day 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Put me on the support list. Seeing the work that Melissa has put out in the short time that she has been here, I don't doubt she can create the interest to attract others with her passion. :-) D. Matt Innis 03:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Melissa--interesting thoughts, and we have similar goals insofar as I'm teaching my little boy a lot of things now, too, and we intend to homeschool him (basically, we already are doing so). But, I'm puzzled--if you think there isn't going to be any interest in the project, you're declaring that the project will not succeed from the get-go, aren't you? A community-built project requires lively interest if it is to succeed.
I'd love to do this, but when I put my manager's/boss hat on, I have to wonder if we can. The quite possible lack of a quorum is one big concern. Then, frankly, I would like to partner with a publisher, one that is also a Web publishing company with Web 2.0 experience, to create a brand new wiki. If CZ takes this on, it will overextend me, personally, even further--and that would not be good for anybody, believe me. Notice, Melissa, you say we need to do this, this, and that. Who is going to do this, this, and that, or see to it that these things are done? Who else but me? Of course, if there were someone that I knew, who I knew I could trust to do a great job (working full time--that's what it takes to start up a new project like this), and who could take on a children's project in the CZ fold, then I might support the idea. But I don't know of such a person.
I agree that most parents of preschoolers won't look at Web pages--that idea actually seems silly to me, on consideration. Instead, there needs to be individual pages, something like what you see on http://www.brillkids.com/ -- PowerPoint-type presentations. I've actually toyed with the idea of somehow partnering with BrillKids on a little kid's encyclopedia. The entries would take the form of multimedia slideshows. What they are doing at present is, frankly, pretty low-quality, and it is derivative of the work of Glenn Doman, which in my nonexpert opinion has some problems.
Finally, I agree that easy image-grabbing or -uploading is absolutely required. New software is needed to make this as easy as possible. Basically, there needs to be a browser extension that allows people to drag and drop images from Flickr & Wikimedia Commons. Without this, it will be way too hard to create the articles, and the project will probably die due to the difficulty of using the MediaWiki system to host images. This is another reason I say that we would probably have to partner with someone. --Larry Sanger 16:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Larry, the technical difficulties with images on this project are a result of the editorial decisions made by the editorial board, not technical issues. MediaWiki allows one to include an image from a URL, upload an image from a URL, include images from wiki commons. There is also extension on MediaWiki for importing images from flickr based on commons license. It all goes back to the LocalSettings.php file and adding a few extensions. But as you said previously, you don't want to be bound by Wikipdia comons. As for allowing uploads by URL, it should be allowed under certain groups. For example, any author / editor of the workgroup media should have access to this feature. Or maybe say all editors have access to this feature. I just tried to set it up on my own MediaWiki install. The MediaWiki part is easy. The only snag I ran into was php curl libraries.
As for who is going to be responsible. If you want somebody full time, are you going to pay them a salary? If you are willing to pay for a full-time editor/writer, I can get you somebody by tomorrow. Also, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do we setup the foundation and look for people or do we look for people and then setup the foundation? I vote for setting up the foundation first. If things really don't work out, we merge the already written articles back into the main namespace, if appropriate. An SQL script can accomplish that in a couple of minutes. Otherwise they just get deleted. You can also develop interest by looking at numberous startups of kid wikis. Contact the owner and just ask them if they want to continue on their own or merge into one group. All of the usernames on the MediaWiki discussion about this topic is another source.
Also, we can start the project as a namespace on this project, and then if it grows beyond this project, we can branch off into our own project. Then we just setup a wikifarm where the links to the there wiki can have shortcuts with the same namespace as what we currently have. This will make it a clean break. But that would mean that we should select a namespace name that can easily be used in this type of notation. For example, instead of having a namespace of "student", it should be "stu" or "sz", as somebody else suggested. This is similar to wikipedia's format for foreign language pages being referenced.
One other point, it is much easier to setup the foundation for a student project when one has access to the server to take advantage of server scripts and other things. I can work on things locally, and then I can just export the articles, zip the images, and then import them to somebody who has server and sysop privileges. I already have 6,000 articles in my personal database. They are idioms, source text of public domain short stories (Aesop's fables, fairy tales, mythology, folklore, etc.), country articles from wikipedia, US state articles from wikipedia, and a bunch of templates for formatting. I did not rewrite anything. Nor have I added images to the database. I just linked to commons. But the foundation is there, even if the text needs to be rewritten. Melissa Newman 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Student Citizenidum Quorum issues

Melissa, could you perhaps more specifically address the more specific, core points I made in my post above? Specifically, lack of quorum, who is going to get it started (not me), and whether it actually has any point if parents aren't going to look at wiki web pages with their kids (but need ppt or similar format). --Larry Sanger 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took a bit for me to get back. I need to think things over myself ... plus other things external to this.
As for who could lead it, you mentioned full time. Volunteer and full time don't go hand in hand unless you want a retired person. This is run by a foundation. Wikipedia is a foundation and it has a core group of 5 people that are paid full time salary. If you are looking for a core group that is dedicated full time, would that entail a salary? Here is a list of people I know off the top of my head are available and will to do the job, provided there is a salary. Some can work full time while others can work part-time to split a job. All would jump at the change to work from home on a project like this.
  • Melissa Newman. Graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology. I can handle the technical oversight, organization, etc. I have self studied educational theories and what is expected knowledge for the elementary school years. Very experienced in low level library and detailed work. Did software engineering work for the FDA (through other companies) -- software requirements, software design, data mapping, unit testing, and user manuals -- writing low level library code -- writing code to do data conversion/manipulation, data tagging, and data organization.
  • Kedma Cantor. Graduate from University of Judaism in California. She can handle the education side. She enjoys writing, and she has an education degree. Plus she has experience managing schools, adult education, family educational activities, etc.
  • Johanna Cohen. She is trained to be a editor by her mother. She is a graduate of Yale in Asian studies. She is also a certified social worker.
  • Johanna's mother. She is an experienced editor, and a retired lawyer.
  • Jody Green. Certified social work and certified doula.
  • Tzippy Shiller. Graduate from Yale in Nursing. Currently at home to care for a newborn baby.
  • Friend of Kedma's that enjoys story writing.
Plus, if I spread the word to homeschooling boards, I could get 10 more people easily.
I think that we have two different visions for a this project. Power point is used to entertain. I am interested in creating a tool that parents would have confidence in. This is similair to the concept that Wikipedia is a tool.
The project that you are envisioning, ppt presentations, flash, and other entertainment would be best to partner with Webkinz (http://www.webkinz.com) That is the current "in" website for children 6 - 13. It is cartoonish, flashy, fun, etc. It is also safe. There is chat and email, but it is controlled. For example, a child can type in "boy" and "friend", but not "boy friend". This restriction is due to the fact that the makers of the website believe that children under 13 should not be talking about boyfriends through email and chat. Plus there is restrictions to prevent the giving out of person info (phone, address, etc.). Plus the entertainment part of the website is made up of rooms. It would be very easy for them to make up a room called "library" that could contain educational videos on a variety of topics or it could even have simple encyclopedia articles that could be read to the child. The goal would be fun research as opposed to the more serious research that would come with school reports. If a child wants to take their webkinz on vacation, they could take them to France as opposed to just some generic island or cruise ship. Then they could learn about France by looking at the travel brochure. On a Presidential election day, the webkinz could go and vote. Once the project goes into the webkinz world, the ideas could be endless.
But that is a whole project in itself. The images and sound would be handled by Webkinz the company (if it is not broke, don't fix it), and the content would have to handled by true professional experts, aka Master's in Elementary Education. It is a valid project, very useful, worth the investment, but not what I am envisioning.
What I an envisioning is a useful tool for students. Due to the nature of a wiki, I would envision it more to be a starting point in doing research than an ending point. If we make the valid assumption that teachers will not accept this site as a valid research site for 10 years, then the obvious question would be what would the value of it until it proves to be reliable? If I was a student why would I want to go to this site?
My teacher gives me a report on Ancient Egypt. What now? It is a pretty big topic. What are some ideas for narrowing it down? I could write a report about the Nile River and its importance. I could write a report about clothing and its social meaning; religion; pyramids; bible stories; King Tut; housing; slavery; customs and traditions; holidays; A paragraph about each of these to give a general introduction would accomplish this. A digest format would work. Maybe even create a tab called "report ideas".
Now that I have my topic. I am going to need some books. What are some good books to check out from the library? What dewey decimal number do I look under for books? Some nice sound files of music from that period would be nice. What about art work and other images? What about video? The "bibliography" or "reference" tab could handle the outside references. The "gallery", "sound", and "video" tab could handle the non-text issues.
I envision that parents and teachers to use the website for the video, sound, and images. If the pages are formatted to print out nicely (layout is thought about instead of text just being typed), teachers could print out the text to have kids read in class. Parents may go on it with their kids. They could go to the animals gallery page, see the picture of the bear and click on the sound of the bear.
I don't really think that flash and ppt are required, because a reference site is a tool to look up information. It is not a place to go to get entertained. It does not need to be boring, but it does not require flash and ppt. Look at how kids encylopedia's are setup. They are generally 2 - 8 pages with graphics, colorful layout, and one page dedicated to questions. Some good examples are Kids Discover magazine, Backyard magazine, Scholastic weekly reader, Scholastic Children's Encyclopedia, etc.
The valid question that I did ask myself was, "With Encarta at the level that it is right now and it is free, do we need anything else?" The problem is that you are stuck with what the Encarta board provides and nothing more. A parent or teacher cannot add to it. For example, both Encarta and Wikipedia have "The Crossing of the Delaware" painting, but Encarta's is smaller than wikipedia's.
The bottom line is that everything goes back to the original issues. Wikipedia has a whole bunch of images that are great, but due to their free form format with no controls it is not a place that most parents that understand fully what Wikipedia truly is would want their children to freely browse.
Media wiki provides a way to access images without having have access to commons. This accomplished by allowing access to upload.mediawiki.org, but restricting access to commons.wikipedia.org. The only way to take advantage of this is to create another MediaWiki website that allows images to be access that are desirable, but does not display images that are not desirable.
One of your own personal goals was to create a family friendly environment. Kids need a safe place to be able to do research. The concept of this website is great, but from the articles I have read and the feedback that I have gotten on the forums, your current set of editors are mostly college professors that are comfortable writing at a college level.
I have other thoughts and issues that I can talk to you about in a more private format, if you desire. But I think that this is enough for now. I am still continuing on things off line for right now. Melissa Newman 16:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Physics editorship for Paul Wormer

Larry, Paul Wormer wants to become a Physics Editor. In my opinion, he is eminently qualified to be one. I am sure that Daniel Mietchen would agree that Paul is very qualified to be Physics Editor. I would hazard a guess that Paul has worked on more Physics articles in CZ than anyone else.

Can you please see that Paul is made an Editor? Milton Beychok 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the request, as previously stated on Paul's talk page. --Daniel Mietchen 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys--Paul Wormer is now a Physics Editor! In the future, however, please make your recommendation by e-mail...in case the answer has to be "no," as it sometimes does. --Larry Sanger 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Restart of proposal system

Hello. Due to a lack of activity and attention on my part, the Proposal System has ground to a halt and discussion on all proposals has stopped. I decided to clean out the system by marking all proposals as inactive and removing their drivers. This also happened to your proposals "Self-Correction Policy" and "Pilot to allow Citizens to take credit for pages". I would be delighted if you decide that you want to take one or both proposals up again. You can do this by updating the proposal record(s), which can now be found at CZ:Proposals/Driverless. Please do not hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. Yours, Jitse Niesen 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (Proposals Manager)

Hi Jitse. That's fine--does this mean that you have decided to stay on as Proposals Manager? --Larry Sanger 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that I feel responsible for the tasks I took on. To be honest, once you know what needs to be done it's not an onerous task, as long as you keep on top of it, so I won't mind staying on. My mistake was to let it slip for a while, and then the amount of stuff that needs to be done becomes rather overbearing. I think it's fair to say that given my track record, there are better candidates out there. So if anybody wants to take it over from me, then let me know and I'll help with the transition. Otherwise, I guess I'll stay on by default. -- Jitse Niesen 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As always, admirably clear. I say let's keep you on for now, unless someone shows up and offers to take over. You can also make it clear on your user page or elsewhere, if you want, that you're willing to give up the post to someone motivated to take it over. --Larry Sanger 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Instructions (just testing)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution System. Please use this page to report problems of all sorts—personal, editorial, or other conflicts you might have with others in the Citizendium community. It is closely watched by many people, so you should see a rapid response to new problems you submit.

Types of problems to submit include intractable editorial disagreements between authors or editors, appeals of editorial or constabulary decisions, violations of policy, and low-key but unacceptable patterns of abuse on the part of individuals.

How to submit a problem:

  • To submit a problem, edit this page and start a new section. Give the section a heading by typing == and ==, between which you write a brief, neutral, dispassionate description of the problem.
  • Below the section heading, describe the problem concisely and, again, neutrally and dispassionately. Be sure to include links to any pages where the dispute is ongoing or abuse is evident.
  • Sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~).

What will happen next? Constables, Mediators, and Editorial Review Committee members monitor this page. At least one of them should post an analysis, refer the matter to the proper group, and tell you what will happen next. If there is any disagreement about where the matter should go, the Editor-in-Chief will be called in.

All attempts to debate or resolve problems on this page will be deleted from this page. The purpose of this page is only to clarify and refer problems, not to resolve them.

The above is being discussed here. --Larry Sanger 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Query

Larry, would be possible to start a new Workgroup for Statistics? See here for background. Don't know if it would be right for now, but it could be something to keep in mind for the future. Hendra I. Nurdin 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hendra--yes, it would. The strategy would be simply to make a quick resolution to the Editorial Council. If no one else does this soon, please remind me and I'll do it. --Larry Sanger 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Larry, just wanted to check if anyone has submitted a quick resolution about the above to the EC. Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hendra, do really need a new Workgroup for Statistics now that we have just adopted (via a vote of the Editorial Council on Resolution 0014) to allow the formation of subgroups? It would be quite easy now to form a Statistics subgroup ... just contact Chris Day. Milton Beychok 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hendra, I agree with Milt's answer (thanks Milt). --Larry Sanger 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I was not aware of this subgroup development. Well, if in your opinion subgroup's the best way to do this then I'll just leave it at that (though I guess those who view statistics as a separate discipline will probably not agree to putting it as a subgroup of math). Hendra I. Nurdin 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hendra, a subgroup may be affiliated with up to 3 main workgroups ... in other words, a Statistic subgroup may be a subgroup of up to 3 main workgroups. It would not be limited to merely being a subgroup of the Mathmatics main workgroup. Read CZ:Subgroups in detail. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Energy (science)

Larry, Milton and I tried hard to answer your critical questions on the talk page of energy. I hope you're satisfied with the result. --Paul Wormer 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Larry! Thank you for your warm welcome. I hope to be a useful art editor in Citizendium. Sincerely, (Marika Herskovic 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Open Letter

Hi Larry. I left a note on your WP talk page as well. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to post an open letter on either your user page or user talk page. I understand it wouldn't receive the wide audience it might at Jimbo's page in the short run, but perhaps over the long-haul it would gather a wider audience. Hope I'm not out of line (either here or there) by doing this, but I guess the "In for a penny - In for a pound" saying often finds it's way to my door. Best. Ched Davis 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an idea--but I guess one copy, on the blog, is enough as far as I'm concerned. Although I'm about to post an edit to the copy clarifying that the letter is GFDL and can be posted freely. --Larry Sanger 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On user page history

I've used my Constabulary powers to move this entire discussion to a more appropriate place in the Forums at: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2648.0.html Hayford Peirce 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's groovy with me. --Larry Sanger 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We now have users Sekhar Talluri and Talluri Sekhar ??

Hi, Larry: Just for your info if you were not already aware of it, the same person now has two different user pages. One is User:Sekhar Talluri and the other is User:Talluri Sekhar. Could you straighten that out? Milton Beychok 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's under control for the moment, Milton, trust me. Speaking as a Constable. Hayford Peirce 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I'll fix it. --Larry Sanger 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Larry, the explanation is as per the email I sent you. We just need to make sure that he remains an *editor*! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll get it! D. Matt Innis 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting on top of this & fixing my mistake... --Larry Sanger 02:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't so much a mistake you made, I think, as just trying to play catch-up with getting this guy approved as an editor who had *also* put in his wrong email address. Complications.... Hayford Peirce 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We got you covered :) D. Matt Innis 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A near name clash

Larry, spotted this accidentally while surfing the internet:

Citizendia http://www.citizendia.org/

It's a wikipedia mirror and judging by the date at the bottom of the page, only just started up (17 March 2009). No idea who runs it. Meg Ireland 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I searched BetterWhois.com and that came up with the following Romanian registrant
Domain Name:CITIZENDIA.ORG
Created On:16-Sep-2006 16:49:58 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Apr-2009 00:30:31 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Sep-2010 16:49:58 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant Name:Bogdan Giusca
Registrant Organization:Bogdan Giusca
Registrant Street1:Str. Schitului, nr.11 Bl.11B
Registrant Street2:Ap 15 Et.2
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Bucuresti
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:032042
Registrant Country:RO
Registrant Phone:+40.213467348
Registrant Email:bogdan2005@yahoo.co.uk
Admin ID:GODA-259443627
Admin Name:Bogdan Giusca
Admin Organization:Bogdan Giusca
Admin Street1:Str. Schitului, nr.11 Bl.11B
Admin Street2:Ap 15 Et.2
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Bucuresti
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:032042
Admin Country:RO
Admin Phone:+40.213467348
According to the same source Citizendium.org was created On:12-Sep-2006 00:21:42 UTC (4 days earlier).
--Paul Wormer 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently he is an admin on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bogdangiusca , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdangiusca & http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdan_Giusca .Meg Ireland 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting.
But no, according to the record above, it was created September 16, one day after my original announcement. There was no one using anything remotely like Citizendium--it got no hits at all from Google--and I'm pretty sure I would have checked "Citizendia," because I'm very thorough about that sort of thing when picking names. Nobody knows about them...anyway, I am inclined to send them a mail telling them to shut down, because of the obvious confusability of names and direct competitive and misleading nature of site. --Larry Sanger 12:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess Bogdan Giusca is making money out of the site (he has ads) and won't easily give in.--Paul Wormer 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
People deliberately use near miss sites like wikipedai for advertising. Peter Jackson 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved the following from Talk:Larry Sanger

Specialized editor

Larry, I see some articles that are ready for approval. Could I be made specialist editor for the following categories based on my indicated experience below?

  1. Boxing: 2-time state amateur champion and long-time fan
  2. Bowling: 1-time city league champion and long-time bowler
  3. Soccer: 10+ years playing and paid referee of youth soccer leagues for several years
  4. Sailing: Have sailed on boats ranging from 16' cats to 44' yachts (island living is sooo tough!)

David E. Volk 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry for the long delay in replying to this, but...well...the question is whether you can articulate knowledge of the subject reliably. Engaging in a sport doesn't make you an expert. Have you written or done anything else that establishes an expertise? Refereeing is a definite credential, more than being a champion (no offense, I'm sure you can kick my ass and everybody's on CZ!). For instance I've taught Irish fiddle for a living, am on first-name basis with some famous fiddlers, and have played for 14 years...but I wouldn't call myself an expert by any means. And I think I know how to recognize the real experts. Maybe you could follow up by e-mail? --Larry Sanger 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If I make stick my own two cents in -- with all due respect to David and his credentials, I really don't think that they are enough to enable him to be called an Editor. An important part of the CZ ethos, and public cachet, is that Approved articles are approved by credentialed experts. And that the development of articles is guided by experts. To take extreme examples, would, could, should, Mickey Mantle and Pancho Gonzales, two of the greatest players ever in their respective sports, be given editorships here because of their other-worldly physical skills? I think that I'd prefer to have Red Smith and Bud Collins, say, be given editorships. I myself used to play tennis on a pretty high level, just below that of the very best, and I've followed it fairly closely over the years. And I've written a number of fictional works that have been published by *real* publishers, and paid for, as well as having an undergraduate degree in English from a prestigious university, but if I were offered the opportunity to be made a Sports or Literature editor, I would instantly turn it down. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in either field, and I'm *very* far from being qualified. In sum, I think it best that, regarding Editorships, we stick with our existing policy.... Hayford Peirce 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Eamil address?

Larry, I emailed bugs the instant the cite went down, but I don't think anyone saw it for hours. Could you remind me what your email address is so next time I can send an email directly to you at the same time? Of course, send it privately to my email address. David E. Volk 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's sanger@citizendium.org -- thanks -- sending the notice to both places is the best way.

I'm very sorry we haven't gotten on top of it, but I'm waiting on one of our tech guys at this point... --Larry Sanger 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does email to bugs or sanger@citizendium.org get through when the system is down? I was thinking more of your gmail or yahoo account. David E. Volk 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Mail to me & bugs almost always gets through because it's on a different server. The forums and blog usually stay up too. I hardly ever check blarneypilgrim@yahoo.com but I'm more inclined to if sanger@citizendium.org is inaccessible. --Larry Sanger 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian alphabet

Hi Larry, I'm a really new author (got to get past the WP habit of saying "editor"), and have written two articles, Gobioides broussonnetii, and Hawaiian alphabet. The first one is merely a copy of the version I wrote on wikipedia, but the second one is new, fresh, and is up to Citizendiums standards. Thus, I feel it is ready to be approved. Unfortunately, there are four editors tottal, spanning two workgroups, that would be considered an "expert" in the subject. Unfotunately, none of them seem to be around. Could you take a look at Hawaiian alphabet and either A)make the decision yourself, or B)forward my request to an active editor with experience in the field?Drew R. Smith 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Drew, the job of helping to get articles approved, if warranted, is handled by our Approvals Manager who is Joe Quick. I strongly suggest that you contact him, not on his user page but at User talk:Approvals Manager. Getting an article approved can often require quite a while, so be prepared to be patient. Joe will do his best to help you. Milton Beychok 00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Milton answered correctly. I was travelling...more on Drew's user talk page. --Larry Sanger 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, where were you traveling?Drew R. Smith 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New subpage type to accomodate content to be transcluded onto Welcome page as AOTW

Hi Larry, please take a look at this message and comment whether you'd agree to put this stuff into a dedicated subpage, primarily for articles being approved or nominated for approval, and for those nominated for display on the Welcome page. --Daniel Mietchen 22:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also a need for Proof subpages in mathematics, discussed at several places in the forums recently (e.g. here). Please comment on how to proceed. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
... and here as well Peter Schmitt 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing GFDL content

Hi Larry, please take a look at these two messages on the relicensing of content originally imported from GFDL-licensed sources, and comment. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Process for justifying, testing and installing extensions on Citizendium

I raised a question on the technical issues forum that one of the respondents suggested you may be more qualified to answer. Specifically, I asked how it is decided to add an extension to Citizendium? The motivation for this question is that the availability of more powerful tools on Citizendium could attract contributors who in their absence might be inclined to work on Wikipedia or other information warehouse stores [pun intended :-D]. In my original post I gave an example of a set of tools that might provide such benefit. Some background might be useful. I originally contemplated writing a book and contributing it to Wikibooks. For various reasons that seems less likely now. However, during the process of scoping out the work, it became apparent that the tools for adding content metadata in mulit-wiki-page works (e.g., table of contents numbers in wiki section and page titles, references, footnotes and citation annotations, indexes) in Mediawiki based wikis are lacking. The Cite extension presumes references and citations exist on the same page. Table of contents numbering cannot be transcluded into section or page titles. There is no support for automatically building indexes, either on the same page or across multiple pages. Providing better tools such as these might attract contributors to Citizendium. [I think I can make a case that multi-wiki-page article support is relevant to Citizendium]

However, this specific example is unimportant (other than as evidence that the existence of such tools might be a differentiator for Citizendium). I am actually interested in the more general question of what decision processes exist, if any, to justify, test and install extensions on Citizendium. Off the top of my head, at least the following criteria would be important. 1) Are there good justifications for adding the extension (I have always found it curious that the Hiero extension is installed on most Mediawiki based wikis)? 2) Is the extension properly tested so its installation is unlikely to introduce either stability or performance problems on the site? 3) Is the extension compatible with the version of Mediawiki used by Citizendium? These are examples of criteria. I am interested on your take on these and whether you believe others are as or more important.

Finally, I should mention that I have, over the last couple of weeks, been corresponding with the Mediawiki developers (i.e., using wikitech-1) on the topic of regression testing. In my view the Mediawiki software has significant QA issues and there is a good possibility that if this is not corrected, one day it will fall over and have difficulty standing up again. I notice that Citizendium runs on 1.13.2 (modified). So, one consideration in this issue is the stability of the base code and how this affects the desirability of adding new extensions. Any thoughts, insights or other comments? Dan Nessett 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"because of a peculiarity in the MediaWiki system"

I just noticed this in the review form. There should be a $wgAccountRequestMinWords variable to change or remove the requirement. Aaron Schulz 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, we just had a new registrant that said he had tried to register but never heard from us. He applied three more times before he realized that he had not used 50 words in the bio. We finally did get his last application. Could the problem above be why we never got it? If so, that might be a very big deal because we definitely have not had the number of apps that we should. D. Matt Innis 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what either of you are saying. Are you saying that we should rewrite the requirements so that we do NOT require 50 words AND redo the system so that applications are not rejected if they don't have 50 words? Or are you saying that we should keep the requirement BUT redo the system so that the application is sent anyway, even if there aren't 50 words? Or are you saying that there is NO notice at the top of the page of a failed application saying that the 50 word are needed? I logged out yesterday, then tried to send in a test application with only 10 words written: I got a notice (not a large one, but at least it was there) at the top of the application page saying that 50 words were needed. IF I COULD FIND THE DAMN editing page for THIS part, I would make that notice much BIGGER.... Hayford Peirce 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally the notice is bigger, but the site CSS is making it small. The CSS class 'errorbox' can control this. At any rate, that UI message above is worded as if it the 50 word requirement is a weird obstacle that has to be worked around. My point was that if it is problematic, then it can simply be changed. Aaron Schulz 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's no problem if an applicant actually writes 50 words and then clicks the submit button. If he *doesn't* write 50 words, and clicks the submit button, the same application page remains in front of him, now with a little notice on top of the page that he has to write 50 words. A professor in Holland finally got accepted last week after emailing the Constabulary that he had been trying in vain for two months to join. He had never paid any attention to the 50-word requirement. It was a result of that that I added the CAPS stuff about the 50 words. I'd ALSO like to have that notice at the top of the failure page in LARGER letters.... But I can't find the page in order to edit it. Hayford Peirce 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
So then the "peculiarity" is not that it isn't sent but that the message is too small. Changing MediaWiki:common.css is the way to may it bigger. Aaron Schulz 21:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I've imported future MW CSS (in shared.css) for these items. CZ may want different colors or what not. Aaron Schulz 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The danger of relying uncritically on things

Hello. I just read Kathryn Schulz's interview of you. You said:

I think it's pretty dangerous to rely in an uncritical way on Wikipedia.

I've been telling students for some time that it's pretty dangerous to rely uncritically on correctly functioning calculators. (And that's without even mentioning the habit of so many of them of using calculators as anesthetics.) But I think properly functioning calculators are good things. So if you meant your comment as anything more than the weakest of criticisms that would also apply to calculators, you should beef it up.

(This may be related to the issue of relying uncritically on spell checkers. They won't tell you that "intercession" and "intersession" are two different things. Hence a school's academic calendar says "Intercession: December 20th–January 4th".) Michael Hardy 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you like Google Maps, you'll probably love Google Earth. Michael Hardy 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It mussed bee awl rite. The spell chequer tolled mi sew. Peter Jackson 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Larry!

You did it, way to go! Thanks for everything!! D. Matt Innis 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for getting the project started, Larry! --Daniel Mietchen 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for sticking with it and making it happen! --Larry Sanger 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on starting and keeping Citizendium afloat.Mary Ash 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been Nominated!

Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium. They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[Archive:Citizendium Ballot for the Management Council|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC). Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:

Article 54

  • In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
  • Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
  • Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
  • Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
  • Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
  • All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
  • In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.

Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.

D. Matt Innis 13:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

Just to let you know I've invited the Ombudsman. Peter Jackson 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A sight for sore eyes

And not a moment too soon. ;-) D. Matt Innis 17:50, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Thanks, Matt! --Larry Sanger 19:28, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

WP Hierarchy

Larry: I have tried to outline the way WP is organized at Wikipedia#Administration, but the structure is fairly complicated. I wonder if you might take a look at this discussion and determine whether I have the whole story here.

Many thanks, John R. Brews 14:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, I replied on the talk page. --Larry Sanger 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Funding

Two items could be added to the "WE NEED YOUR HELP!" box. Something such as "Current funds for servers will be exhausted 2013-13-13." Also "Donations this month total $xxx.xx; the monthly requirement is $yyy.yy." And of course, the numbers need updating daily at least. BTW, I tried to register for a forum but didn't receive approval. Might have chosen the wrong forum. Regards, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need updates much more frequently, and "daily at least" seems to be a good thing to strive for (as long as there have been changes during that day). --Daniel Mietchen 00:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Peter, has anyone approved your request to join the forums yet?
If you want daily updates, you really need someone other than me to be treasurer! Monthly is the best I'll be able to handle. I'll try to update the page soon. --Larry Sanger 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is here. Approval for the forum is no longer needed, thanks. Ideally the financial status would be updated by software. Not sure how. Can any bank account be read by software? Regards, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 06:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Larry, as far as I can see from CZ:Financial report, we have funds remaining to keep the servers running on the order of one month. Is this correct? --Daniel Mietchen 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Daniel, nope--we have over $2,000, as I have just stated at CZ:Financial report. I have paid for several months out of my own pocket and am not asking to be reimbursed. There were also several other, very generous donations. No funds that were deposited to the Paypal account I set up for CZ were transferred to my own bank accounts--all of those funds are all still there. I will be transferring them soon, however, to Hayford's new CZ Paypal account. --Larry Sanger 20:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Larry. --Daniel Mietchen 06:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now we have faced up to reality about the role of the financial representative, how about the role of Management Council member next. David Finn 07:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean I haven't been participating, perhaps, David? I can't quite tell what you mean. But if that's what you mean, I am of course perfectly willing to "face up to reality" regarding my non-participation. I would be happy to step aside. Frankly, between my new projects and family, I don't have time for CZ. I volunteered for the Management Council only because I had the impression that warm bodies were lacking. --Larry Sanger 00:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I see... I guess you didn't notice that during the election you were not unopposed, and in fact your nearest opponent received only two votes less than you? Anyway, now that you mention it I notice you haven't voted on any MC matter for three and a half months or so, and if you don't have time for CZ like you say I guess we can assume you won't be voting on any more matters. Nevertheless according to CZ rules it is up to you whether you wish to continue to occupy the position in place of someone who may have the time. My gut instinct would be to give that someone the chance. David Finn 15:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah, Larry's doing just fine. I doubt seriously that most would have re-donated had he not rejoined the effort. Larry's value is just being who he is. Not many have that distinction. You'll get a chance to run next time, David. D. Matt Innis 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with David Finn about you resigning, Larry. The MC is working just fine (we have passed 4 motions this month) and there is no reason for you to resign right now. If you feel you do not have the time to participate, you can request a temporary leave of absence and then resign after March. That will avoid triggering a special election, which I am sure most of us do not want. Dan Nessett 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how honourary MC positions would be viewed by the Charter or the Citizens who voted. David Finn 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
All I can say is that it reflects well on the project that you care enough to make an issue of it, David. If people actually care about being in control of it, it's still reasonably robust. Well, I think that's a valid inference.  :-) --Larry Sanger 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of us certainly do care, Larry. Actually, you have already identified one of the main problems, that we have far too small a community to support such a rigidly formal system of governance.
Larry, I am sure you are aware of how many people contribute to this site. It works out that there are far less contributors than elected officials.
I'll say that again - we have more elected officials than we have contributors. More officials than we have warm bodies.
Dan is saying that if you don't have the time to do MC business then you can take a leave of absence right up to the next elections, but I hope you will agree that such a thing would be a gross manipulation of the Charter. The people who voted (and there were more voters than elected officials, you got over 30 votes as did your nearest opponent) weren't voting just to keep the system in place at all costs, they were voting for individuals to be on the MC and are entitled to get what they voted for, don't you think?
Dans idea seems to be to protect the idea of the MC at all costs, even if it means him sitting up there all on his own telling us all what to do. The danger of course with leaving the MC solely in the hands of one individual is that MC business ceases to be about and for the community and more about what that individual wants. That is why we need either MC participation or reverting to a looser more informal style of management, like you suggested on the forum.
I appreciate that you may not have the time for this function, Larry. Dan says that there is no standard set for active MC participation, but you are as aware as the rest of us that when we voted we were expecting a certain level of participation regardless. For that reason I think it entirely appropriate to consider resignation as there is always a chance that someone who does have the time will step in. David Finn 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Larry's MC position is not honorary. He has served as the CZ treasurer for the past 7 months when no one else was willing to do so. He has participated in MC discussions, if infrequently. There is no standard set in the charter for what constitutes active participation. Dan Nessett 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan, when asked on the forum about our finances you said that "You need to contact the treasurer, not the MC". It seems that one day the treasurer is not an MC function, and the next it magically is, the only difference being which way you want to portray things. Is that a correct observation? And by the way, I said would be viewed - future tense, no? If you as MC chair are offering out leaves of absence as a way of perpetuating a system that obviously isn't working then you are creating honourary MC memberships, and that seems a clear manipulation of the Charter. David Finn 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The person who is appointed treasurer need not be a member of the MC and is not, by virtue of that appointment, an MC member. The treasurer has the responsibility of paying the bills and providing a monthly financial report. Larry took on that role because we could find no one else to do it. In a sense he was acting pro tempore until the MC could find someone to do the job. Consequently, his work as the treasurer is legitimately viewed as MC work.
The MC chair does not offer leaves of absence. Any MC member has the option of asking for a leave of absence of up to 120 days. To view this as a manipulation of the charter only serves to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of its content. Dan Nessett 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me do an end run around this: I'm going to start participating, at least a little more, in the MC. --Larry Sanger 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Now what was the topic in this section? Umm ... oh yes, funding! The financial report with monthly updates is good. My request for daily updates is retracted. Still I wonder about putting the last three or so months in a location which a casual reader won't miss. Nothing like perilously low funds to motivate a donation. Regards, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Peter, I'm no longer the treasurer... --Larry Sanger 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for Management and Editorial Councils

You have been nominated for seats on both the Management and Editorial Councils in the July-August Special Election. The nominator was myself. To accept or decline these nominations, please visit the Nominations page here (for the Management Council seat) and here (for the Editorial Council Author seat) by midnight UTC on July 27th. You may write an election statement for each if you wish (linked from the Nominations page).

The Management Council seat runs until June 30th, 2014 or June 30th, 2015 (the successful candidate with the fewest votes receiving the shorter term) and the Editorial Council seat expires on December 31st, 2013. In the event that Referendum 1 is passed, all seats will expire on June 30th, 2014. Thanks! John Stephenson 17:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Larry_Sanger&oldid=928613"