User talk:Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Current talk page

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)

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)

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)

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)

User name change

I'd prefer to be known as 'SW Kolterman'. Can you change that? Thanks... Stephen W. Kolterman 04:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually allow people to use two first initials and a last name, unless that's what they publish under. This might be better done by e-mail either to the Constabulary (constables@citizendium.org) or me. --Larry Sanger 05:19, 23 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

Hello, Larry. I considered e-mailing this to you, or posting it on my blog, but I settled instead on posting this open letter on your Citizendium discussion page. Let me begin by stating that I have enormous respect for you and your vision for Citizendium. I bear neither you nor this project any ill will; Citizendium's goals are noble indeed.

I have concerns, though, that Citizendium may not be succeeding, if at all, in the manner that you predicted early in the history of the project. One of the first statements that I read in CZ:Donate, at the top of Why donate to the Citizendium?, is

The Citizendium is a project of Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. (It will become fully independent next year.) [Emphasis mine.]

To the best of my knowledge, Citizendium continues to be a project of Tides Center. The quote that I linked to was written in 2006 or 2007, and thus indicated that Citizendium would become a fully independent organisation in 2008. It's 2009 now, and Citizendium is not yet an independent organisation. What gives?

Next, CZ:Fundamentals states, in section V, The adoption of a Citizendium Charter that

Within six months to a year after the launch of the Citizendium, its Advisory Board will adopt a binding community charter that states, in a clear but general way, the fundamental goals and policies of the Citizendium project. The judgment of the Advisory Board, on the matter of the Charter, will be regarded as final. [Emphasis mine.]

Now, as far as I know, no charter has yet been formed. At any rate, it's 2009 now, long past the "six months to a year" mark. Is this another hitch?

Finally, I turn my attention to CZ:Statistics. The first graph in Number of articles and pages shows a creation rate that seems to be a constant slope; there has been no exponential growth, as you predicted would occur in 2008. And, if the first graph in Number of authors is to be believed, then the editing community has been in decline over the last several months.

Do these factors make Citizendium's prospects for the future as a publicly-acclaimed and used free encyclopedia look good? I'll be blunt: they do not. Let me recap: at least two very important organisational steps have not yet taken place, although they were promised over a year ago; article growth has been constant, with no exponential growth; and the editing community appears to be in decline.

Last Friday, I co-founded Epistemia, "the free, reliable, and global compilation of knowledge", which aims to address Wikipedia's flaws by:

• requiring users to log in before being permitted to edit (users can self-register, by the way);
• requiring civil and polite conduct, and showing no tolerance for those people whose intention is to cause disruption or damage;
• requiring people with administrative privileges to use their real names as their account names, with few exceptions (anybody else can use a reasonable pseudonym if they so choose, although they are encouraged to use their real names);
• placing a high emphasis on developing and maintaining content according to established scholarly standards (it is my intention to implement a review system that incorporates both expert and general-community feedback); and
• outlining policy (content, community, and project standards), which is still in development, clearly and simply on a single page.

I would love to hear your take on Epistemia and to have a reasoned, logical debate with you over the merits of these policies.

Best and friendly regards, Thomas H. Larsen 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, those were the 'Good ole days'! Thomas, I see that you're site is so very young, but don't get discouraged. Keep your eyes on the road and nose to the grindstone and you will be rewarded. If I were to give any advice (not that you've asked), I'd say read everything that you can that Larry Sanger has written and do your best to understand the CZ:Neutrality Policy and decide on how you plan to enforce something like it. Then just sit back and maybe someday someone will compliment you by trying to emulate you. D. Matt Innis 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Thomas! --Larry Sanger 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, folks. I'm certainly an avid reader of Larry's works regarding free content projects. Neutrality is definitely a requirement over at Epistemia (although we call it "balance"; see our policy).

@Matt: You looked at Special:AllPages on Epistemia Meta—try the English-language project pages list (the pages in italics are redirects). According to Special:Statistics, we currently have 91 articles. Thomas H. Larsen 03:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see it the only real constitutional difference between CZ and Epistemia is: anybody else can use a reasonable pseudonym if they so choose. Thomas, do you really believe that that rule decides between success and failure? --Paul Wormer 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul, as far as I can tell their frustration with citizendium is the following list.

Citizendium:

• boasts about being written by experts, despite the amateurish quality of most articles
• many articles are written in an excessively simplistic style, and appear to be dumbed down and even patronising to readers
• much of the content seems more biased and poorly researched than corresponding content on Wikipedia* many basic topics are missing altogether
• user policy is highly restrictive; this seems to be an extreme kneejerk reaction to the openness of Wikipedia
• bizarre organisation and interface render it inconvenient to use
• seems to be a chimera made up of certain aspects of Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias without fully understanding the success of either

It makes me think we need to promote the "Myths_and_Facts" document a little more. Chris Day 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, I hadn't seen that list. I would indeed say: Good luck Thomas, you sure need it! --Paul Wormer 17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd say we should be grateful that we have become big enough to have had a fork and a rather pompous 'open letter'. I would say something rather rude, but I'll keep my pre-emptive giggles of schaudenfreude to myself. --Tom Morris 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul, for various reasons, I don't want to have the specific discussion on Larry's page, or indeed any user page. Nevertheless, I'll note that there are reasons why identifications and membership policies could reasonably be reexamined to see if policies are ideally efficient and consistent. They may or may not be. Pseudonyms are not the only issue, but this may be one additional example of the potential utility of reviewing the process that includes them. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to be too rude, but I have never seen a more knuckle-headed (to be charitable) assessment of CZ than the above list. I don't know who its author, Richard Austin, is, but it's apparent that he has never spent even 5 seconds looking at CZ -- as far as I can tell, every single item on that list is either flat-out wrong or a flat-out lie. It's hard to betray so much ignorance in so few words. Hayford Peirce 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck to them; I'm sorry they don't want to work here. As for the list, I am concerned at the visibility of our best articles - the Random Article button throws up mainly subpages (definitions, atomic numbers...) and the list of Live Articles includes everything from stubs (many of which are indeed just nominal beginnings) to well developed articles. It's not easy for someone looking in to see the large amount of very good work that has been done here.Gareth Leng 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

←Please allow me to correct a number of misconceptions here. Firstly, Epistemia is not a "fork" of either Wikipedia or Citizendium in the common sense of the word; you might call it an "alternative", but referring to it as a fork is misleading as it implies a shared history and split.

Secondly, I'm well aware that good work is being done on Citizendium. Is it enough, though? So far, Citizendium has no real public readership except, perhaps, inside of some academic circles. Will it ever be actually used widely? Larry predicted exponential growth in 2008—and, as yet, this growth has not occurred, at least according to CZ:Statistics.

Does it matter if Citizendium is widely read? Yes, it does—because the project is worthless unless it is actually perused and referred to by a large, broad category of people.

The list that Chris spoke of was not written by myself. Actually, I think there are three main problems associated with Citizendium:

1. it is overly restrictive, and not very dynamic or global;
2. it has failed to gain significant public support, after over two years of operation; and
3. it alienates people by requiring all contributors to use their real names.

Points (2) and (3) are easy enough to verify through simple experimentation. (1), though, is more subjective, and I could spend hours explaining why it is true. Perhaps I will do so some day, but not now; I've got a project to work on. :-)

Well, we have differences of opinion, I guess. I wish Citizendium all the best. Thomas H. Larsen 00:44, 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)