On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
Marc
on 4/23/10 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
There
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.
translation: I have not even
Charles Matthews wrote:
Shrug. Sanger is no Wozniak. He did great things in the early days of
WP. Subsequently [...]
Anthony wrote:
Meanwhile, they (especially Sanger) alienated a number of productive
individuals by just not being nice enough. They closed down the mailing
list just as it
Charles Matthews wrote:
Shrug. Sanger is no Wozniak. He did great things in the early days of
WP. Subsequently [...]
Anthony wrote:
Meanwhile, they (especially Sanger) alienated a number of productive
individuals by just not being nice enough. They closed down the
mailing
list just as it
on 4/23/10 8:31 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Larry is doing a lot better controlling his nasty side on Citizendium
than he ever did on Wikipedia; there is a collegial atmosphere, more or
less. The problem is with the conception, not with his particular
behavior. He has
Marc Riddell wrote:
And, on not-so-obscure websites, where there is a clear - and acute -
academiphobia present.
I can show you the academic mathematicians editing, if you like. It's
worth analysing the black legend that Wikipedia hates academics,
though. Fred's comment Serious academics
Marc Riddell wrote:
And, on not-so-obscure websites, where there is a clear - and acute -
academiphobia present.
on 4/23/10 10:31 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
I can show you the academic mathematicians editing, if you like. It's
worth analysing the black
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.
translation: I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so
will resort to ad-hominem abuse.
- d.
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers,
Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.
translation: I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so
will resort to ad-hominem abuse.
-
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers,
Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.
translation: I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so
will resort to ad-hominem abuse.
On 23 April 2010 17:33, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, I will not present further to my remarks to Charles - they stand as
stated. But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
It's
But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
Marc
There was certainly a lot of misunderstanding. You can go back to the
early history of the article reality a little article I created March
11, 2002:
Fred Bauder wrote:
You can go back to the
early history of the article reality a little article I created March
11, 2002:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realityoldid=27840
At a certain point Larry will chime in...
But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
Marc
on 4/23/10 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
There was certainly a lot of misunderstanding. You can go back to the
early history of
Many have stories about their contributions being edited, scrutinized,
and
finally deleted by persons who haven't the faintest knowledge of the
subject. When they protest, they are told of the proper channels they
are
required to take: circles within circles.
Marc
A lot of this sort of
Fred Bauder wrote:
A lot of this sort of trouble results when an expert edits without citing
good sources. Students often can edit more successfully because they have
appropriate references at hand.
Interesting. This all sounded like absolutely standard blog comment
complaint: the kind of
On 23 April 2010 18:54, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, any hypothesis claiming Wikipedia is fundamentally
expert-hostile needs to account for the fact of the startling
quantities of experts actually here and contributing. You can hardly
move on Wikipedia without bumping into
On 23 April 2010 19:13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
You see, what he taught sophomores in his Intro to Philosophy class
trumps all other content. Note the complete absence of any reference.
You shouldn't hold the lack of a reference against him. I started
editing a few months
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's evident, however, that Citizendium's alternative approach has
been a resounding failure, whereas Wikipedia wouldn't be a top 10 site
if it wasn't actually useful to people.
So the question becomes: how to get more expert oversight in?
Keep in mind
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
We only started insisting on references once we realised
people were, against all expectation, actually using the articles we
were writing! You shouldn't judge people's historical actions by
modern standards.
True. Remember at the time there was
Interesting phenomenon I have noticed here and there: these experts
choosing to work on Wikipedia on an entirely different topic
altogether. That is to say, someone quite qualified and competent to
write articles on Assyrian archaeology in the way we normally mean
when we say expert, but
On 18 April 2010 21:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think how much people use something is a reasonable measure of how
useful it is. Maybe it is only useful for entertaining people or
useful for satisfying idle curiosity, but that is still a use. Perhaps
you mean how useful
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is
(in theory) anyone writing
On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You are aware that Nupedia wasn't a wiki, right?
Certainly - I've even read the book I co-authored which mentions this
fact. The point I was trying to make is more like if you bolt a
community like a wiki onto Nupedia-like processes, you can expect a sort
of social
On 18 April 2010 23:02, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, change all this and they still likely would have never supplanted
Wikipedia. Some sort of Wikiversity-like mission statement would have
probably been more achievable.
Heh. Wonder if they would have gone for a bunch of
On 19 April 2010 17:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2010 23:02, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, change all this and they still likely would have never supplanted
Wikipedia. Some sort of Wikiversity-like mission statement would have
probably been more
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2010 20:47, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree. It's better you admit you can't measure the thing you
want to talk about rather than passing off the measurement you can
make as
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work and produce something people find
useful.
I'm not entirely sure of this. It is accurate to say that Wikipedia is found
useful by people - but
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work and produce something people find
useful.
I'm not entirely sure of this. It
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work and produce something people find
useful.
I'm not entirely sure of this. It
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work
On 18 April 2010 20:22, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a perfect metric, but it is probably the best one we can
actually measure. A metric we can't measure is completely useless.
When choosing a metric you always have to compromise between ease of
measurement
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 17 April 2010 03:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is
(in theory) anyone writing articles and experts resolving
David Gerard wrote:
But, what of it? they then ask. That it has let itself become a
project of no effective import. If it's not dead, it's moribund.
Shrug. Sanger is no Wozniak. He did great things in the early days of
WP. Subsequently he has seemed determined to prove that he has totally
On 17 April 2010 03:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Number_of_authors
Compare Conservapedia, which has 76 at the time I write this. The
difference is, the latter is
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
One very interesting Citizendium statistic is the median article
length in words. It has been reducing by about 6 words a month for
years. I think that means most of the new articles being created are
stubs, or not
Thomas Dalton schreef:
One very interesting Citizendium statistic is the median article
length in words. It has been reducing by about 6 words a month for
years. I think that means most of the new articles being created are
stubs, or not much more than stubs, and nobody is working on expanding
On 17 April 2010 12:44, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Using
the CZ mailing list is discouraged (the blog post at
http://weblog.terrellrussell.com/2006/10/citizendium-a-study-in-momentum-killing
is interesting; rereading the mailing list articles from September 2006
show
David Gerard schreef:
Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy:
http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/18/larry_sanger_citizendium_and_the_problem_of_expertise.php
Clay Shirky was wrong. He focussed on one part of the CZ hierarchy: the
experts, and the
On 17 April 2010 13:52, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy:
http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/18/larry_sanger_citizendium_and_the_problem_of_expertise.php
Clay Shirky was
On 17 April 2010 14:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2010 13:52, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy:
I can't speak about larger issues, I can only speak for myself. I arrived at
CZ with a lot of experience on Wikipedia, within a few months of the launch
of the project. I wrote a little, and quickly lost interest. Why?
- CZ was a lonely place. Wikipedia has a vibrancy. You can always stop by
AN/I
I like to say that Wikipedia, with its own community bureaucracy, keeps
going because of flexibility. The bureaucracy (if I may call our
structure that if only for sake or argument) and rule structure is
intentionally not made strict and in general is not strictly followed.
This allows for
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day
during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the
meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the
project is at least no worse off this year than last. There seems to
be a winter dip in editing,
On 17 April 2010 03:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day
during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the
meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the
project is at least no worse off
48 matches
Mail list logo
