On 04/16/2010 05:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
And the Cuil search engine is still the shining example of why Cuil
Theory exists. It's comically awful and is most useful to point the
kids at and tell them Google got popular by not sucking like that.
It is true that failure is important to future
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
A common way to stifle discussion about nuance in any situation is to refer
to old discussions on similar ideas and say we already discussed this and
got consensus. Keeping an ancient history of all past debates could cause a
single discussion to echo forward in time indefinitely. I don't
12 matches
Mail list logo
