As a college student myself (at UVA), I can say that the same basically holds here in anything outside a 101 class. WP might be a nice way to get a brief glimpse of what an idea is, but it isn't a citable source. A major change from WP to CZ is that we aren't gonna allow anonymity, and we will involve more experts. This way, we go from a resource written by anonymous people who might range in intelligence from high schoolers on up to a resource that will not be anonymous and will have at least one expert looking over the changes. That will do a lot I think.
In the academic world, I think that professors and/or TAs will be a lot more interested in a source that has an expert's name on it. Even though it will be clear that the expert merely edited or approved the work, having someone like that sign off on it could let CZ articles in as citable resources in a lot of college papers. If CZ approval means something serious, then approved articles will work as secondary/tertiary sources.
I think we can do that without chasing away authors (non-experts). After all, I'm far from an expert and I'm still here. We can foster a strong community even with the editor/author divide, since everyone has fundamentally the same goal (creating a useable compendium of critical human knowledge).
Zach Pruckowski
On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Susan Awbrey wrote: All:
After reading about strong collaboration, it appears that the goal is to have as many people as possible participate in creating articles (as in Wikipedia). I guess I still have a question about how these articles are used by the audience outside of the Wiki. Or don't people care about it being an educational tool? I'm not sure what occurs in the high schools, but on our college campus faculty do not favor Wikipedia references on student papers because there is no way of knowing whether the information is accurate. Our libraries teach information literacy part of which is the ability to determine if a source of information is legitimate. So, I'd like to hear more about how this problem of accuracy/integrity of articles will be addressed in Citzendium so that it is different from Wikipedia. Thanks, Susan
At 08:32 AM 10/16/2006 -0400, Zachary Pruckowski wrote:
I think the solution here lies in CZ's other major innovation - separation of powers. We now have constables who are independent of editors who can say "OK, this expert-edit-warring is not cool" and make it stick through the methods at their disposal (whatever they have to use against authors). Or they can at least call in whoever is one-up the Constable chain of command (if there's someone between normal constable and Chief-Constable).
Perhaps the best solution is to have some sort of escalation mechanism, such that some articles (namely contentious ones) require 2+ editors to approve them?
Zach "Why are my weekends busier than my weeks?" Pruckowski
On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:53 AM, Larry Sanger wrote:
The most stubborn are
the most motivated, and the most motivated are the most ideological, and the
most ideological are not the best sources for an encyclopedia. I think this
is why people (on both Left and Right) find so much to complain about,
regarding the ideology of Wikipedia and its failure to follow its own
neutrality policy.
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l Dr. Susan M. Awbrey
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
520 O'Dowd Hall
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48309
Phone: 248-370-2188
Fax: 248-370-2589
|
