Hi Zach, I fully agree with the way you describe the sources issue and I wouldn't want to have it any different. An encyclopedia even has to provide information about an event from a certain distance in the sense that it summarizes and evaluates primary, secondary and maybe tertiary sources as well. The sources used will depend on the event. I absolutely don't have a problem with an encyclopedia being a tertiary source. To become a highly rated source of facts Citizendium needs to focus on quality over quantity and also try to use a language which is capable of describing complex issues. The issue of having articles on different levels came up several times. I have mixed feelings about that because it would require an increased editing effort to allow the reader to make a smooth transition from basic levels to higher level which I consider desirable. Nevertheless this approach could be a real winner if the article reading community and 'experts' which are not directly involved confirm that...
Of course you are absolutely right that hosting primary and secondary sources are a usually necessary to write a paper. I also wouldn't exclude this kind of information from Citizendium, if somebody comes up with a neat mathematical technique which is new it could be sent through the editorial process and accepted if proven to be correct. I guess not everybody wants or needs to have his/her work published in peer reviewed journals. On the other hand Citizendium has the potential to be regarded as a peer reviewed medium. I better read up on what other people said meanwhile because I had to take a 14hr break before I could finish this little piece... Anyway, thanks for listening, Christoph Christoph U. Wildgruber VISION Scientist ORNL-SNS 865-574-5378 -----Original Message----- From: Zachary Pruckowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 17-Oct-06 15:24 To: Susan Awbrey; Wildgruber, Christoph U. Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Citizendium-l] Fwd: RE: Encyclopedia In my opinion (and I'm not in charge, obviously), the issue with CZ as a source in a paper isn't accuracy or prevalence of references. While an approved CZ article will be well written, accurate, and well referenced and cited and overall wonderful, there are some cases where it's not the best source. There exist lots of cases where CZ articles will be trustworthy references, certainly more cases than CZ articles. Here's a demo of what I'm talking about: Event X occurs (whether it's an experiment or a historical battle or whatever doesn't matter) Person A observes the event, or collects data on the event and publishes it (PubA1). Others conduct similar experiments or write similar accounts of Event X (PubA2...An) (all of these are primary sources) Person B reads PubA1, PubA2, etc, and comments on them in another paper or a book (PubB1...PubBn) (secondary sources) Person C writes [[Event X]]. He/she can draw on all the PubAs and all the PubBs. That makes us at best a secondary source, and more likely a tertiary source. Because of the "No Original Research" rule, no CZ article can ever be a primary source. In a lot of settings, people writing research papers should be referring to only primary and secondary sources, since they are essentially creating a secondary source (combining accounts, comparing and contrasting to analyze events and uncovering trends). Therefore a tertiary source isn't the best way to go. In a lot of circumstances, that doesn't matter, and CZ would then make a great resource. There is a proposal (on the forums) to host primary and secondary source papers in much the same way that Wikimedia Commons hosts free images. There is no way to keep the "No Original Research" rule and have Citizendium (CZ) be a primary or secondary source. Zach Pruckowski On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Susan Awbrey wrote: > Hi, > I think Christoph meant to send this to the list. Susan > >> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:24:45 -0400 >> From: "Wildgruber, Christoph U." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia >> >> Dear All, >> >> I was going to ask almost exactely the same question! >> Now I haven't been very active contributing to this list >> but trust me, I am reading a lot of what all of you are >> saying and I am really excited about trying to do it right >> this time. >> >> As a scientist doing neutron beam experiments >> for more than 20 years I am sure looking forward to use >> Citizendium for my work as well as I do plan to contribute >> with the (narrow) field of my expertise. >> >> When I read Zachary's email I had almost exactely the same >> thought's Susan had. Citizendium is supposed to do better >> than Wikipedia and as far as I remember the comparison >> 'Nature' did between the Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia >> came up with a suprisingly good result for Wikipedia. >> While this may not be true in all areas I can imagine it's true for >> many scientific topics. >> >> I think Citizendium has to aim at a higher goal and >> I have read many good suggestions and ideas from all of you >> how to achieve this. >> >> I just want to quickly give you a short list of objectives which I >> consider >> essential for the success of Citizendium in the bigger pictures. >> >> 1) If I use encyclopedic information for a (e.g.) professional >> presentation >> I want to feel comfortable to use 'Citizendium' as a source >> and don't >> want to have the urge to cross check with a conventional >> encyclopædia >> (Information like that can be pretty basic but it needs to be >> formal, >> correct and deep enough) >> >> 2) Like conventional encyclopædias everybody who can read should be >> able to use it. If an article uses language which I am not >> familiar with >> I keep reading other articles until I know enough of what I >> want to know. >> I agree this does sometimes require extra effort but it also >> gives >> a real opportunity to learn something new. >> >> 3) References should be plenty, stable and cover different aspect >> of a subject. >> (I remember that years ago when I got a brand new encyclopædia >> I was >> dissappointed when I realized that - compared to the previous >> edition - >> many articles had much fewer references, probably to save space) >> >> What I really want to say with all that is that I completely agree >> with >> Susan and my guess is that she absolutely right concerning her >> assumptions >> who will be interested in contributing to this wonderful project. >> >> Hope I didn't waste your time... >> >> Christoph >> >> >> Christoph U. Wildgruber >> VISION Scientist >> ORNL-SNS >> Oak Ridge, TN >> 865-574-5378 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Susan >> Awbrey >> Sent: Tue 17-Oct-06 8:15 >> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia >> >> Good Morning, >> Zach's response to the encyclopedia question raises several >> questions for >> me -- If we are creating an encyclopedia for high school educated >> people, >> why are we doing that if Wikipedia already exists? What will be >> different >> about citizendium? Will that charge be the best to attract a >> different >> type of participant than Wikipedia (i.e., academics or experts) to >> assist >> wtih the project? Susan >> >> 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 > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
