o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o I think that David hit the wrong button -- It might help to make Citizendium-L <[email protected]> the default reply-to address.
Also, I suggest that we go back to whitelisting everybody who is not an obvious spammer, so that those of us in the deck chairs can discuss our fates among oursleves while the tech guys fiddle with their new-fangled sonar. Jon Awbrey David Marshall wrote: > > >Jon Awbrey wrote: > > > >"Speaking of dynamics to avoid, one of the more irresistable forces > >of wikity at Wikipedia was the tendency of people who didn't produce > >many articles to keep thinking up things that were "fun" for them to > >do, and not so much "fun" for the Wikipeons who actually did the > >writing. > > > >For example, yet another CiteBorg or RefBot system, that was all > >kinds of fun for developers to develop, but they > >never stop to ask whether the folks who know how to cite already, > >the kind of people we're supposed to care about > >now, really needed or liked such a thing." > > At the risk of boring you all silly, the ethic round here is going to > be "Writing is fun!" and if it isn't, then I want to know the reason > why. > > To help ensure that people do have fun with the minimum of > disruption, the system we are going to have in place produces a > static and dynamic body of work. Thus, when approved by an editor, a > page is locked and there is an auto-forward mechanism in the search > engine that directs a reader to the approved page only. In this way, > CZ always turns its best face towards the unsuspecting world where > there is an approved page in place. Anyone who wants to make > suggestions or author the subject matter of that page, registers as > an author using a real name, and then works on the dynamic version of > the page. > > So those experts who have have laboured in the fields of knowledge to > produce just the right formula of words to capture and communicate > meaning in its purest form, have cited those words with meticulous > precision and attention to the style manual, and have seen their work > approved by an editor of mature judgment and status, can walk away > weary but contented because all that work is the work always first > shown to the world. No more frustration in endlessly having to defend > your work from selfish interference. That approved version remains > untouched until the editor agrees improving upgrades and approves > that new version. Yes, someone may produce a bot that rewrites > spellings, syntax, citation rules, etc. but that can only ever affect > the dynamic pages. > > So, sit back (or forward-we are not going to be prescriptive about > the posture to adopt in front of your keyboard) and enjoy this new > wiki where you get to see all editor approved work preserved, but get > the benefit of being able to watch the parallel dynamic pages discuss > and develop the subject matter so that the approved page can be > continuously improved over time. When I was younger, I remember a > simple math problem. If a snail is climbing out of a well that is ten > feet deep, and it climbs up twelve inches during the day, and slides > down five inches while it sleeps at night, how many days will it take > for the snail to climb out of the well. In our wiki, the top of the > well may be some distance off, but we can only climb up towards > optimal quality, never slide backwards! o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ citizendium development forums: http://smf.citizendium.org http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey wikinfo: http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398 o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
