All, I thought we could use a report about our Core Articles initiative. The initiative's home page is here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_Articles Note that it is linked from the Citizendium front page under "Initiatives" (lower left column). First, I'll give a list of the different workgroups according to progress. Second, I'll give you some ideas of where I see us going with this. ========== I. The Core Articles workgroup ranking, January 2008: Stage 6: Earth Sciences This (one) workgroup has completed writing (and confirmed) its list of top priority articles, they've started working on the articles, and an editor has given credit for some of those article drafts (it only takes 250 words, not a complete article!). Stage 5: Philosophy This (one) workgroup has completed writing (and confirmed) its list of top priority articles, but no philosophy editor has given any credit for the article drafts yet. Stage 4: Anthropology & Archaeology Architecture Astronomy Biology Geography Linguistics These groups are relatively far along. They have completed writing their list of top priority articles, and *someone* has assigned points to them. However, the points have not been confirmed by any editor. Stage 3: Chemistry Computers Games Literature Mathematics Music Physics Psychology Religion Sociology Visual Arts Most of the top priority articles in these groups have been assigned (so, for most groups, between 50 and 99 article topics have been listed); or, if all of the topics have been suggested, no one has assigned points to them yet. Stage 2: Agriculture Business Classics Economics Education Engineering Food Science Healing Arts Health Sciences History Hobbies Journalism Law Library and Information Science Media Military Politics Sports Theater These groups are lagging, at least in the Core Articles initiative. They have listed at least one topic, but fewer than 50. ========== II. Let's move the Core Articles initiative forward! YOU can help. You don't have to be an expert to help (though, of course, it helps). A lot of the work here is not particularly hard, and is kind of fun. (What *are* the most important topics in, say, Sports?) Here are some things to do--note, there are many things to do. AUTHORS AND EDITORS * The Stage 2 lists are so short, that any educated person can add sensible topics to those lists and help out that way. For instance, I know relatively little about Food Science or Military Science, but I am sure I could add a fair number of topics to both categories. * In workgroups where you *do* know a thing or two, try adding topics to the lists that are at Stages 2 or 3--which, you'll notice, is most of the groups! There's a huge amount to do here, and it's not that hard to do, either. It just takes a tiny bit of creativity--maybe looking in some textbooks. * For workgroups that you have studied significantly (read many books, taken several classes), you should consider taking the Stage 3 groups to Stage 4 by making a preliminary assignment of points. Editors can always fiddle with your point assignments, so don't worry about being too "bold." * As to Stage 4 and 5 groups--Anthropology & Archaeology, Architecture, Astronomy, Biology, Geography, Linguistics, and Philosophy--you, author, could e-mail either the relevant mailing list, or some active editor, in the group, if you know of one. Tell the editors on the mailing list: "Hey, this won't take long and it will help us move forward. You wanted to be a CZ editor--well, this is your chance to help!" EDITORS * As to Stage 4 groups--Anthropology & Archaeology, Architecture, Astronomy, Biology, Geography, and Linguistics--we have just one main and very simple request. Namely, go there and either assign points, or confirm the assignment of points. This need not take that long. All you're doing is deciding what the most important topics in your area are. Your decision needn't be the last word on the subject; it just has to be "good enough." * As to Stage 5 and 6 groups--currently, only Philosophy and Earth Sciences--you could simply look through the articles that *have* been written on the assigned topics (i.e., which articles are blue). If more than 250 words have been written, and they seem merely usable (they *don't* have to be perfect or complete!), then you can give credit to the main author (if there is one). (See the Earth Sciences list for a good example of how this is done.) Any questions? Write Chris Day, Core Articles Coordinator, or me. --Larry (who is taking credit for this mail as part of the Write-a-Thon!) _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
