User talk:Larry Sanger/Suggestion Box: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (Catalog nomenclature) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center> | |||
The contents of this page are still here, they're just commented out. | |||
Please use [[CZ:Proposals]] for any future suggestions! | |||
</center> | |||
<!-- | |||
This is a special talk page. I've long been of the opinion that ''good ideas'' (along with the hard work to put them into effect) are the ''sine qua non'' of a successful project. Got an idea for CZ? Please add it to this page. I might say one of at least three things: (1) thanks, interesting, maybe we'll get to that some day; (2) this is something we could do anytime, but requires discussion; (3) I think it's a bad idea. | This is a special talk page. I've long been of the opinion that ''good ideas'' (along with the hard work to put them into effect) are the ''sine qua non'' of a successful project. Got an idea for CZ? Please add it to this page. I might say one of at least three things: (1) thanks, interesting, maybe we'll get to that some day; (2) this is something we could do anytime, but requires discussion; (3) I think it's a bad idea. | ||
| Line 110: | Line 119: | ||
:Larry, I completely agree with Eric that it is worth approaching entities like museums and Corbis to work out deals, Memorandums of Understanding, and so forth. This is part of what I envision the [[CZ:Media_Assets_Workgroup|Media Assets Workgroup]] will do. I cannot promise anything, of course, but I do not think it unreasonable that various entities will waive fess for CZ. Ironically, this might even be ''more'' likely with entities like Corbis than museums, since each image they allow CZ to use without fee will mean a link to themselves and thus potential revenue. Of course, such photos would be used only when substantially equivalent free ones are unavailable. Also, given Eric's interest in this matter backed up by some experience, he is precisely the sort of fellow whose energy might be tapped as a Workgroup member, and perhaps as an Assistant after a while, see [[CZ:Media_Assets_Workgroup#Assistants_to_the_Lead|this part of the proposal]]. There exists a group of wiki users who have the provision of media into articles as a particular contribution goal. CZ needs to organize that into a workgroup for the benefit of the project as a whole. ---[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:21, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | :Larry, I completely agree with Eric that it is worth approaching entities like museums and Corbis to work out deals, Memorandums of Understanding, and so forth. This is part of what I envision the [[CZ:Media_Assets_Workgroup|Media Assets Workgroup]] will do. I cannot promise anything, of course, but I do not think it unreasonable that various entities will waive fess for CZ. Ironically, this might even be ''more'' likely with entities like Corbis than museums, since each image they allow CZ to use without fee will mean a link to themselves and thus potential revenue. Of course, such photos would be used only when substantially equivalent free ones are unavailable. Also, given Eric's interest in this matter backed up by some experience, he is precisely the sort of fellow whose energy might be tapped as a Workgroup member, and perhaps as an Assistant after a while, see [[CZ:Media_Assets_Workgroup#Assistants_to_the_Lead|this part of the proposal]]. There exists a group of wiki users who have the provision of media into articles as a particular contribution goal. CZ needs to organize that into a workgroup for the benefit of the project as a whole. ---[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:21, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
Eric, Steve, sounds good to me. Don't let me brief reactions stop you from doing something that will help out the project. | |||
Steve, I do hope I'll be able to make the time to get you up and running officially soon. For now, please carry on as you have so admirably been doing. :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:08, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
==Catalog nomenclature== | ==Catalog nomenclature== | ||
Sorry, if I'm putting this comment on the wrong page -- for some reason I can't find the original article by you about Catalogs in general. A while ago, after writing various new articles, I then created an article called [[Prominent Tennis Players]], which originally was just a list of names with links to articles about those names. At Stephen Ewen's suggestion to first look at [[Catalog of religions]] and then apply it to my own projets, I then renamed it to [[Catalog of prominent tennis players]]. Now Stephen has changed the name of the article (into which I have been putting information on the individual players) to [[Famous tennis players]], with the appropriate redirects. I myself am perfectly at ease with any of the names that this article has gone through. I wonder, though, if there is any particular stricture or rule to govern the naming of catalogs? In other words, if I had the energy to create a [[Catalog of famous baseball players]], is *that* what we want, or do we want [[Famous baseball players]]? Even though redirects presently exist for my two catalogs ([[Catalog of prominent mystery writers]] is the other), at some point I'd like to go to the individual articles ([[Pancho Gonzales]], for instance) and change the '''See also''' entry to the correct name of the catalog. Any help would be appreciated! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:48, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | Sorry, if I'm putting this comment on the wrong page -- for some reason I can't find the original article by you about Catalogs in general. A while ago, after writing various new articles, I then created an article called [[Prominent Tennis Players]], which originally was just a list of names with links to articles about those names. At Stephen Ewen's suggestion to first look at [[Catalog of religions]] and then apply it to my own projets, I then renamed it to [[Catalog of prominent tennis players]]. Now Stephen has changed the name of the article (into which I have been putting information on the individual players) to [[Famous tennis players]], with the appropriate redirects. I myself am perfectly at ease with any of the names that this article has gone through. I wonder, though, if there is any particular stricture or rule to govern the naming of catalogs? In other words, if I had the energy to create a [[Catalog of famous baseball players]], is *that* what we want, or do we want [[Famous baseball players]]? Even though redirects presently exist for my two catalogs ([[Catalog of prominent mystery writers]] is the other), at some point I'd like to go to the individual articles ([[Pancho Gonzales]], for instance) and change the '''See also''' entry to the correct name of the catalog. Any help would be appreciated! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:48, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:The discussion is at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,849.0.html http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,849.0.html] and examples are at [[Talk:Main Page]]. Hayford, it matters not to me the name. I renamed it because I thought ''you'' might like the name better, given your comments at [[Talk:Famous tennis players]]. ---[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:11, 13 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
With subpages, this is going to be water under the bridge: [[famous tennis players]] will probably live at [[Tennis/Tables/Famous players]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:28, 27 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
I'm not wedded to "tables," by the way, any more than I was "catalogs," before. "Catalogs" might be better. Even "Almanac". --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:29, 27 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
==Accreditation== | |||
I am, of course, very new here (one day to be precise!)and this has probably been brought up before nevertheless... I moved over from Wikipedia - which I had found via my 10 year old daughter a couple of months ago - noticed the errors in what she was citing and started wading in by writing articles etc. I quickly found the problems you are most aware of in having my article edited by almost anybody, referenced facts changed etc. Nevertheless, I am a big proponent of free access to scientific data having written on the topic in relation to our early hominid fossils here is South Africa(which is a rather contentious area as you might imagine). I then found you a week ago by fluke while going through a search on wikipedia looking at ways to protect some pages. After "moving over" here today one thing that strikes me is the sheer amount of linkages and pages that need to be done and the very limited number of editors etc. It would clearly be nice to have more expert amatuers, academics and grad students on board. One way to attract academics and particularly grad students who have a wealth of information of great use here is to have the citizendium accredited as a referencable encyclopedia contribution (it may be already but as I said - I'm new here). Thus if an academic or graduate student contributed an original article it could be citable as a paper - in my experience, nothing motivates an academic or grad student more than a citation in this publish or perish world. One way to get around the problem of this being at its core a growing "wiki" is that on the date of submission of a citation the originating author could cite themselves as first author with first date of publication and major contributors (you'd have to figure out what "major" meant here but I don't think that would be too hard) would be listed as subsequent authors (et al's effectively). You would also have to set a word and quality minimum - possibly via your accreditation thats already in place. I think that you would have a BIG jump in contributions if this were citable and academics could recieve credit. I presume its also in the spirit of the endeavour?? I certainly have about a dozen grad students who would spend that extra bit of time to be either authors or co-authors. You've probably already thought through all of this anyway but I just thought I'd add my two cents in as a newbie... | |||
[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 07:58, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
This is an idea that we've considered before, but I'm not sure ever in quite this form. As long as we ''don't'' change CZ's policies of leaving articles unsigned, and as long as we're convinced that this will not make CZ ''less'' collaborative, I think I might be able to get behind this. I think you're right that this could help us get new people on board. | |||
The way I would proceed with this is ''not'' by allowing people to assert that an article is their article, or signing their name to the article on the talk page, but instead by creating a master list of article originators. On this page, we would list author names and link not directly to the article but instead to versions of the article in the history that contain the article as it was when started by its originating author. I think it might help to secure against people claiming ownership and special rights over an article if we ''label'' this role as "first collaborator" or "original co-contributor" or something like that. | |||
Let's continue this on the Forums, shall we? http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1134.0.html --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:18, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
:Something related here: I sit on the honors program advisory committee at the community college I work at. I can envision an option for a student's honors project in a course be that they write a solid article, say for an American history course, on [[Jane Addams]] or [[Frederick Douglass]], etc. The article would have to be closed to editing by anyone except the student, and only editors in the subject matter would be able to post on talk pages to give "gentle expert guidance". If a policy were set, I'd consider proposing it to the committee as an option for students and then working out a memorandum of understanding if the other committee members agree. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:09, 11 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Homemade copyright == | |||
Dr. Sanger; | |||
I think that Citizendium should go for a homemade copycenterish license. Due to the commercial aspects of what is being considered, it may be completely incompatible with both CC by SA and the GFDL. Furthermore, a copycenter license would make our content more free as opposed to locked for life in the license. A draft of what I am proposing is attached below. | |||
CITIZENDIUM COPYRIGHT POLICY(Proposed) | |||
Citizendium encourages the reuse of its material as set forth below. If your intended use may violate a provision, please contact the General Counsel! | |||
1. Citizendium grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with attribution for non commercial and small scale commercial purposes without charge. This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Citizendium editors or other licensees, enforcement of other provisions of this license ,or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site. | |||
2. Large scale commercial copying of any portion of this site is prohibited without authorization of the General Counsel through entrance into a Partnership Agreement and payment of compensation as set by the aforementioned Agreement. | |||
3. By contributing information to Citizendium, you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution. | |||
4. Content is copyrighted under the laws of the United States of America, as such you agree to be bound by applicable US laws and to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting in the City of San Francisco, State of California. | |||
5. You agree to waive and indemnify this and all affiliated sponsors, editors, users, or sites from claims for liability resulting from use, by you, of the content contained herein. | |||
6. This is a binding legal document! By using this site you agree to be bound by it. Citizendium may clarify and amend its copyright from time to time by updating this document here. | |||
7. Notwithstanding the terms imposed by any other portion of this policy, images remain protected by the copyrights of their creators and are used here for educational "fair use" purposes. | |||
Respectfully; | |||
[[User:Geoffrey Plourde|Geoffrey Plourde]] 02:12, 21 November 2007 (CST) | |||
== Categories == | |||
Might i suggest a 3 level category system? Where we have a category label for: | |||
:1)Workgroups and there respective (future) subgroups. | |||
:2)Citizendium: Checklists, disambiguates and topic informant articles. | |||
:3)Regional and language specific labels. Maybe ideological specific labels | |||
::So that we make it possible to organise an articles by the importance they hold to someone of a certain ethnic group or language family. For example there are several articles about Dutch culture and customs on citizendium; and there are several Dutch contributors to citizendium –including me– and they could help use with those articles because they are familiar with the subject. But they have no way to of knowing what articles are about Dutch culture; because they have no possibility of seeing a overview of all the articles about Dutch culture. So the article about the [[Netherlands]] could have the category. Netherlands, Dutch language, Frisian Language added to it and Dutch people like me can check that category and see where they need our help. (like translations and verifications). This would also eliminate the need for the category of linguistics; to be add to an articles because we need qualified people to double-check translations | |||
::This would also attract more foreign non-English speaking people when citizendium expands into different language territories. Like wikipedia did. | |||
::Another series of useful categories would be the ideological ones. When you have a online encyclopaedia people will naturally create groups around a ideological mindset; like Marxism, Catholicism or Punk; and it could be helpful if we where able to monitor the movement of different ideologies by giving them there own categories. This would also help those people who are member of an ideology to quickly find what they are looking for. [[User:Micha van den Berg|Micha van den Berg]] 16:32, 28 November 2007 (CST) | |||
--> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:13, 22 February 2008
The contents of this page are still here, they're just commented out.
Please use CZ:Proposals for any future suggestions!