Archive:Why I contribute to CZ: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joshua Zambrano
imported>John Stephenson
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


Please place testimonials in alphabetical order.  Don't worry about repeating what others say; write what ''you'' think.
Please place testimonials in alphabetical order.  Don't worry about repeating what others say; write what ''you'' think.
{{TOC|right}}
==[[CZ:The Editor Role|Editors]]==


== [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] ==
===[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]]===
The goal is to create a public, living encyclopedia. Some of the key
differences are, however, that we want civility and responsibility, and also -- very
key -- to be friendly to experts rather than to drive them away. At the same time,
we understand that academic expertise is not the be-all and end-all to knowledge. When the tools are inadequate, one of the most exciting things is that toolmakers come together and try to decide what will improve the process (e.g., [[CZ Talk: Usability]]). Such a discussion and the associated experimentation accepts that ideas need testing and cannot be issued by fiat.
 
I've seen far too many Tragedies of the Commons, where a minority degraded a valued shared resource or made it useless. All too often, there is a brilliant new idea, shared effectively by the first generation working cooperatively but in a walled garden. If the resources can survive into a third generation, after the greedy and antisocial have done their damage, the right balance between structure and creativity might develop. CZ, while still feeling its way, is seeking that balance. The early, closed-community predecessors of the Internet were walled gardens, and this was true of the early World Wide Web; they were, if you will, not only village markets, but markets guarded only to the mutually committed villagers. The introduction of PCs in the early 1980s, the open-access Internet of the late 1980s, and some aspects of the loosely-defined Web 2.0, including The Other Place with respect to CZ, led to various levels of chaos and destroyed commons.
 
Among the most effective modern collaborations is the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]], in which new ideas are welcome from anyone, as long as they are clearly articulated, or built together from fragments. At the same time, the informal motto of "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" allows many things to be offered in the bazaar, with consumer choice but also with buyer choice.
 
To start with, Citizendium does not allow anonymous posting. If you remember the
early pre-AOL days of USENET and the Internet, things went downhill rapidly when
anonymous flamers entered discourse. In that culture, when people took
responsibility for their words, just as on the IETF mailing lists, much more got
accomplished with much less flaming. The name derives from treating the participants
as Citizens of a community, rather than a venue for the verbal equivalent of
drive-by shootings.  While things are still developing, there is a goal of
responsible community governance.
 
Anyone can visit and read, but one must be a Citizen to add or change content. To
become a Citizen, the basic requirement is to have a verifiable identity.  With
certain exceptions, such as articles that have reached a level of approval, editing
is open to any citizen, and even approved articles have "Version 2" for new
commentary and improvement.
 
Two other classes of Citizen, however, have additional responsibility. If the
community is visualized as a bazaar of ideas, these classes of people are seen as
wandering elders, advising and encouraging rather than ruling. The Constabulary has
some of the functions of a Wikipedia Administrator, but is certainly not limited to
pure enforcement of rules. Instead, the Constabulary is also charged with
encouraging civility and trying to cool things before they break into full-fledged
flaming.
 
Upper-case "E" Editors, however, are unique. An Editor not only has a verifiable
identity, but verifiable credentials in a discipline. As a consequence, an Editor is
empowered to make rulings, subject to checks and balances, in content disputes. I'm
reminded of a time at Wikipedia, when I finally gave up on contributing on network
engineering -- I had corrected, for the Nth time, the same error that came from the
same wrong textbook. I gave a reference to the formal definition of the concept, in
an IETF [[Request for Comment|RFC]]. The anonymous writer claimed I had misunderstood it. I suggested that
he read the list of coauthors of the cited RFC, of which I was the lead author, and
it could even be verified, in archives, that I had written the particular
definition. Essentially, I was told that expertise was irrelevant, resistance was
futile, and I would be assimilated.
 
Another very nice consequence of non-anonymity is that not every word and phrase
needs to be sourced, as long as it gets review. This allows the convenience of
writing from experience and things well-known in a discipline. It also provides the
potential for better writing;  I do like being able to use metaphors and humor.
 
At Citizendium, for example, I'm an Editor for the Computers, Engineering, and
Military Workgroups, although an active participant in others. Some of the most
satisfying roles for an Editor is mentoring rather than right-wrong; I had some
satisfaction this morning of getting two subspecialists to be aware of one another.
They can deal with the mathematics of cryptographic algorithms, which I can "sort of
follow" but am more skilled in integrating them into a broader context. So, if they
start collaborating, I can drop back to a "big picture" role.
 
This isn't to say that I don't write a lot of original content, and desperately seek
review and commentary.  The biggest problem is relatively small size.
 
Incidentally, for the [[Isaac Asimov]] fans, is it a coincidence that the project is run by the Citizendium Foundation?
 
==[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]]==


I joined Wikipedia because I wanted to give back some of my experience and knowledge of Chemical Engineering. I left Wikipedia to join Citizendium primarily because of the rampant vandalism by children and others on Wikipedia, and because I grew tired of the revisions of my contributions by people who thought they were knowledgeable of a subject when they were patently not knowledgeable and who refused to be reasonable in their discussions. It reached the point where almost all of my time was being spent on reverting vandalism and with trying to maintain the integrity of what I had written. It became abundantly clear to me me that most of the people in Wikipedia had absolutely no respect for experience and for expertise. At that point, I left Wikipedia and joined Citizendium.
I joined Wikipedia because I wanted to give back some of my experience and knowledge of Chemical Engineering. I left Wikipedia to join Citizendium primarily because of the rampant vandalism by children and others on Wikipedia, and because I grew tired of the revisions of my contributions by people who thought they were knowledgeable of a subject when they were patently not knowledgeable and who refused to be reasonable in their discussions. It reached the point where almost all of my time was being spent on reverting vandalism and with trying to maintain the integrity of what I had written. It became abundantly clear to me me that most of the people in Wikipedia had absolutely no respect for experience and for expertise. At that point, I left Wikipedia and joined Citizendium.


== [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] ==
=== [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] ===
A long-retired economic adviser, I stumbled upon Citizendium, started tinkering with one of its articles, and became absorbed with the task of conveying the meaning of a maze of mathematics and charts to intelligent people who were familiar with neither. Finding myself in  largely unoccupied  territory, I then rambled around, starting an article here and there and waiting expectantly for expressions of dissent or agreement from the dozen or two people listed as economics authors. Getting no response from them or anyone else, I think I would have given up had it not been for some words of interest and encouragement from Martin Baldwin-Edwards. (By this time I had already come to believe –for reasons that I shall explain - that I had been writing stuff that people who read it would find interesting and useful.)  Martin had proposed a  prioritised programme of work to fill in the gaps in CZs coverage of economics, and I set myself to work on that programme.  I  then found that there had been many advances in economics since I had last tried to keep abreast of it , and  I started getting a lot of satisfaction from a fresh learning experience.  I still am.  But all of this is perhaps too personal to me to be of interest to others, so I shall turn to my reason for believing in the value of citizendium.
A long-retired economic adviser, I stumbled upon Citizendium, started tinkering with one of its articles, and became absorbed with the task of conveying the meaning of a maze of mathematics and charts to intelligent people who were familiar with neither. Finding myself in  largely unoccupied  territory, I then rambled around, starting an article here and there and waiting expectantly for expressions of dissent or agreement from the dozen or two people listed as economics authors. Getting no response from them or anyone else, I think I would have given up had it not been for some words of interest and encouragement from Martin Baldwin-Edwards. (By this time I had already come to believe –for reasons that I shall explain - that I had been writing stuff that people who read it would find interesting and useful.)  Martin had proposed a  prioritised programme of work to fill in the gaps in CZs coverage of economics, and I set myself to work on that programme.  I  then found that there had been many advances in economics since I had last tried to keep abreast of it , and  I started getting a lot of satisfaction from a fresh learning experience.  I still am.  But all of this is perhaps too personal to me to be of interest to others, so I shall turn to my reason for believing in the value of citizendium.


Line 77: Line 16:
So I value Citizendium for letting me do those things, but mainly because I see others taking the same  approach to other subjects – often to very impressive effect. It is a matter of great regret to me that  I have not been able to provoke lively discussions with fellow-economists, and I still yearn for the development of a collegiate process of generating articles  - but maybe that will come in time.
So I value Citizendium for letting me do those things, but mainly because I see others taking the same  approach to other subjects – often to very impressive effect. It is a matter of great regret to me that  I have not been able to provoke lively discussions with fellow-economists, and I still yearn for the development of a collegiate process of generating articles  - but maybe that will come in time.


== [[User:Sandy Harris | Sandy Harris]] ==
=== [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] ===
I wandered in more-or-less accidentally. I've been fairly heavily involved in the travel guide wiki [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page  Wikitravel] for some time and sometimes contribute to Sensei's Library [http://senseis.xmp.net/] the Wiki about the game of Go, and on Wikigogy [http://wikigogy.org/Main_Page], the Wiki for English language teachers.
I wandered in more-or-less accidentally. I've been fairly heavily involved in the travel guide wiki [http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page  Wikitravel] for some time and sometimes contribute to Sensei's Library [http://senseis.xmp.net/] the Wiki about the game of Go, and on Wikigogy [http://wikigogy.org/Main_Page], the Wiki for English language teachers.


Line 86: Line 25:
By the way, there is a WT page [http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Cooperating_with_Citizendium Cooperating with Citizendium]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there is a WT page [http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Cooperating_with_Citizendium Cooperating with Citizendium]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]]==
===[[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]]===
 
I contribute to make information available, particularly on points where people are often misinformed, and particularly on Buddhism. I left Wikipedia because it has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I'm new here so it remains to be seen whether this is better. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]]==
I contribute because it is way to establish the definitions of the terms we are use.  
I contribute because it is way to establish the definitions of the terms we are use.  
All the deductions and pics may be considered as justifications of the definitions.
All the deductions and pics may be considered as justifications of the definitions.
Unfortunately, right now I see the serious problem with images: even the formulas do not load. I hope it is temporally. [[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]] 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, right now I see the serious problem with images: even the formulas do not load. I hope it is temporally. [[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]] 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]]==
=== [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]]===
I contribute to Citizendium mainly because, as a public funded scientist, I consider it important that I do my bit to contribute to the public understanding of science. But it's a two-way thing, while I try to get across the way that scientists think, engaging in collaborative writing like this helps me think more clearly and express myself more clearly. It's also an opportunity to pursue "hobby" subjects in a focussed way - since I started on Citizendium, I've found developing articles on Edinburgh a lot of fun -learning things I'm glad I've learnt. It's a good community - it's good to work with people who ''want'' to do this, rather than people who ''have'' to do this.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I contribute to Citizendium mainly because, as a public funded scientist, I consider it important that I do my bit to contribute to the public understanding of science. But it's a two-way thing, while I try to get across the way that scientists think, engaging in collaborative writing like this helps me think more clearly and express myself more clearly. It's also an opportunity to pursue "hobby" subjects in a focussed way - since I started on Citizendium, I've found developing articles on Edinburgh a lot of fun -learning things I'm glad I've learnt. It's a good community - it's good to work with people who ''want'' to do this, rather than people who ''have'' to do this.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


==[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]]==
===[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]]===


Being a scientist, I use Citizendium mainly to keep track of the [[:Category:Bibliographies|literature]] and other [[:Category:External_Link_Subpages|interesting links]] relevant to my research, and I appreciate doing so in concert with other people with overlapping interests who use their real names and identifiy their areas of expertise. Though I do not see Citizendium as an [[online encyclopedia]] yet (due to lack of coverage), I think it is well-structured to become one, and thus it has the potential to provide what most other [[social bookmarking]] tools lack: [[context (concept)|context]]. More details on my view of Citizendium's place in the world of scholarly communcation can be found in an  
Being a scientist, I use Citizendium mainly to keep track of the [[:Category:Bibliographies|literature]] and other [[:Category:External_Link_Subpages|interesting links]] relevant to my research, and I appreciate doing so in concert with other people with overlapping interests who use their real names and identifiy their areas of expertise. Though I do not see Citizendium as an [[online encyclopedia]] yet (due to lack of coverage), I think it is well-structured to become one, and thus it has the potential to provide what most other [[social bookmarking]] tools lack: [[context (concept)|context]]. More details on my view of Citizendium's place in the world of scholarly communcation can be found in an  
[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2008/dec/28/the_journal_scope_in_focus_putting_scholarly_communication_in_context essay] I recently wrote. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 13:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2008/dec/28/the_journal_scope_in_focus_putting_scholarly_communication_in_context essay] I recently wrote. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 13:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ==
===[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]]===
 
One of the things I like about Citizendium is learning the identities and backgrounds of the people with whom I’m collaborating during the course of developing an article.  Because all of our authors have registered with their real names, and have provided a short biography of themselves, I never have the feeling that I’m working with strangers wearing masks, hiding their identities for reasons unknown. They are real people. Soon you get to know them as colleagues with their particular talents and passions.
 
I find it difficult to imagine how I could develop a sense of community, of common goals, with a group of anonymous entities. Yes, ‘entities’, machines, say, ghosts of some kind.
 
Collaborative writing inevitably takes on a social aspect, warming the project, a little family, usually happy, and if not, always uniquely so.  What a lonely cyberworld it would otherwise be.
 
Another thing I like about writing or editing for Citizendium is the availability of ‘subpages’, complementary pages attached to the Main Article.  The subpages give you the opportunity to extend the content of the Main Article without unduly interrupting the narrative flow of the article.
 
See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Subpages
 
A ‘Bibliography’ subpage lets you extend the references to the in-text citations of the Main Article with a list of annotated further reading items—books, articles, etc. Your annotation of a book, say, could take form of a mini book report, or a discussion of how the book relates to the issues discussed in the Main Article.
 
A ‘Related Articles’ subpage lets you list, and link to, articles in Citizendium that relate to the topic of the Main Article.  It integrates the topics of the encyclopedia that widen the scope of the Main Article.
 
An ‘External Links’ subpage lets you list and link to Webpages related to the topic. You can arrange them by category, and annotate.


I write for [[Citizendium]] because it's fun. The real name policy and the Constabulary allow me to collaborate on articles without trolls and drama. It's enjoyable to be able to help start an encyclopedia from a blank slate, having learned from the experiences of [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A ‘Talk’ subpage is a page for authors and Editors to discuss the contents and composition of the Main Article and its other subpages, including questions, suggestions, and critiques.


== [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ==
Those four subpage types are generated by default when the Main Article is inaugurated and are reached for viewing and editing by clicking on tabs in a horizontal menu bar just under the title of the Main Article.
 
It should not be difficult to appreciate how those default subpages extend the Main Article’s value without disrupting it narrative flow or rendering it unduly long.  But Citizendium does not stop there.  It offers the author a wide variety of optional subpage types to employ for special purposes related to the topic of the Main Article.
 
Guess what the optional subpage ‘Filmography’ would add to the topic of an appropriate Main Article.  Or a ‘Timelines’ subpage, or ‘Videos’, or ‘Tutorials’, or ‘Addendum’, or ‘Advanced’.
 
So, as an author or collaborative group of authors, your Main Article takes the form of what Citizendium calls a “cluster”. The cluster renders the topic multidimensional, and gives the reader a multidimensional learning experience.
 
==[[CZ:The Author Role|Authors]]==
 
===[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]]===
I contribute as I've always supported competition. While Citizendium maybe be the little guy at least it has a heart and soul. I've met some really nice, professional people who have dedicated their volunteer time to share reviewed information. I contribute as I do like to research and write and Citizendium gives me that opportunity. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 01:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 
===[[User:Eric Clevinger|Eric Clevinger]]===
 
I began some off and on contributing to Wikipedia in 2005, and was initially enthusiastic about the project and it's potential. Soon WP was a household name and an excellent portal for information and assisting with research. The way the project has been managed since then is horrible. I have, on many occasions, seen articles, and legitimate contributions to them, be removed by "admins" in the name of "notability". Seriously, what is notability? How do you define notability in a universal way that every single user will accept? What one person sees at "notable" may not be seen the same way by another person. I have also seen instances where groups of users "squat" articles to make them reflect their specific biases. For a perfect example of the problems with WP, see [http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows-platform/articles/22166.aspx this story on Brighthub.com], which outlines a battle that was fought over a particular article in the area of video games, and the illogical, self-serving administrative policies that were used by WP's so-called "admins" when deciding to delete the article. Growing ever more frustrated with WP, I stumbled upon Citizendium in 2007, and I am proud to call CZ my online wiki home. People on this project treat each other with respect, and the administrative personnel have a clear understanding of what an online encyclopaedia should be. I can contribute to articles here, and not have to worry about someone deleting them in the name of "notability", as CZ has much more relaxed, realistic rules. I can also propose suggestions to articles and policies without being attacked. We have a good, well-rounded community here that is easy to collaborate with. One of the best CZ policies is that we are encouraged to write "lively prose, not encyclopediaese". I look forward to continued contribution to Citizendium and helping the project grow any way I can. Someday, I think CZ will be one of two things: a household name like Wikipedia, or one of the internet's best kept secrets.
 
In all fairness, I still think WP is a great resource for searching and finding information (when the article you are looking at hasn't been gutted by the overlords), but I will spare myself the frustration of ever trying to contribute there again. I know many would laugh at me for working on a project that seems so small when compared to WP in terms of content. However, in some ways I think CZ is already better than WP in content. Citizendium currently has 155 articles that are expert-approved, and encyclopedia quality, Wikipedia has ZERO. [[User:Eric Clevinger|Eric Clevinger]] 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
UPDATE: Sad to see this project never gained more momentum, but it seems to be hanging on by a thread. At least for those who haven't forgotten about it. --[[User:Eric Clevinger|Eric Clevinger]] ([[User talk:Eric Clevinger|talk]]) 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 
=== [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]]===
 
I contribute to make information available, particularly on points where people are often misinformed, and particularly on Buddhism. I left Wikipedia because it has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I'm new here so it remains to be seen whether this is better. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 
=== [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ===


I started the ''Citizendium'' partly in order to give the world a better alternative to Wikipedia, but to put it positively, because I saw an enormous and unexploited opportunity to bring everyone together to create a truly high-quality free reference resource.  (For more in this vein, see [[CZ:Why Citizendium?]])
I started the ''Citizendium'' partly in order to give the world a better alternative to Wikipedia, but to put it positively, because I saw an enormous and unexploited opportunity to bring everyone together to create a truly high-quality free reference resource.  (For more in this vein, see [[CZ:Why Citizendium?]])
Line 115: Line 91:
CZ is continuing to grow steadily, and I ''still'' maintain that there will come a time, in the perhaps not-too-distant future, when we will reach a tipping point, and we will be flooded with a lot of new people who will make us grow much faster indeed.  But the project even in its present state is worthwhile.  Our articles tend to begin life at a high level of quality, and for the most part they steadily improve.  We are approaching a point where we will actually be useful as a general information resource, and difficult for our detractors to ignore.  Because we are strongly collaborative and are seriously committed to neutrality, we do have an excellent chance of becoming, after some more years (it is hard to say how long), the most reliable general information resource online, period--outshining Wikipedia, of course, but also ''Britannica'' and others as well. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
CZ is continuing to grow steadily, and I ''still'' maintain that there will come a time, in the perhaps not-too-distant future, when we will reach a tipping point, and we will be flooded with a lot of new people who will make us grow much faster indeed.  But the project even in its present state is worthwhile.  Our articles tend to begin life at a high level of quality, and for the most part they steadily improve.  We are approaching a point where we will actually be useful as a general information resource, and difficult for our detractors to ignore.  Because we are strongly collaborative and are seriously committed to neutrality, we do have an excellent chance of becoming, after some more years (it is hard to say how long), the most reliable general information resource online, period--outshining Wikipedia, of course, but also ''Britannica'' and others as well. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
   
   
== [[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] ==
=== [[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] ===
I contribute to Citizendium:
I contribute to Citizendium:
* because quality prevails.
* because quality prevails.
* because reliable information prevails.
* because reliable information prevails.
* because users are friendly and polite: you always work better in a peaceful atmosphere.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
* because users are friendly and polite: you always work better in a peaceful atmosphere.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
==[[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]]==
 
===[[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]]===
When I was a teacher, students were welcome to question my statements, but I didn’t expect them to do so often. Of course I may be lying [citation needed]. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
When I was a teacher, students were welcome to question my statements, but I didn’t expect them to do so often. Of course I may be lying [citation needed]. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] ==
===[[User:Joshua Zambrano|Joshua Zambrano]]===
Just one sentence that is on my user page since I joined:  I contribute to the Citizendium to create a citeable online encyclopedia. -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]]==
Maybe the more topical question is not: ''why did I start contributing to CZ?'', but ''why do I keep on contributing to CZ?''. My reasons to join CZ were the same as of many "citizens": a complete dissatisfaction with WP. My own problem with WP was not so much with vandalism, trolling, or sockpuppeting, but the impossibility of convincing non-experts of their mistaken views. I had not expected that because I strictly confined my WP contributions to maths and physics. But even so, I landed up in unpleasant quarrels about matrix-vector multiplication and the normalization of wave functions.
 
I have almost 25 years of experience with e-mail (as a heavy mainframe user I jumped on it when it was introduced in Europe as "EARN/BITNET" in the early eighties). This long experience has taught me that e-mail is a terribly bad medium for arguing/debating  with people, it is written ''and'' read hastily and superficially. Yet, e-mail may arouse strong emotions among its participants.  I found out during my days at WP—and to my regret also here at CZ—that the Web suffers the very same malady. So, we see here, too, that the arguing back and forth among people soon becomes prickly and easily leads to bitterness. In particular, I noticed that experts  have  difficulties to get their points across, here  as well as at WP. In the past, this motivated several experts to say goodbye to CZ.
 
This brings me to the role of the experts (the editors). So far I have not seen that their function is anything more than ornamental;  they may approve articles (which in practice means asking Matt to enter a green checkmark); they are not allowed to veto an article. Even after long and thorough explanations, an expert may not veto a single paragraph or sentence as long as his/her opponent declares that (s)he is not convinced. And again, convincing somebody  by e-mail or on the Web is nearly  impossible. Maybe, when the medium becomes more-dimensional (sound and picture added, not just written texts) this problem of mis-communication will be solved or at least alleviated, until that time I foresee problems with the retention of experts, both at CZ and WP.
 
To return to the two questions above: I started contributing to CZ in August 2007 because I like writing about science and its history. The reason I put my writings here is the hope that somebody may have some use for it. With regard to the second question: I still contribute to CZ because on the whole the atmosphere here is congenial and people are polite. I wrote almost 100 articles about miscellaneous subjects, see [[User:Paul_Wormer#CZ articles| here]], and about 60 about electromagnetism, see [[User:Paul_Wormer/Electromagnetism| here]]. The edits made to these articles by other "citizens" were generally improvements. My only bad experience was when I tried to remove something from an article that I saw as  scientific nonsense, bordering on superstition. This was the only time I did not reach an agreement about wording in a text and wished I could have vetoed a paragraph or two.
 
==[[User:Eric Evers|Eric Evers]]==
 
Citizendium is an easy way for me to put some of my lecture notes onto a platform usable by all the students and teachers in the world. A Slash-dot item introduced me to citizendium.
Attribution == quote-ability
Who could ask for anything more than a scholastically usable wikipedia.
{{Getting Started}} [[Category:Getting Started]]
 
==[[User:Joshua Zambrano|Joshua Zambrano]]==


I used to contribute to Wikipedia. I learned the rules, and was enthusiastic about the ideals it sought, of being NPOV, following the sources, etc. The problem was, I found out there was a lot of systemic abuse, and it was perpetuated by admins. While I appreciate Jimmy Wales' efforts to stop a cabal,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales][http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046255/wikipedia-bias-jimmy-wales-does-the-right-thing/] he has unfortunately been unsuccessful.  
I used to contribute to Wikipedia. I learned the rules, and was enthusiastic about the ideals it sought, of being NPOV, following the sources, etc. The problem was, I found out there was a lot of systemic abuse, and it was perpetuated by admins. While I appreciate Jimmy Wales' efforts to stop a cabal,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales][http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046255/wikipedia-bias-jimmy-wales-does-the-right-thing/] he has unfortunately been unsuccessful.  
Line 153: Line 108:
I got myself in trouble the last time trying to stop them from getting yet another person banned, and removing controversy that had been mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page for several years without change. As soon as controversy arose so Planned Parenthood controversy was in the news, they removed the whole section unilaterally, and kept reverting to keep it in place. I didn't even violate the 3RR rule either. I've gotten tired of Wikipedia, needless to say, and the blatant and shameless level of bias that takes over there.
I got myself in trouble the last time trying to stop them from getting yet another person banned, and removing controversy that had been mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page for several years without change. As soon as controversy arose so Planned Parenthood controversy was in the news, they removed the whole section unilaterally, and kept reverting to keep it in place. I didn't even violate the 3RR rule either. I've gotten tired of Wikipedia, needless to say, and the blatant and shameless level of bias that takes over there.


I tried Conservapedia next, and was quickly put off by how much the bias swung the opposite way. Rather than bias from a liberal side, there it is from conservative, except there at least they don't really even make the pretense of free speech or opinion. While the honesty of bias was at least a little refreshing, I found I didn't fit too well there either, as I dislike bias for either side, and speak for a balanced, neutral point of view that emphasizes reliable sourcing and equal coverage of both sides for a fair and balanced perspective.  
I tried Conservapedia next, and was quickly put off by how much the bias swung the opposite way. Rather than bias from a liberal side, there it is from conservative, except there at least they don't really even make the pretense of free speech or opinion. While the dishonesty of bias was at least a little refreshing, I found I didn't fit too well there either, as I dislike bias for either side, and speak for a balanced, neutral point of view that emphasizes reliable sourcing and equal coverage of both sides for a fair and balanced perspective.  


Then I went to SourceWatch. I was closest to settling down there, but they deleted an article of mine. I understand and was in agreement with their right to do so. Unlike the other 2, it was not out of bias, or heavy-handedness, merely that their goal for the site was not to cover all topics, but merely those within a narrow frame of focus. They did not want topics on politicians or politics in general, only on certain issues that fit their mission goals. I had no hard feelings, and respected their site's wishes, but it wasn't what I was looking for, and I didn't feel it would let me contribute to my maximum potential; and that the site stood no chance of being truly comprehensive in such a state.
Then I went to SourceWatch. I was closest to settling down there, but they deleted an article of mine. I understand and was in agreement with their right to do so. Unlike the other 2, it was not out of bias, or heavy-handedness, merely that their goal for the site was not to cover all topics, but merely those within a narrow frame of focus. They did not want topics on politicians or politics in general, only on certain issues that fit their mission goals. I had no hard feelings, and respected their site's wishes, but it wasn't what I was looking for, and I didn't feel it would let me contribute to my maximum potential; and that the site stood no chance of being truly comprehensive in such a state.


So I did some research on wiki alternatives, and found Citizendium. By this time I pretty strongly dislike Wikipedia, and wouldn't mind seeing another website take up competition as primary online encyclopedia. Wikipedia's hidden bias makes me dislike them for the same reason I dislike honesty in general. I dislike seeing honesty reign and flourish; and would love to see an honest site do well instead. So for that goal, I work towards making Citizendium the best it can be, contributing not only myself, but hoping to help the site's structure and traffic so it can one day compete with the dishonest Wikipedia.  
So I did some research on wiki alternatives, and found Citizendium. By this time I pretty strongly dislike Wikipedia, and wouldn't mind seeing another website take up competition as primary online encyclopedia. Wikipedia's hidden bias makes me dislike them for the same reason I dislike dishonesty in general. I dislike seeing dishonesty reign and flourish; and would love to see an honest site do well instead. So for that goal, I work towards making Citizendium the best it can be, contributing not only myself, but hoping to help the site's structure and traffic so it can one day compete with the dishonest Wikipedia.  


:Also, I have a deep-seated need to help others and help good causes. Like I said, I really liked Wikipedia's original guidelines, and had it abided by them, would have loved to be a regular contributor. Unfortunately, it has given itself over completely to rampant bias. I like to help others and share my knowledge. I feel it's a gift given to me, and I want to change society and the world for the better. Maybe wikis are a way to do so for a time while I think of ways to spread the information even better. So long as the wiki does what is right though, and shares the information in a right way, I love to be able to help. I also have an innate need to solve problems and fix what's going wrong, so I seem to almost magnetically gravitate towards such situations.
:Also, I have a deep-seated need to help others and help good causes. Like I said, I really liked Wikipedia's original guidelines, and had it abided by them, would have loved to be a regular contributor. Unfortunately, it has given itself over completely to rampant bias. I like to help others and share my knowledge. I feel it's a gift given to me, and I want to change society and the world for the better. Maybe wikis are a way to do so for a time while I think of ways to spread the information even better. So long as the wiki does what is right though, and shares the information in a right way, I love to be able to help. I also have an innate need to solve problems and fix what's going wrong, so I seem to almost magnetically gravitate towards such situations.
--[[User:Joshua Zambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:Joshua Zambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
[[Category:Archived Pages]]

Latest revision as of 04:48, 28 August 2020

Here is a collection of personal explanations of why we contribute to the Citizendium (CZ).

Please place testimonials in alphabetical order. Don't worry about repeating what others say; write what you think.

Editors

Milton Beychok

I joined Wikipedia because I wanted to give back some of my experience and knowledge of Chemical Engineering. I left Wikipedia to join Citizendium primarily because of the rampant vandalism by children and others on Wikipedia, and because I grew tired of the revisions of my contributions by people who thought they were knowledgeable of a subject when they were patently not knowledgeable and who refused to be reasonable in their discussions. It reached the point where almost all of my time was being spent on reverting vandalism and with trying to maintain the integrity of what I had written. It became abundantly clear to me me that most of the people in Wikipedia had absolutely no respect for experience and for expertise. At that point, I left Wikipedia and joined Citizendium.

Nick Gardner

A long-retired economic adviser, I stumbled upon Citizendium, started tinkering with one of its articles, and became absorbed with the task of conveying the meaning of a maze of mathematics and charts to intelligent people who were familiar with neither. Finding myself in largely unoccupied territory, I then rambled around, starting an article here and there and waiting expectantly for expressions of dissent or agreement from the dozen or two people listed as economics authors. Getting no response from them or anyone else, I think I would have given up had it not been for some words of interest and encouragement from Martin Baldwin-Edwards. (By this time I had already come to believe –for reasons that I shall explain - that I had been writing stuff that people who read it would find interesting and useful.) Martin had proposed a prioritised programme of work to fill in the gaps in CZs coverage of economics, and I set myself to work on that programme. I then found that there had been many advances in economics since I had last tried to keep abreast of it , and I started getting a lot of satisfaction from a fresh learning experience. I still am. But all of this is perhaps too personal to me to be of interest to others, so I shall turn to my reason for believing in the value of citizendium.

Like many another working economist, I had become aware of the view among intelligent and well-educated “laymen” that economists were incapable of agreeing upon anything, had lost contact with reality, and were given to delusions of superior understanding of questions that were really only a matter of commonsense. I had also become aware that, although there was more than a grain of truth in that view of the practice of economics, much of the commonsense DIY economics of those intelligent laymen was sadly mistaken – with sometimes damaging consequences to them and others. So there – I thought – was a task worth undertaking: to find, understand and explain those developments of economic theory that were firmly connected to reality by good empirical evidence, as well as explaining some of the apparently promising ideas that had not yet attained that status. I was convinced that it had to be done without using the charts and higher mathematics which are the tools of the academic economist’s trade (and which the academics are prone to display to impress their readers), and without burdening the reader with a lot of inessential intellectual history, so I adopted the practice of consigning all of that stuff to subpages (where it might help economics students to impress their tutors). In that way I hoped to avoid some of the manifest shortcomings of the Wikipedia treatment of economics.

So I value Citizendium for letting me do those things, but mainly because I see others taking the same approach to other subjects – often to very impressive effect. It is a matter of great regret to me that I have not been able to provoke lively discussions with fellow-economists, and I still yearn for the development of a collegiate process of generating articles - but maybe that will come in time.

Sandy Harris

I wandered in more-or-less accidentally. I've been fairly heavily involved in the travel guide wiki Wikitravel for some time and sometimes contribute to Sensei's Library [1] the Wiki about the game of Go, and on Wikigogy [2], the Wiki for English language teachers.

As for WP, I read it moderately often, usually either because a web search turned up a WP page or someone cited one in email. I almost never go there directly to look for something, and almost never contribute there, though I've had an account for some years. Part of that is because I'm in China and the Great Firewall often blocks WP. Part of it is that I just never feel inspired there. On Wikitravel I feel I understand the policies and know where I can contribute something unique. On WP, I've never felt that.

I heard about CZ somewhere, perhaps Slashdot?, and some of the ideas seemed interesting. I wandered over to have a look, saw things I could fix and gaps that needed filling, so here I am. I'm not certain I understand all the policies or all the mechanisms (like Related pages) yet, but I am getting things done and the discussions, if sometimes heated, are usually both civil and productive and fairly often interesting.

By the way, there is a WT page Cooperating with Citizendium. Sandy Harris 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dmitrii Kouznetsov

I contribute because it is way to establish the definitions of the terms we are use. All the deductions and pics may be considered as justifications of the definitions. Unfortunately, right now I see the serious problem with images: even the formulas do not load. I hope it is temporally. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Leng

I contribute to Citizendium mainly because, as a public funded scientist, I consider it important that I do my bit to contribute to the public understanding of science. But it's a two-way thing, while I try to get across the way that scientists think, engaging in collaborative writing like this helps me think more clearly and express myself more clearly. It's also an opportunity to pursue "hobby" subjects in a focussed way - since I started on Citizendium, I've found developing articles on Edinburgh a lot of fun -learning things I'm glad I've learnt. It's a good community - it's good to work with people who want to do this, rather than people who have to do this.Gareth Leng 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen

Being a scientist, I use Citizendium mainly to keep track of the literature and other interesting links relevant to my research, and I appreciate doing so in concert with other people with overlapping interests who use their real names and identifiy their areas of expertise. Though I do not see Citizendium as an online encyclopedia yet (due to lack of coverage), I think it is well-structured to become one, and thus it has the potential to provide what most other social bookmarking tools lack: context. More details on my view of Citizendium's place in the world of scholarly communcation can be found in an essay I recently wrote. --Daniel Mietchen 13:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony.Sebastian

One of the things I like about Citizendium is learning the identities and backgrounds of the people with whom I’m collaborating during the course of developing an article. Because all of our authors have registered with their real names, and have provided a short biography of themselves, I never have the feeling that I’m working with strangers wearing masks, hiding their identities for reasons unknown. They are real people. Soon you get to know them as colleagues with their particular talents and passions.

I find it difficult to imagine how I could develop a sense of community, of common goals, with a group of anonymous entities. Yes, ‘entities’, machines, say, ghosts of some kind.

Collaborative writing inevitably takes on a social aspect, warming the project, a little family, usually happy, and if not, always uniquely so. What a lonely cyberworld it would otherwise be.

Another thing I like about writing or editing for Citizendium is the availability of ‘subpages’, complementary pages attached to the Main Article. The subpages give you the opportunity to extend the content of the Main Article without unduly interrupting the narrative flow of the article.

See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Subpages

A ‘Bibliography’ subpage lets you extend the references to the in-text citations of the Main Article with a list of annotated further reading items—books, articles, etc. Your annotation of a book, say, could take form of a mini book report, or a discussion of how the book relates to the issues discussed in the Main Article.

A ‘Related Articles’ subpage lets you list, and link to, articles in Citizendium that relate to the topic of the Main Article. It integrates the topics of the encyclopedia that widen the scope of the Main Article.

An ‘External Links’ subpage lets you list and link to Webpages related to the topic. You can arrange them by category, and annotate.

A ‘Talk’ subpage is a page for authors and Editors to discuss the contents and composition of the Main Article and its other subpages, including questions, suggestions, and critiques.

Those four subpage types are generated by default when the Main Article is inaugurated and are reached for viewing and editing by clicking on tabs in a horizontal menu bar just under the title of the Main Article.

It should not be difficult to appreciate how those default subpages extend the Main Article’s value without disrupting it narrative flow or rendering it unduly long. But Citizendium does not stop there. It offers the author a wide variety of optional subpage types to employ for special purposes related to the topic of the Main Article.

Guess what the optional subpage ‘Filmography’ would add to the topic of an appropriate Main Article. Or a ‘Timelines’ subpage, or ‘Videos’, or ‘Tutorials’, or ‘Addendum’, or ‘Advanced’.

So, as an author or collaborative group of authors, your Main Article takes the form of what Citizendium calls a “cluster”. The cluster renders the topic multidimensional, and gives the reader a multidimensional learning experience.

Authors

Mary Ash

I contribute as I've always supported competition. While Citizendium maybe be the little guy at least it has a heart and soul. I've met some really nice, professional people who have dedicated their volunteer time to share reviewed information. I contribute as I do like to research and write and Citizendium gives me that opportunity. Mary Ash 01:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eric Clevinger

I began some off and on contributing to Wikipedia in 2005, and was initially enthusiastic about the project and it's potential. Soon WP was a household name and an excellent portal for information and assisting with research. The way the project has been managed since then is horrible. I have, on many occasions, seen articles, and legitimate contributions to them, be removed by "admins" in the name of "notability". Seriously, what is notability? How do you define notability in a universal way that every single user will accept? What one person sees at "notable" may not be seen the same way by another person. I have also seen instances where groups of users "squat" articles to make them reflect their specific biases. For a perfect example of the problems with WP, see this story on Brighthub.com, which outlines a battle that was fought over a particular article in the area of video games, and the illogical, self-serving administrative policies that were used by WP's so-called "admins" when deciding to delete the article. Growing ever more frustrated with WP, I stumbled upon Citizendium in 2007, and I am proud to call CZ my online wiki home. People on this project treat each other with respect, and the administrative personnel have a clear understanding of what an online encyclopaedia should be. I can contribute to articles here, and not have to worry about someone deleting them in the name of "notability", as CZ has much more relaxed, realistic rules. I can also propose suggestions to articles and policies without being attacked. We have a good, well-rounded community here that is easy to collaborate with. One of the best CZ policies is that we are encouraged to write "lively prose, not encyclopediaese". I look forward to continued contribution to Citizendium and helping the project grow any way I can. Someday, I think CZ will be one of two things: a household name like Wikipedia, or one of the internet's best kept secrets.

In all fairness, I still think WP is a great resource for searching and finding information (when the article you are looking at hasn't been gutted by the overlords), but I will spare myself the frustration of ever trying to contribute there again. I know many would laugh at me for working on a project that seems so small when compared to WP in terms of content. However, in some ways I think CZ is already better than WP in content. Citizendium currently has 155 articles that are expert-approved, and encyclopedia quality, Wikipedia has ZERO. Eric Clevinger 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sad to see this project never gained more momentum, but it seems to be hanging on by a thread. At least for those who haven't forgotten about it. --Eric Clevinger (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Jackson

I contribute to make information available, particularly on points where people are often misinformed, and particularly on Buddhism. I left Wikipedia because it has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I'm new here so it remains to be seen whether this is better. Peter Jackson 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

I started the Citizendium partly in order to give the world a better alternative to Wikipedia, but to put it positively, because I saw an enormous and unexploited opportunity to bring everyone together to create a truly high-quality free reference resource. (For more in this vein, see CZ:Why Citizendium?)

But why do I continue to lead and contribute to CZ? I believe in this project. We are approaching 10,000 articles, which I believe will be a psychologically important milestone. Our articles tend to be substantial, well-written, and, when not actually authoritative, well on their way to being so. We have a robust community of self-starting intellectuals, independent thinkers who are "early adopters." I am especially proud of the fact that, with a few exceptions aside, we are able to work together as colleagues, and this in spite of the fact that no one invited us specifically; we personally chose to learn about the website and then participate. It is a testiment to what is possible, that we can work together, experts and the general public working shoulder-to-shoulder, as well as we do. But CZ is what it is not because I or anyone planned it, but because of the very laudable individual initiative of over a thousand contributors, and hundreds of regular contributors. It fills me with pride to think that we have shown the world that Web 2.0 with "gentle expert guidance," with "village elders wandering the bazaar," can actually be made to work, visionless naysayers aside.

CZ is continuing to grow steadily, and I still maintain that there will come a time, in the perhaps not-too-distant future, when we will reach a tipping point, and we will be flooded with a lot of new people who will make us grow much faster indeed. But the project even in its present state is worthwhile. Our articles tend to begin life at a high level of quality, and for the most part they steadily improve. We are approaching a point where we will actually be useful as a general information resource, and difficult for our detractors to ignore. Because we are strongly collaborative and are seriously committed to neutrality, we do have an excellent chance of becoming, after some more years (it is hard to say how long), the most reliable general information resource online, period--outshining Wikipedia, of course, but also Britannica and others as well. --Larry Sanger 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Domergue Sumien

I contribute to Citizendium:

  • because quality prevails.
  • because reliable information prevails.
  • because users are friendly and polite: you always work better in a peaceful atmosphere.--Domergue Sumien 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ro Thorpe

When I was a teacher, students were welcome to question my statements, but I didn’t expect them to do so often. Of course I may be lying [citation needed]. Ro Thorpe 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Zambrano

I used to contribute to Wikipedia. I learned the rules, and was enthusiastic about the ideals it sought, of being NPOV, following the sources, etc. The problem was, I found out there was a lot of systemic abuse, and it was perpetuated by admins. While I appreciate Jimmy Wales' efforts to stop a cabal,[3][4] he has unfortunately been unsuccessful.

There is a group of users who remove controversy from pages like the Barack Obama, Global Warming, and Planned Parenthood pages, even when it's been there for years, as soon as the pages are newsworthy. They use a group of editors who, despite being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 (the actual ratios), will claim consensus supports them. They will revert those who try to stop the vandalism of removing the controversies, then play musical chairs by having each other revert, so they force other users to violate the 3RR rule to have them banned. This is just one of the tactics. They force their critics into being banned one after another. Scjessey at Wikipedia is just one of their members who has for years suffered slaps on the wrist for these actions, facing topic bans time and again, only to get them commuted for good behavior, and then participate in the activity all over again.

I got myself in trouble the last time trying to stop them from getting yet another person banned, and removing controversy that had been mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page for several years without change. As soon as controversy arose so Planned Parenthood controversy was in the news, they removed the whole section unilaterally, and kept reverting to keep it in place. I didn't even violate the 3RR rule either. I've gotten tired of Wikipedia, needless to say, and the blatant and shameless level of bias that takes over there.

I tried Conservapedia next, and was quickly put off by how much the bias swung the opposite way. Rather than bias from a liberal side, there it is from conservative, except there at least they don't really even make the pretense of free speech or opinion. While the dishonesty of bias was at least a little refreshing, I found I didn't fit too well there either, as I dislike bias for either side, and speak for a balanced, neutral point of view that emphasizes reliable sourcing and equal coverage of both sides for a fair and balanced perspective.

Then I went to SourceWatch. I was closest to settling down there, but they deleted an article of mine. I understand and was in agreement with their right to do so. Unlike the other 2, it was not out of bias, or heavy-handedness, merely that their goal for the site was not to cover all topics, but merely those within a narrow frame of focus. They did not want topics on politicians or politics in general, only on certain issues that fit their mission goals. I had no hard feelings, and respected their site's wishes, but it wasn't what I was looking for, and I didn't feel it would let me contribute to my maximum potential; and that the site stood no chance of being truly comprehensive in such a state.

So I did some research on wiki alternatives, and found Citizendium. By this time I pretty strongly dislike Wikipedia, and wouldn't mind seeing another website take up competition as primary online encyclopedia. Wikipedia's hidden bias makes me dislike them for the same reason I dislike dishonesty in general. I dislike seeing dishonesty reign and flourish; and would love to see an honest site do well instead. So for that goal, I work towards making Citizendium the best it can be, contributing not only myself, but hoping to help the site's structure and traffic so it can one day compete with the dishonest Wikipedia.

Also, I have a deep-seated need to help others and help good causes. Like I said, I really liked Wikipedia's original guidelines, and had it abided by them, would have loved to be a regular contributor. Unfortunately, it has given itself over completely to rampant bias. I like to help others and share my knowledge. I feel it's a gift given to me, and I want to change society and the world for the better. Maybe wikis are a way to do so for a time while I think of ways to spread the information even better. So long as the wiki does what is right though, and shares the information in a right way, I love to be able to help. I also have an innate need to solve problems and fix what's going wrong, so I seem to almost magnetically gravitate towards such situations.

--Joshua Zambrano 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Archive:Why_I_contribute_to_CZ&oldid=549981"