CZ:How to Collaborate

Many people spend their wiki time working on pages that other people have started. We strongly encourage this, in fact. So, if the page creator is still around, you might have to collaborate with that person, and anyone else interested, in crafting the article further.

So, how do a bunch of strangers manage to create a coherent encyclopedia article? It is one of life's mysteries, perhaps. Generally, though, it's like this: you see that a sentence needs rewording; so you reword it. Or the article needs a whole new section about something; so you add it. Or the article has much flabby prose; so you make it concise. Or you just know a lot about the subject and see much to change; so you go through and make a thorough overhaul. Many people can do all of those things to the same article, and something excellent can result.

Working so closely with others often requires sensitivity and finesse. You might have deleted a sentence it took someone else five minutes to craft, so why doesn't the person become quite angry and stalk away, or abuse you? Well, such unpleasantness can happen. But it doesn't usually happen, and it doesn't have to happen. Polite discussion is key. We can avoid unpleasantness as a rule because we are all committed to working together. We know, in turn, that working together means changing other people's work, making compromises, or (far better) coming up with a creative solution that satisfies everyone very well. The fluid nature of the text allows for such creative, positive solutions, and it's precisely the expectation of such solutions that allows us to avoid conflict.

To collaborate effectively, keep a few things in mind: look at the talk page regularly. Be polite and respectful. If you are angry, calm down and take a break before you write or do something rash. And if you are dealing with a person who really is unreasonable, do not "take matters into your own hands" by cussing the person out, but ask a constable to intervene (at constables@citizendium.org). That's what they're there for--to calm folks down and come to a sensible solution to complex problems of interaction. They are also authorized to ban abusive people, but this rarely happens.

We need to collaborate more

First, a general point. There really should be more collaboration, period, on the wiki. Many articles, especially from newer recruits, could obviously use help of a sort that would be obvious to any of "the regulars." If you are concerned about the project being as good as it can be, then please review recent changes regularly, linked on the left side of every wiki page and "poke in" and see what others are doing. It's actually crucial that we do this. Give both positive feedback and constructive criticism. If you notice that a new person is misusing categories or templates, or uploading something that isn't an encyclopedia article, or committing some other little error, just give a little (polite) guidance. A friendly word or two goes a long way.

Also, if you see an article that someone is evidently working hard on, that slightly piques your interest--maybe "bowling" would be an example--then you should bear in mind that you can dive into editing the article. It isn't owned by its main developer. Of course, it's always best to understand the narrative under development--so, read the article--and to make your contributions as high-quality as possible, but nobody owns any article. If you think you do, you're sadly mistaken.

But we can't expect collaboration

Bottom-up, unassigned, at-will collaboration means that you can't expect others to help out. They will if they want to. But you don't understand the dynamic behind CZ (and other successful wiki projects) if you are tempted to leave in a huff because no one is commenting on your work. If we required anyone to comment on your work, a lot less commenting, period, would be happening. The amount of work that gets done is a direct result of the fact that no one is assigning it. You, who would like comments on your work, might not think of comments on your contributions as "work," but commenters might view it that way.

(Of course, we'd like it all to be not work but fun. But maybe it isn't always.  :-) )

How to get collaborators

If you want collaborators and don't have any, you're not totally helpless, you know. Consider your options:

• Post to Feedback Requests.

• Post on your workgroup mailing list (link found on the left).

• Ask individual editors for comments. Consult the Workgroups page for lists of authors in different subjects. This might help bring them out of the woodwork, you know. It's something we particularly encourage!

• Editors have recently agreed to let Citizendium-Editors be used for feedback requests. So, editors, if you want to get input on an article or on a particular content question, you can always ask there.

• If you're really desperate, you can post your request on Citizendium-L, and reach 750+ people all at once! This is permissible, as long as we don't do it too often!

Editors in particular need to be bolder

It is possible that what keeps a lot of editors from getting involved is that they are thinking of CZ articles as "someone else's inviolable text." That would be the case if we were constructing an anthology using a wiki, where each person is responsible only for his or her own assigned pages, and no one does anything else other than offer feedback. But CZ isn't an anthology.

Instead, we are engaged in what is sometimes called "strong collaboration." That means that no individual or group of individuals is assigned to work on an article; the group of people who happen to work on an article is (or can be) ever-changing; people decide individually which article they want to work on; it isn't decided from above. (For more about this concept, see here.)

Maybe this all seems obvious to anyone who knows much about wikis, but, again, many editors seem not to grasp the implications:

• It really is all right for you to edit someone else's text. It might have been written by someone else, but it is shared in common. It is not an insult or a violation of anybody's rights to have their text edited. In fact, it's usually received as a sort of compliment. (See Group Editing for more, and this blog post for a little more about the psychology here.)

• Editors (and authors), it's all the more OK for you to comment on someone else's text, on the talk page. This is not an imposition. You should not wait to be invited to comment on articles in your area (or, for that matter, outside of your area, if you have something helpful to add).

But editors also need to be open to collaboration

The flip side to the failure to understand the nature of wiki collaboration, on the part of some editors, is that when someone does get involved, they start to as it were "claim ownership" over what they're working on. This not only drives away other contributors, it is actually contrary to our fundamental policies (III.3.).

This might upset some academics, who are not comfortable with sloppiness, temporary inaccuracy, or in short anything they feel is out of their control. Unfortunately, a measure of by-the-seat-of-our-pants can't be helped. If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. If you want people to feel generally comfortable contributing, you have to be tolerant of some not-so-good contributions. This doesn't mean that we have to keep the worse stuff (obviously we don't)--it merely means that we have to be so open as to allow garbage to seep in from time to time. This will help keep everyone maximally motivated, which is of paramount importance.

Just remember, garbage isn't permanent. The existence of a little bad writing, bias, and inaccuracy is not an emergency that must be fixed immediately, at the cost of lost contributors. It should be removed, to be sure, but it is more important that we retain our fellows and keep them motivated. It's not an either-or proposition, either. We can politely correct our fellows without driving them off. In fact, this practice has a good old name: tolerance.

As a rule of thumb, it is better to discuss what is wrong with a piece of text on the talk page before you entirely hack it to bits, and give the others a chance to respond first. Giving notice in this way isn't necessary if you are making small edits, but if there is any "hacking" going on, it is necessary; it certainly helps smooth the wheels of discourse. Sometimes the criticized party (if they're still around) will make the necessary changes themselves. Sometimes, more rarely, they'll be upset and will need calming down; you'll have to negotiate. Of course, you needn't ask permission before you add to an article. It's deleting or drastically altering that needs advance explanation. Again, you aren't asking "permission," as if there were an owner who had to agree to your change. Instead, you are explaining yourself for anyone who is interested; it's just a matter of courtesy. It's just as much "your" article to change as anyone else's.

Indeed, for large amounts of deleted text, we actually require a fairly detailed explanation at the same time (or just before) you make the deletion. Unexplained deletion is actually contrary to our professionalism policy. (See "Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors.")

But at this stage, we would prefer that people collaborate more actively, and make a few faux pas, than always "asking permission" and doing nothing. In short, please practice active, exuberant collaboration, and be open to it.

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}