Talk:Citizendium

content and license

What would happen if a Wikipedia editor copied content from Citizendium? Would that violate the Citizendium l icense? The Wikipedia license? Any other Wikipedia rules? Does a WP:RS cover this issue? --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also want to know the answers to these questions. Wonder why they are not given in the article. I also would like to know how to change the page layout while reading Citizendium, to that of "black text on white paper" as in Wikipedia, and not on gray. --CopperKettle 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"black on white" - In IE, use Tools/Internet Options/General/Accessibility/Formatting (Ignore colors)

I was involved in the Citizendium discussions and can report YES you can copy from Citizendium to Wikipedia as long as you include a footnote that the article originally came from Citizendium and give the article URL. Rjensen (talk)

That's not actually true, or at least not yet. Citizendium uses the CC-by-sa license which is not presently compatible with Wikipedias's GFDL although both have similiar goals and offer similar protection. Since Wikipedia only accepts text that is released under the GFDL, Citizendiums content cannot be used here presently. That said, Wikipedia is presently holding a referendum (voting ends tomorrow if im not mistaken) on switching from the GFDL to the same license Citizendium uses (CC-by-sa). If the referendum is sucessful then both projects will be using the same license and copying from one to the other will be possible, as long as proper attribution is provided to adress possible plagiarism concerns. 189.105.105.136 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If true, that would be very strange, as we freely accept CC-by-sa images. Skomorokh 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We actually accept a whole bunch of licenses as far as images go, but text is limited to GFDL. There's a good reason for this though: images are not editable and are pretty much stand alone itens, its very easy for someone to click on a particular image in an article and view its license, but text doenst work like that, text is fluid and gets mixed up. If we allowed more than one license for text, it would be hell to keep track of which section of a particular article is licensed under which license. There's simply no way to do that. 189.105.105.136 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no simple way. I suppose they could use templates.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Info on Wikimedia's license change can be found here Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now have that new license. Can we use Citizendium material now? Andres (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting 189.105.51.100 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Content" section of this article need update. Andres (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

alexa rank improved

i think the alexa rank is now like 60k. can someone update it? i don't know how to reference it correctly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a new version of the number of articles figure available under http://en.citizendium.org/images/a/a8/Number_of_articles.png and a new version of the article creation rate figure under http://en.citizendium.org/images/7/73/Creation_rate_main.png. Could someone update it (I tried but I am not able to do it). Cheers, Clemens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemens2000 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Citizendium Porting

WikiProject Citizendium Porting has been proposed. If you would be interested in joining such a WikiProject and/or have comments on the proposal, you are invited to say so at the aforelinked proposal page. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's inactivity

This following was moved from User:TakuyaMurata's talkpage:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Citizendium. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WebHamster 23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have to engage in the edit war if you just stop the nonsense. -- Taku (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the editor adding the factoid it is your responsibility to provide adequate wording and sourcing from reliable sources (not primary sources). You have done neither. Now I suggest you revert yourself as currently you are 4RR and as such are open to being blocked. Your choice. --WebHamster 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the threatening blocks is a good way to solve the dispute. My problem is that, as I said in the edit summary, you didn't adequately explain why you disagree with the wording and the sourcing. For example, we cite Wikipedia pages in the article Wikipedia even though Wikipedia is not considered "reliable". The sentence in question doesn't say that Sanger stopped the contribution; it's only that was pointed out. Maybe we could work out the wording, but the edit war isn't constructive, and you have to stop. -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata, please use the article's talk page to discuss the content issues. Once an editor has reverted edits in an article, people should stop warring over it; it doesn't do anyone any good. Everyone take a break from editing the article directly, and go to the talk page for discussion. Specifically, you should start a new topic on the talk page explaining what content you think should be added, and why you think it should go there. If I see further reverts on this article without discussion, one or both of you will be blocked (and you will be the first one to be blocked, since you were the first to add the content and because it is in violation of the reliable sources guideline). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the discussion, as I made my argument above. Should I repeat myself? First, the sentence in question doesn't state Sanger stopped the contribution; it states that his activity was pointed out in the community forum. The linking to the thread in the question makes perfect sense, and has been done all over Wikipedia. The reliability isn't an issue here. Second, one editor said this isn't important. I disagree. This is important of course. Citizendium has been known as Sanger's project since its creation. (And I believe he is "editor-in-chief" of the project.) Why do you someone raised this issue in the forum? -- Taku (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between his leaving the project, which would be of importance, and his not being very active in the last few weeks. Not everything that someone posts to a forum is important, You appear to lack perspective on this.-gadfium 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not necessary. Maybe if this becomes part of a general trend (ie, Sanger's activity remains low for many months, and New York Times or something writes a story about CZ and mentions that Sanger is no longer very active), then it would be worth mentioning, with a more reliable source (such as the hypothetical NYT article I just mentioned). As things are now, though, it's just somewhat trivial news, and from an un-reliable source at that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this information is not really noteworthy. It's just a bit of trivia that could be included if we had a good source. By the way, Larry explained the situation in an email to the list of Citizendium editors. [1] So it's not as if he lost interest or something, it's just that he needs a pay check from somewhere. It could also be in preparation for his stepping down, something he promised to do from the beginning and is apparently still planning to do. It seems to me that this is much more noteworthy. I am sure it must have been mentioned by a reliable source once, but I can't find it in the article. Hans Adler 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fail?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So after nearly three years CZ has a grand total of 112 "approved articles." I think that's a fair indicator that the project has failed. Sanger's claims in 2006 that CZ would soon rival WP have not been fulfilled. Also its claim to be more accurate than Wikipedia is unsound. The very first "approved" article I looked at, on W E Gladstone, says in its first line that Gladstone was a Scot, which is untrue since he was born in Liverpool. Would it not be reasonable to point these things out in this article? I'm aware that WP is reluctant to be seen to be critical of CZ, but facts are facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) The CZ Gladstone article (which I mostly wrote in 2007) is much better than Wikipedia's. Biographer Jenkins (p. 15) for example says of Gladstone "his blood made him the most Scottish of all prime ministers". (It's parentage not birthplace that makes for ethnicity, of course.) The Wikipedia article relies on outdated biographies and is not in touch with modern scholarship on Gladstone (for example it does not cite or list a single scholarly article). Major issues such as the army reform get less than a sentence. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Gladstone was born in England and lived his whole life either in England or at Hawarden in Wales, even when he sat for Midlothian. His father had lived in England for more than 20 years when he was born, and held an English seat. His mother was English, he didn't speak with a Scots accent, he was educated in England, and he was a member of the Church of England. You can say he was of half Scots ancestry, but to say flatly as you do at CZ that he was "a Scot" is just factually false. You can of course quote Jenkins, but you must also note that his comment is absurd. There is no such thing as "Scottish blood" (a very racist concept), and to say that Gladstone was "more Scottish" than Ramsay Macdonald is ridiculous - his mother was English so he must have been less "Scottish by blood" than Macdonald. My point in relation to CZ, of course, is that this highly debatable assertion has remained unchallenged in an "approved article" which is presumably meant to be "finished" and of encyclopaedic standard. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Mr Toad is arguing with the experts like Jenkins, and Toad is substituting his own original research. Both are forbidden at Wikipedia. To understand how Gladstone is seen in the 21st century one needs to read the 21st century scholarly literature, which emphasizes culture not place of birth as the key to ethnicity. That is a major issue in Britain today with many people born in Britain but with a heritage from places like Jamaica and Pakistan. On Gladstone, Wikipedia fails to list any publication of the last decade, such as Ruth Clayton Windscheffel, "Gladstone and Scott: family, identity and nation," Scottish Historical Review Volume 86, Number 1: (April 2007), which explores Gladstone's ethnicity in depth and shows his self identity and ways of thinking were rooted in Scotland. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Please do not use this talk page as a forum.-gadfium 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not "resigned"

I have not resigned. I explained why I have been inactive in the community recently. I remain Editor-in-Chief. Moreover, it should not be news to anyone that I intend to step down. I have said so, on a regular basis, since the beginning of the project, and my reasons for saying so have always been clear.

This coverage of the issue is both inaccurate and biased. I hope someone will fix it. --Larry Sanger (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Sanger! :) Changed it to "Inactivity" but could be phrased better.----occono (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fail?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After nearly three years CZ has 112 "approved articles." I think that's a fair indicator that the project has failed. Larry Sanger's claims in 2006 that CZ would soon rival WP and that there would be a rapid take-off in articles have not been fulfilled. Would it not be reasonable to point this out in this article? I'm aware that WP is reluctant to be seen to be critical of CZ, but facts are facts. (Since Larry Sanger is watching this article, he might like to comment on this.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) We report facts. We've already mentioned the number of articles and number of approved articles, which are facts. But we don't make value judgments stating that X articles and Y approved articles in Z years constitutes "failure." We also report "facts about opinions"; e.g., if a prominent and credible commentator argues that Citizendium has failed then we can note that she has said so. And if a prominent and credible commentator says Citizendium is doing admirably then we can note that too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) This is right. Wikipedia is not here to decide whether something has "failed" or not and set out criteria for what that means (which, even putting WP policy issues aside, would ultimately be just another subjective judgment). mike4ty4 (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Gosh, that's right. They have now ...wait for it ...117 articles approved. Gangbusters, eh. Of some 12,300 odd now in some form of draft. And if they choose to misrepresent progress by showing article creation rate as a measure, rather than the glacial article approvals, well who in the NPOV are we to judge! Bah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.69 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC) As someone who worked, and worked very hard, in the early days of CZ, I have to say the project looks rather moribund. However, making any accounting of such a judgment would depend upon some reliable and/or notable outside source; it is not the place of WP to make such evaluations.Clevelander96 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Bah. This Wikipedia article uses *exactly* the same misleading data on articles, in graphs and over-blown language. Spare me the NPOV, non-evaluation claptrap. Citizendium has 117 approved articles. It's whole point was approved articles, not volume of articles created. Its not rather moribund. It's terminal. Time to switch it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.69 (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) a review the aims and message of this page is overdue Hmmm... the number of articles 'fact' depends on your definition of article. By any reasonable definition, the figure here is foolish aggrandisement and propaganda. And as Mr Toad points out, CZ was established on the basis that it would 'rival' WP - in a few years. It has not been able to do so. His second point about the 'take off' of articles is also empirically demonstrable. Yet these points are brushed away with irrelevant rhetoric. Instead, I suggest we need to have a proper look at this piece to make sure that CZ hacks are not using it as a kind of publicity page. Gemtpm (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC) See WP:NOR and WP:SYN. We don't formulate our own conclusions here. If someone else writing in a reliable source concludes something about CZ we can report it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Current status

Since when does this article need a "Current Status" established by a bunch of libertarians? Tim Lee's crying about no articles on libertarianism from an 11,800 article project doesn't have any place here. Wikipedia has 500 times as many articles, huh? Fascinating. I never would have guessed that when you take into account that there's millions of editors for Wikipedia. 3,000,000 fewer articles? Wow. Shocking developments. I thought Citizendium has only been in place a few years. I guess I must have miscalculated. Come on, people! This is a cause for the same thing that Wikipedia is trying to achieve--free knowledge. To try and send Citizendium into the ground would be hypocritical. I know what you guys are thinking. "But Wikipedia's article has plenty of criticisms." You got me there--except that Wikipedia can still thrive despite a little criticism. But I don't think that Citizendium can. It's too fragile. If you honestly think you're doing the article a service by blogging about CZ's status in a so-called encyclopedia, well, I hope you realize how out of balance the NPOV really is. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think someone is trying to "send it into the ground" with this section, anyway? How do you think it should be written? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry about my attitude problem. I really over-reacted, and flamed the opinions that were incorporated into the article. I was very rude and that was a poor choice to take issue with who was chosen to be quoted. In response to your question Mike4ty4, I don't have any specific way of writing it in mind, but I think if there has to be negative information, could we also have positive information, if possible? I don't know where to look for positive information. But if anybody has some, could we balance this out a little better? Thanks and sorry that I stepped on some toes. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, though I don't know of anything new offhand. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the first draft of the "Current status" section let me say that the comment about libertariansm was chosen merely to illustrate the question of Citizendium's range of articles. I'm not a libertarian. It was just the first relevant comment I came across. Citizendium made some bold predictions about its own future two years and the fact that they haven't been fulfilled needs to be noted in this article, as is now the case. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Current status is littered with unreliable sources

The section called Current status is a violation of Wikipedia policy. None of the sources are reliable. Wikipedia admins do not enforce policy is a problem as shown by this page. Please show how references such as blogs or personal websites are reliable. If an editor alleges they are reliable then that is evidence they are not reliable. Please show in accordance with Wikipedia policy how each source is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to remove the unreliable references. Only one reference was possibly reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, where you will find:

• Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. The Financial Times certainly qualifies as a reliable source. This is not a blog comment from a member of the public but a piece by a regular staffer.
• Walt Crawford's article qualifies as having been produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Crawford is one of the most-cited authors in library science and has received an Award for Excellence from the American Library Association.

The only borderline source is the one from the Citizendium blog, but even that one follows policy as it is specifically attributed as its author's view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For now I restored the the main point from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The CZ blog with comments from random editors for a current status section is obviously unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Internal Link:

2.5 Content in the Table of Contents seems to link back to the Contents rather than to Content (and I'm not content with this...) Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

editorializing?

To show 120 as "less than 1%" is simple arithmetic and factual - it cannot be construed as "editorialising", "original thought", "original research" or anything other than a plain arithmetic fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.69 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is editorialising when you did the simple arithmetic. QuackGuru (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.69 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the body. I agree it is nonsense when the lead went beyond what is said in the body of the article. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "less than 1%" is an editorialising way of referring to 120/12,590, because it implies "few". The problem would have been clearer if the numbers were 180/12,590. In this case we could say "more than 1%" or "less than 2%", depending on how we want to influence our readers. The funny thing is that "more than 1%" sounds as if we are impressed and "less than 2%" as if we are unimpressed by the number.

However, routine calculations are allowed, and so is straightforward reasonable rounding (although that's not made explicit anywhere, but sometimes it's even required, such as here). How about "roughly 1%"? Is that something we can all agree on? Hans Adler 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

120 Approved Articles is what the source says. How can we calculate 1% when there is no other numbers mentioned? "Category:Approved Articles". Citizendium. Retrieved 2009-07-09. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source, actually. Elsewhere in the same primary source we have the article count for citizendium:Category:CZ Live; this is the number of Citizendium articles according to the Citizendium main page. I am not trying to push the 1%; it doesn't matter to me. But as far as I am concerned it's kosher to use these up-to-date numbers. We know quite well how Citizendium works, and it would be a bit absurd for us to take obsolete numbers from old press articles when we have access to the latest numbers. I am withdrawing from this discussion now because it's so irrelevant and also a borderline case. Hans Adler 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Using two different links to come to a new conclusion is synthesis. Ref A and then ref B to come to a new conclusion C is not a routine calculation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that taking numbers from two different places in a primary source and basing a calculation on them is definitely a problem. Hans Adler 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You have adopted a contradictory and nonsensical position which shows a poor grasp of describing numerical data. The previous text said "more than 110". That wasn't editorialising? If not, then merely ludicrous imprecision at that order of size, in a number subject to change. The number *is* less than 1%. It is not editorialising to state a plain mathematical fact. You can deny it, decry it or deride it as "editorialising" but you cannot make it go away. If you wish to permanently hobble Wikipedia content from sensible and correct statements of proportion, so be it. It'll stand to the eternal discredit of Wikipedians. At some point the proportion will be "over 1%". And will someone then object to that as editorialising by implying "more"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.69 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For the average person like me who can't calculate the numbers without a calculator it is not a routine calculation. Putting two links or two references together to come to a new conclusion or original thought is putting words in the cited source's mouth. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but if youre not able to do that kind of calculation then you're most certanly not "average" 189.105.49.28 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Half of the population is below average. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When half the population is below average then below average is average. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Half the population is below the Median Cander0000 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Roughly 1%" is an estimate not a calculation. "0.95" is not a routine calculation. "Less than 1%" is editorializing. Original research is not allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. I'm not sure we need to say anything at all but "about 1%" would be acceptable. To toss a little gasoline on the fire, about 0.3% of Wikipedia articles qualify as GA or FA. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1% failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course if you think what you added might be OR you are free to change policy. QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear QuackGuru, I’m not sure how to explain this to you but I'll try anyway... In response to your edit summary in the main article: 0.95 is not a routine calculation well guess what, you're absolutely right it’s not a routine calculation. In fact, it’s not a calculation at all, it’s a number. This is the calculation: 120 divided by 12,590 which is aprox: 0.0095. Then you take 0.0095 and multiply by 100 and voila, you get the percentage which is 0.95% as I’m sure you learned in school. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to represent this number in the article, either as 0.95%, less than 1%, or roughly 1%, the calculation is the same, so hopefully you'll now understand why your edit summary is nonsensical. But of course, none of this really matters since you're only interested in keeping factual information that you think harm Citizendium out of the article and you're basically making up arguments as you go along.

PS: Boris, I’m not sure why you brought those WP numbers up, or what you're trying to imply. But you're certainly welcome to add them to the English Wikipedia article, which is in a quite dire state btw. This is not a WP X CZ issue, so I'm not sure why some of you are treating it as if it were. 189.105.29.64 (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Boris' point is that Citizendium, which is in a relatively early state of development, is sometimes being attacked for having "only" 1% of high quality content, while Wikipedia itself has "only" 0.3%. Hans Adler 10:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Hans Adler: I think that is a good point but it is not the point of this content dispute. The point is that this is a clear policy violation to add a number that is not a routine calculation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 189.105.29.64: Based on your latest comment this is indeed not a routine calculation. It is a complex calculation. We should stick to wikipedia policy as we go along. WP:OR allows only routine calculations. 120 divided by 12,590 is not a routine calculation. Their are steps involved to caculate this and the number seems to be an approximate number not the exact calculation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'about 1%'? Rothorpe (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an estimate not a calculation. What's wrong with editing according to Wikipedia policy? QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Which means removing any estimate/calculation? Rothorpe (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Any number that is not a routine calculation is against Wikipedia policy and by extention against the Wikimedia Foundation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a routine calculation that, by definition, would be acceptable? Rothorpe (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In 2002 Sanger left the project and in 2005 Wales began to dispute Sanger's role in the project, a few years after Sanger left the project. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2005 − 2002 = "a few"? That's not a routine calculation, that's not even a calculation: That's editorialising. I am not trying to say we can never say such things. They are OK so long as they are uncontroversial, i.e. nobody objects. But if people start objecting against statements that nobody really minds, based only on a pedantic reading of a policy, then that tends to lead to the kind of unproductive discussion that we have here. Hans Adler 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think three years is not a routine calculation then it would be inconceivable to include a complex calculation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2005 − 2002 = 3 is a routine calculation. 5 January 2005 − 27 December 2002 = 3 years is incorrect (either incorrect calculation or incorrect rounding). [I did't check if something like this applies here.] And 3 = "a few" is editorialising. Hans Adler 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: See my response further above. I agree with you that this is synthesis. However, this synthesis occurs already when we mention the two numbers in close proximity. I am not sure it's improper synthesis. I would call it a borderline case. Hans Adler 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the underlining problem is that without a calculator I can't determine what the number is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2005 minus 2002 = 3. I think this is a routine calculation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And 200/20,000? Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this one of those trick questions? QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit went against Wikipedia policy. It is impossible to get 1% using this reference. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:NOR#Routine_calculations. Do you think the arithmetic is incorrect? If you wish to remove the percentage, you're going to have to use some grounds other than WP:NOR or WP:V regarding this percentage. I'd suggest you try WP:NPOV, or perhaps WP:NOR regarding the sources themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No reference was provided to make any calculation. This is the reference being used at the end of the sentence. This was a very clear violation of WP:V.

No specific rebuttal was made to this comment. That's because the 1% is not sourced with the reference presented. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru by his own admission is totally unqualified to make any remark or judgement at all on any issue where a basic grasp of numbers is called for. He should be restrained form making such remarks and edits. 120 out of a number over 12,000 is easily resolved by simple mental arithmetic without any need for a calculator, as a proportion less than 1%. Nothing he says will ever make it original research. It is merely a simple proportion, by mental arithmetic, and the most simple routine calculation. Nothing he says will ever make .95 anything other than "less than 1". That said, I'll accept the 1% as a necessary and sufficient solution. The preceding version, "more than 100" was a ludicrous statement to allow, at these orders of magnitude. This discussion and the attitude of QuackGuru reflects all that is unsatisfactory about Wikipedia. The at best unfortunate "more than 100" reflected all that is unsatisfactory about both Wikipedia and Citizendium and their respective claquers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.5.61 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And before quackguru starts yet another rule war out of sheer numerical ignorance, observe as follows: % is the symbol which, by long established and agreed definition, refers to proportion out of 100 - no original research there, and no calculation. 1 in 100 is thus 1/100 or (exactly) 1% - no original research there & no calculator. It's mere simple arithmetic, if that. By simple proportion, then, 10 out of 1,000 *must* also be 1% (ie 10 times greater each side must retain the same proprotion). The laws of arithmetic - incl proportion - are not original research and are not complex computation either. So, likewise 100 out of 10,000 must then be again 1%, the proportion remaining the same. And 120 out of 12,000 is by the same rule therefore also 1%. And if the bottom line - the larger no - is more than that? Well, the proportion *must* be, by the laws of arithmetic ... less than 1%! No original research at any point. No calculator. No "complex calculation". Simple arithmetic and simple rules of arithmetic. And by the way, his remark about averages is a complete nonsense too. I'm done with this. Its pretty well cured me of wikipedia as a useful way of gathering information.

It is impossible to get 1% using this reference. No reference was provided to verify the 1%. That's not all folks. It is a violation of WP:WEIGHT to include trivial assertions; also it is improper synthesis to claim 1% using reference A with reference B to come to a new conclusion C. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude give it a rest, seriously. Nobody else has agreed with you. Some people had a valid argument about the way the number was presented in the article "less than...", but that was it. The consensus here is that the information is both pertinent and not original research as it was obtained using school-level basic calculations, an exeption that is clearly stated in WP:OR. I for one am not replying to you any further. 189.105.35.45 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No specific rebuttal was made to my comment. I have a valid argument. Please provide a reference to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to get 1% using this reference. No reference was provided to verify the 1%. That's not all folks. It is a violation of WP:WEIGHT to include trivial assertions; also it is improper synthesis to claim 1% using reference A with reference B to come to a new conclusion C. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a reference but no reference was given to verify the text. The reference at the end of the sentence has the total number of approved articles. 120 approved articles does not equal 1%. It is impossble to make a calculation using the current reference. Please provide a reference or it is time for editors to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so. QuackGuru has failed to follow either the Citizendium reference or Wikipedia practice observantly. The Citizendium reference is plain - a single link provides both numbers, directly through the Wikipedia Live Articles article structure, with both presentations including full cross-reference to each other - same source, then. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:CZ_Live . Both numbers are readily found there, under clear headings. The 1% issue is thus emphatically *not* synthesis of any kind, and there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia Verifiability about this sort of presentation, nor in Wikipedia Synthesis. And yes, 1% is an *entirely acceptable* level of accuracy for the proportion here, even without qualification.

QuackGuru has changed the ground of his complaint at every one of his posts from the very beginning. On inspection, each one of his points has been proven invalid and in error, either in use or understanding of accepted arithmetic practice, or in understanding of documented Wikipedia practice. To disallow a useful, common-practice numeric comparison , readily seen and verifiable from the source, would set the worst possible Wikipedia precedent for future data presentation and understanding. Thoroughly bad practice.

End notes:
"The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (an article...."
and
"Verifiability implies that any one can check the cited sources to verify the information stated in a Wikipedia article. This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V

"Routine calculations. This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources [see preceding quotes] from which it is derived."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.40.142 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't make a calculation without the numbers to make a calculation. The cited sources says 120 approved articles. You can't get 1% from 120. I checked the reference at the end of the sentence and it was impossible to to get 1% from 120 approved articles. I request a reference to verify the text in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest is not a reference. As previously explained, I request a reference. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't stop I'll report you for edit warring is not a reference. As previously explained, I request a reference. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two references, one for 12,590 and one for 120. It would be pedantic to repeat the first reference after the 1%, so we are not doing it. I think you are the only one who thinks this calculation is not admissible. That could be an indication that your interpretation of the situation is eccentric. It could also be an indication that there are lots of POV pushing meatpuppets and sockpuppets here, or some conspiracy. If you want to make sure that it's not the latter option, go elsewhere and ask people there for their opinion. Or start an RfC, or whatever. But don't edit war. Hans Adler 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For disclusure, the 189 IP is me. I'm not touching the article again. If QuackGuru reverts again I'll report him Acer (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to start a checkuser. You have refused to give a reference for the 1%. It looked like you forgot to log out. Please provide a reference for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is irresponsible when I request a reference in mainspace and editors ignore my request. When editors cannot provide a reference to verify the text there is no consensus to include the text. If editors attempt to use two reference to verify the text it would be improper synthesis to use reference A confounded with reference B to come to a new concluson, beyond the intention of the source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, the sets of 125 and 121 posts are me - my IP is dynamically allocated by my ISP. As for the reference, it is abundantly plain that the single article http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:CZ_Live comprises a number of subsets - lists - all part of the one article, as shown by the abundantly prominent Citizendium Articles Lists box, repeated in the same form on every subset, as seen here http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles . SO both numbers can indeed be found from a single reference. It is otiose in the extreme to claim that this is some form of mutiple reference, and some sort of synthesis. It is not. It is a single article, in multiple parts, and Hans Adler has made valid points - pendantic to insist on repeated reference and eccentric to pursue a completely unfounded case, by repeated unfounded assertion. I have concluded from quackguru's repeated changes of ground and repeated failure to address any of the valid points raised in rebuttal that he is not posting in good faith. He is a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.40.142 (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think both numbers are found in the same article then why did you provide two different links to different pages. You are using two references. Two different liks equals two different articles. This is improper synthesis. This is non-notable while confounding primary sources. A clear WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To make plain the article content to you, as it is to everyone else. You're wrong about both mulitple source and synthesis, as you've failed to understand the CZ structure and the WP rules. Still, in good faith, I've looked again at the CZ page and its underlying code, to find there available a single source, that brings all the lists (and thus the underlying two numbers) together: viz http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Article_Lists. You are in error in your understanding of the CZ article and of the WP rules. There is no violation. I'm done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.40.142 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That single link does not have any numbers. So that means you were unable to verify the text.

For clarity, the 124 and 121 posts are you such as this comment you claim is to improve the article. Time to switch it off. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Verification, weight, sources, etc satisfied and explained numerous times. You fail to follow or grasp these or the thread as a whole, and you fail to follow or grasp the meaning of the CZ Live Articles article, or Wikipedia rules. As a final example, note your preceding comment: you deliberately misrepresent remarks made in robust debate on the *Discussion* page, as if they were a mischiveous amends on the *article* page. Bad faith. Bad practice. You are pursuing a rule war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.40.142 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru "That single link does not have any numbers. So that means you were unable to verify the text."

121.XX.XX.XXX "Not so. Verification, weight, sources, etc satisfied and explained numerous times."

121.XX.XX.XXX, if you think the reference you provided list both numbers then why are there no numbers listed. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Article_Lists

There are a few violations here. 1% cannot bear the WP:WEIGHT of WP:V.

Editors cannot explain away that orginal research does not allow reference A to be confounded with reference B to come to a conclusion C. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have all understood by now how your interpretation of policy works. However, everybody seems to agree that in this particular case WP:COMMON trumps WP:PRIMARY because it was never intended to prevent us from making such an obvious calculation. Actually I think it is in a bit of a grey zone. In any case, WP:EW is also a policy. You, all alone, are currently in a slow edit war against a lot of other editors. This is going to get you a block unless you stop. I have already told you what you can do instead. Short version: WP:DR. Hans Adler 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear according to your comment you know it is a violation of WP:PRIMARY but you choose to ignore the rules. Is that correct? Wikipedia's original research is intended to stop editors from using primary sources in this way. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." See WP:PRIMARY. Using a primary source A with another primary source B to make interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims is a violation of WP:PRIMARY. I think editors who want to violate the rules using primary sources is inappropriate. Violating the rules has also caused a violation of WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from your comments that you believe that this is a violation of WP:NOR. It is clear from everybody else's comments that they disagree with you about the interpretation of this policy. Hans Adler 07:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Citizendium Home page now carries both numbers, which offers the convenience of a single reference footnote. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.108.252 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I request a secondary source for the interpretive claim of 1% not found in the primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request denied. Next... Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If not sourced to a secondary source the claim of 1% is a clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim? Either you don't know what "claim" means, or you are editorializing. Numerator and denominator are both on CZ Home & are in the proportion 1%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.17.78 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We've done all this before. QuackGurus interpretation of WP rules is consistently and mischievously wrong. How many times is QG going to shift his ground? His user page may not exist but his history is instructive. He's always wrong. Besides, the CZ Home text as displayed is a secondary result, of a CZ count function driven by the CZ Live Category and its designed subcategories. That is, CZ-created secondary data designed by the authors so to be shown. In any event, 1% is an allowable basic comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.34.178 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommmend turning this Talk page into a new WP article, with the title "Why Citizendium was created". It needs no further explanation than your discourse here. 85.72.224.116 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Too subtle. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There has been no hysterical screaming at my comment, which means that they didn't get it! Just shows the intellectual level of the discussants. 85.72.224.116 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think such shots at "intellectual level" would be acceptable at Citizendium? Also, I "get" the point, but I don't "hysterically scream" at it either. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

Image is complete crap according to Rvcx. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And QuackGuru's point is what? In fact QG has made yet another post carefully selected to mislead. As he must know, the remark he quoted is from the Sanger article discussion. In full, it referred only to the lack of relevance of a CZ screenshot in a Sanger article. In contrast, here the sole content of the article is CZ, so a current CZ screenshot is surely relevant.

Interestingly, QG was caught out in the Sanger discussion too, post-editing his own comments - he returned to hack out the bit where he had pointed to the screenshot as being relevant here. Having doctored that earlier remark to cover the inconsistency, still later, he popped up again here - to post his complaint about that same image.

Conclusion:

QGs posts rely on deceptive misquotation or post-editing (at least 3 recorded instances), mathematical ineptitude, and concocted misinterpretation or WP principles (too numerous to list), served up in numerous instances of "edit wars", and numerous instances of "rule wars". His errors in argument might at first blush be excused as the result of ignorance about mathematics or poor comprehension of English. However, his targets are wide-ranging, covering maths, images and text. As he has been now caught out with deliberate deception several times, we can only conclude that his posts are not made "in good faith", against the basic WP dictum. In short, Quack Guru is a troll whose rule & edit wars have the potential to set precedents damaging to WP content. Steps should be taken to permanently disable him from editing and posting on WP. If I knew how, I'd start the process myself.

New Times Higher Education article

Here. Reasonably detailed coverage of some recent events.  Skomorokh  15:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From 22 January 2009. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Citizendium dead?

In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit. Compare Conservapedia, which is all but moribund, which has 76 editors in the last week at the time I write this. The difference is, the latter is pretty much a personal website. - David Gerard (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dead" might be too strong. What has happened is that Citizendium has lost their Long Tail of casual contributors as can be seen from their statistics page. They've long had a core group of a couple dozen or so very active contributors (you probably know many of their names if you're familiar with the site). The number of people making at least 100 edits per month is about the same as it was in mid 2008 (around 25). But the number making at least 20 edits has declined by about half, to around 30-35, i.e., not many more than the core group. And the number making at least one edit per month has dropped by a similar or greater proportion, from around 200 to maybe 90 or so as you state. There's no foreseeable prospect of a turnaround since the number of users making their first edit reached an all-time low in March 2010.

But what of it? If the active core group finds Citizendium an enjoyable hobby, more power to them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, moribund then? The "what of it" being, of course, the ambitions and the failure. What does this teach us? Is it relevant to the article and subject, other than noting the bare fact that it's hardly active? David Gerard (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And I must note, it's a terribly sad ending. Surely it wasn't set up to be a playground for a small closed circle of contributors - David Gerard (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Citizendium has taught me: Writing for a massively multi-moron encyclopedia is a lot more fun than writing for a very quiet professional one. While I prefer the latter in theory, I prefer the former in practice.

I think the problem is that Citizendium did not reach critical mass. If they had started with our user base and our Google rank they might have been successful. During some discussions about notability requirements in the German Wikipedia someone proposed to split Wikipedia into a more Citizendium-like Encyclopedia Galactica and a Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy with very relaxed notability rules.

Wikipedia has acquired a weight in the world that should permit us to recruit large numbers of top academics, provided we can create an environment where they want to work. I think the best strategy would be to start with a Wikimedia platform for (1) writing scholarly articles alone or collaboratively on a wiki, and (2) hosting peer-reviewed online journals (possibly even with print subscriptions handled by Wikimedia – an excellent chance to make a little bit of money on the side). Sooner or later the community of that project would come up with ideas for handling peer-review of Wikipedia articles, perhaps most straightforwardly by means of a "Journal of Encyclopedic Articles". Could this be a direction for Wikiversity? Hans Adler 09:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mm. The article isn't the place for talk-page speculation about what the failure means, and arguably the talk page isn't either. But that it has clearly failed in every reason for its founding, let alone its stated ambitions, is clearly important, and noting the small number of contributors with little to no new blood is important - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to write about the death of Citizendium before any reliable source does, and without some serious original research. The closest thing to a usable source that I have found is this blog post. Hans Adler 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

At Wikimania 2009, I gave a talk ("Lessons from Citizendium", slides) addressing exactly the question asked above ("What does this teach us?"). While I won't add myself as a source to the article, the slides contain many references which might be useful for this article (e.g. slide 8 quoted some more assessments of the project's success).

The, umm, slight delay of Citizendium's "coming explosion of growth" (Sanger 2007) surely cannot be attributed to a single reason alone. In my talk I mentioned the real name requirements and the cumbersome registration process. (See also these recent remarks - "Reduce the time lag" - by a Citizendium user and this discussion.) Last month some people on Citizendium have examined what they consider SEO problems of CZ. And while many users at CZ praise what they perceive as a more collegial atmosphere, I also wondered about the cost of the strict enforcement of civility guidelines by CZ's constables - considering that sometimes even valuable encyclopedists like Diderot, the former editor-in-chief of Britannica and Sanger himself (who as CZ's editor-in-chief used the terms "Nazis" and "idiot" to describe other people) make comments that would appear to fall under such a policy.

FWIW, Clay Shirky recently called Citizendium a "failing" project on Twitter. While I agree that Shirky's 2006 criticism of CZ appears to have been largely vindicated, I don't think CZ will close down any time soon - there still seems to be a core of dedicated contributors.

As for Hans Adler's remark (see also this recent suggestion), the WikiProject Citizendium Porting already exists, importing approved articles from CZ. However, as participants of that Wikiproject have noted in various instances, it would be naive to assume that the quality of CZ's approved articles is always flawless, a point also illustrated by my own list of Citizendium approved errors.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They also haven't had a new Approved Article since October. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it won't shut any time soon. "Moribund" rather than "dead". The question is actual analysis of where it went wrong.

That said, I've been happily spending today contributing to RationalWiki, which is of comparable activity levels to CZ and CP. But it certainly didn't start with CZ's ambitions and coverage. - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As one who tried to move from Wikipedia to Citizendium (not under my current name), I can tell you in two words why it failed: Larry Sanger. I found I had moved from anarchy to absolute monarchy. After two or three encounters with Larry's autocratic rudeness, I departed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, RationalWiki has twice the activity of Citizendium and is run out of the founder's house for about $50/month all up, funded by donations from the contributors. So there's no reason it can't stay up forever on a "personal hobby" basis, as long as someone's willing to supply a tiny amount of funding on an ongoing basis ($2 per Citizen per month) - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From Citizendium's own MediaWiki API: just three people made half of all edits on the project in June. - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Project Goal" section

This section seems awfully POV. It seems to subtly editorialize that the system citizendium uses is elitist, and further seems to emphasize the negative nature of such a system. Sithman VIII !! 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This section differs substantially from what Citizendium states as its goal; see [2] and [3]. You're welcome to fix it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The section appears stuck in late 2006; it really needs updating for the present, with the stated goals at the time listed and the present stated goals. How well Citizendium has achieved the stated goals (2006 or present) would be something we'd have to wait for third-party assessment of - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Derived numbers and graphs from the Citizendium MediaWiki API

I added a graph made by a RationalWiki contributor using numbers from Citizendium itself. RW doesn't pretend to be any sort of Reliable Source (it's functionally a multi-contributor blog/essay/community site that just happens to use MediaWiki) - but these numbers are trivially derived from Citizendium's own publicly available data. Trivial derivations from facts are allowed in articles without a citation to someone else having said it first; is this sort of thing a trivial enough derivation to stand? If not, what would be suitable? (Three editors making half of all edits is remarkable for a wiki project that passes notability muster.)

[For the curious: tons of graphs here and here, derived from CZ data.] - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Long Now

Jimbo has given a talk at this foundation, heres the link. The foundation has sponsored speakers which have referred to Wikipedia, but not Citizendium. The long now is dedicated to the idea of deep time, ie human development over the next millenia and beyond. Its interesting that they dont gravitate to citizendium, which is at this point more of a long term project compared to ours. Wikipedia has the momentum now, which means it may be the seed for some future grand scheme of knowledge storage and retrieval in the far future. Citizendium could be that as well, or the two approaches, in various incarnations over the next century, could work in synchrony. While citizendium may be near death, the idea it represents is still valid, and will influence knowledge S&R for a long time. I dont think this can be added to the article, but its a way of gauging the two projects. pure OR, POV, TLA, TIARA, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Is it properly referred to as "the Citizendium" or just "Citizendium"? Are there any relevant guidelines on whether Wikipedia should honor their insistent grammar? I note that Wikipedia doesn't currently follow Apple's practice of sometimes-nonstandard article use regarding the iPhone (e.g. "The iPhone is awesome!"). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, Larry made a point of 'the Citizendium' in the early days, but it never really caught on. Rothorpe (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Agree with your comment, so I removed what I wrote if I'm allowed to do that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear you prefer Wikipedia, but WP:NOTFORUM. You may be interested in WP:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

About porting. My four color theorem article at CZ has great public domain diagrams that I created which illustrate the idea of taking a map, and converting it to a set of interconnected points. That idea should be ported to the WP "Four Color Theorem". And I may get around to adding a section detailing the "discharge procedure" -- it takes work -- but I don't think any of the CZ "mathematicians" can handle it. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Charter drafting finished, representatives elected

"The Citizendium community has ratified and certified the Charter to provide a solid framework for further development of the project." (from the main page of CZ) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of the article?

This article is a mishmash of stuff current as of various dates between 2006 and the present. Apparently no-one can be bothered going through and at least making it coherent, let alone up to date. Anyone reading this interested? Huw's had a good hack, but properly fixing it will be a significant rewriting effort. I have some well-known current personal conflicts with some CZ administrators (though get along fine with others) so would rather hold off doing such a rewrite myself for the sake of decorum - unless no-one else can be bothered, as it presently appears - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I could try a thorough copy edit. I know very little about it, though that might be an advantage. I notice there's a fair bit of reverting going on, and also a shortage of secondary sources. Self-published sources are allowed per WP:SPS in articles about themselves, but the article shouldn't depend on them heavily, and this did when I last looked. So some of the detail might have to be lost. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

At lease some of the sources were not written by CZ per WP:SPS. Don't continue to use sources against SPS for a thorough copy edit. Please find secondary sources rather than primary or blog sources to show WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves; and that means we can use people heavily involved in CZ writing on CZ-controlled boards. If we were to rely on secondary sources, the page would be practically empty, especially for recent events. But I agree that the self-published sources should be limited to key issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That means we can use people heavily involved in CZ writing on CZ-controlled boards according to what part of SPS. Random comments on a board is not reliable. If we were to rely on secondary sources then we would comply with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What was your objection to this source? Jones, Russell D. "Announcements", Citizendium, November 6, 2010, accessed November 23, 2010.

It fits our definition of the kind of SPS that is allowed in this article, a CZ council member making an important announcement on a CZ board. We do the same when writing about any organization or person: we're allowed to use what they say about themselves, so long as certain conditions are satisfied. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It fits our definition according to specifically what in WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF. Did a CZ editor make a comment or was it self-published by CZ. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was published by a CZ council member on a CZ board, and was a CZ official announcement, so it's a reliable source for this article. Do you have reason to believe that it's wrong in some way? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article on a CZ council member or a particular CZ person. So it's not reliable for this article. Do you still have reason to believe that your argument is based on policy in some way? QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If an official CZ announcement made by an official at CZ does not count as CZ self-publishing, what does? --86.159.71.158 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even talking about the sourcing. Just that it's a really badly written article (because it wasn't written, but accreted) with no coherency or sensible structure. I suggest putting it into a sensible structure then going ax-crazy over the sources. Perhaps a draft article would be in order? - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vague comments about structure is really sensible? QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right. It's just a collection of factoids, and too detailed. It needs narrative structure and tightening. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right with vague comments? You have not given specific enough comments. What is too detailed. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be faster to fix them than list them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You want to fix them is not a reason to rewrite the entire article. It would be more productive if you tried to explain what you are proposing rather than continuing to make vague comments. I don't know what is them specifically. Can you list one of them. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"This article is a mishmash of stuff current as of various dates between 2006 and the present." Even the tenses are inconsistent. Have you read the thing? How would you rate it on the article quality scale? - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification in lead

"The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by providing a reliable encyclopedia.[6] It hopes to achieve this by requiring all contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behavior, by providing what it calls "gentle expert oversight" of everyday contributors, and also through its "approved articles", which have undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic experts and are closed to real-time editing.[7][8]"

The first sentence quoted above fails verification. It says nothing about the "Wikipedia model", and therefore does not say anything about aiming to improve on the wikipedia model. The wording is bizarre/vague about "providing a reliable encyclopedia" as well. It actually states it wants to "to create the most reliable and largest encyclopedia...". However, removing the failed verification sentence would cause the next sentence to no longer make sense. Thoughts to improve this? DigitalC (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by requiring all contributors to &c &c; thus it hopes to provide a reliable encyclopedia." Better? Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tides Center affiliation

I'm no editing directly as there may be a COI conflict as a former CZ EC member, but it might be an idea to update the article and infobox to reflect the current situation with the Tides Center: I think Tides have now been unaffiliated. I never really kept track of the management side of the site, but there are some questions over the legal status of the site. It may still be a Tides incubated project, or it may still be run by Larry. The RationalWiki page on Citizendium probably has more details (can't check: am on a cramped train writing this on the iPad.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just giving a heads up--Please discuss if the info I will add to article is not pertinent

I have read on a URL from Citizendium's home page that their financial situation is quite nearly 'hanging by a thread' (based on their current estimation, they will only be able to afford server space until September 22, 2011). I am letting others know so that there is a 'heads up' that I am adding this information. I'm adding a new sub-section under the History section. It will be entitled "Financial endangerment". I will only be adding a little bit to this section. I understand this is a nominated "Good Article", so I hope Being Bold in Good Faith for an anonymous user is not a violation of editing policies for Good Articles. Please discuss here if there are any concerns, and hopefully my preliminary edit (if that is what it ends up being) will help either get the ball rolling for a little bit of development on this issue, or will bring this to our editors' attention so that the article can be monitored if this information is not deemed necessary or pertinent. One other concern that I have is this: The source that I added may not qualify for Wiki's policies for valid sources. (I used a URL from Citizendium's homepage, as I'm not sure if any other web sites have this information available.) Thanks, 67.182.237.57 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your link to CZ:Donate is broken (it works indirectly, though). Rothorpe (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try and fix it. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Help for a Wiki beginnner to update the "Financial endangerment" section would be appreciated

I am the anonymous editor who started the "Financial endangerment" section. I need help with editing this section. Pending approval, I need someone to replace all the text in this section of the article with the following to reflect an updated edit:

"A financial report first got issued in November of 2010, and a new one gets issued on or near the 15th of each month for Citizendium. The page emphasizes their concern for a lack of funds. According to the Management Council's estimation, Citizendium will be able to afford to continue running the server until approximately November 22, 2011 (according to the recent April 15th financial report). Earlier, in March, the estimate was set to until September 22, 2011, so the April update indicates an extra month of remaining server run time."

I tried doing so myself, but everytime I preview the changes and test the updated source, it links to an Infobox edit, which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the source was formatted correctly the first time I tried to format it either. Good luck, and please contact me if anything I have stated doesn't make sense. Thanks. Oh and any other feedback is also appropriate obviously. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Beta State and WP side bar

CZ has silenttly - as far as I could see - moved from Beta state, and adopted a revised logo. The WP article sidebar needs updating. If anyone cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.138.24 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a non-beta logo, but I couldn't immediately find any announcement regarding such a development. Indeed, their own article on themselves currently reads "Citizendium was introduced as a beta project in March 25, 2007, from which it has yet to emerge, though project members voted for a new charter in September 2010." Somewhat confusing to me, do others know more? --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That'd be because the tech team at Citizendium don't necessarily update the articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A valid point, but if/when CZ left its beta stage (which isn't a tech issue since - to my understanding - the project is in beta, not a piece of software), (1) wouldn't a non-techie update the article, and (2) wouldn't there be some kind of announcement (front page, blog, mailing list, forum)? --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And *every* chart measure on show here is a year or more out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.138.24 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)