NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Difference between revisions of "CZ Talk:Elections June 2012/Referenda/2"

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Some points for examination)
(Forum threads: new section)
 
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
So, this proposal may require further development. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 
So, this proposal may require further development. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Forum threads ==
 +
 +
This has been discussed often.
 +
The discussion of this referendum took place in
 +
[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4324.0.html this thread] but also in
 +
[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4292.0.html2 this thread] in connection with participation rates.
 +
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:47, 11 June 2012

Alternative phrasing

Thanks for proposing this - I think we would be much better off if this referendum passed. I have also thought about language that could replace the current policy, and several drafts are available at User:Daniel_Mietchen/PR-2010-013, with option 6 being my favourite. --Daniel Mietchen 20:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

argument for the resolution

I have been almost completely inactive here for several years, in large part because of the restrictions on importing material. My original intent was to work simultaneous on article in WP and CZ, and, if this resolution is passed, I will be very likely to resume doing so. In the meanwhile, I have acquired considerable experience of Wikipedia, and have worked long and hard on improving both its range and its quality. I think Wikipedia has come a long way in the 4.5 years I have been there, and I think it should follow its present model, and take it as far as possible. But its model is limited, as any publication medium is limited; there is great need for an encyclopedia with reviewed reliable content. WP will never do this. some other project must, and it can either be Citizendium or something new entirely. I would not like to abandon the good work that has gone into Citizendium; if this resolution passes, it offers Citizendium the prospect of rapid expansion, and of becoming more known, more comprehensive, and more useful. It has not reached the point where anyone could honestly advise people to use it in preference to Wikipedia , nor do I think it likely for most users. But with an openness to imported content, it could become a place where people doing academic work and wanting more reliable material would use it in addition. DavidGoodman 07:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Some points for examination

I have written material first for CZ and imported some of it into WP. That got some feedback from WP editors that I first incorporated on CZ according to my own reactions to it, and then transferred back to WP. Examples are WP:Editing environment and Length measurement. WP uses a license disclaimer that reads, for Length measurement: "This article incorporates material from the Citizendium article "Metre (unit)", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL." Possibly some similar template should be designed for CZ imports from WP.

Although the focus in this discussion has been upon the quality of content, a related issue is the possible importation of the atmosphere on WP along with the content. Partially this is a question of what categories of material should be admitted, as controversy tends to be more severe in some arenas than others. I do not have a high estimation for "expert opinion" on CZ. It exists, but it is spotty. I am dubious that it will smooth out contention, should it arise.

So, this proposal may require further development. John R. Brews 15:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Forum threads

This has been discussed often. The discussion of this referendum took place in this thread but also in this thread in connection with participation rates. --Peter Schmitt 23:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)