CZ Talk:Anthropology Workgroup
-Could the authors of the developed articles please place them in the appropriate categories? Also, why do not all articles that are developed and have the anthro workgroup tag appear inthe developed articles? Is this a glitch?
Lee--to the former, I'm not sure what you're asking. Most articles (unlike most of yours, by the way) do not have single authors. To the latter, could be a glitch. Can you give an example? --Larry Sanger 12:56, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Hi Larry - when I clicked on our header in our workgroup "developed articles" I get about eight or ten or so. However, when I'm adding subpages9 (subpages gives one a funny look still (see Talk on our workgroup) to my articles (even ones that several authors have now worked on), they do not automatically appear as "developed articles" in that very same workgroup list - (I presumed it was automatic). So, I was asking authors - like the authors of Kilt to add those in to the "priority list" manually under appropriate headings.
Lee R. Berger 13:05, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Just noticed this myself. Articles disappear from the developed, developing, etc. categories when one deletes the article checklist from the talk page. They do not reappear when the Metadata page is created. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Question
Now that several people have been at work on the Anthropology Workgroup page, I have a question: what are the main functions of this page? And can we perhaps get people working on other workgroup pages, bearing those functions in mind? --Larry Sanger 13:02, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Please clarify "functions" - do you mean - what is the goal of a page like this? I would suggest - if that is the case - that it is -
- 1 - to identify priority areas of work needed so that we develop a core content.
- 2 - to identify the entire "common" knowledge of the area that needs to be worked on so that the encyclopedia appears "complete", and,
- 3 - to stimulate - by example - the development of new articles, areas of redress and the search for unknown information (e.g. adding five sites to North American archeological sites even though the editor knows there are hundreds if not thousands - someone will add one or two more...)
- I would add one:
- to provide a sense of "community".
—Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:19, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- truly more clearly stated than my "waffle" in point 3 (which said the same thing in sinister tones!)
Lee R. Berger 13:25, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
I wonder if it would help, for purposes of community-building, to have a Citizendium Anthropology Advisory Board--actually, A Boards for all workgroups, eventually--to demonstrate that some well-known anthropologists are behind the project, even if they aren't actually involved themselves? To be clear, I'm not saying y'all aren't serious anthropologists--but you get the point, I hope. I'm thinking of putting this into the policy expansion I'll be proposing before too much longer. --Larry Sanger 13:48, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- One thing that would enormously help is to convey that editors and authors are working shoulder-to-shoulder, although the latter to the former, which I think this fails to adequately recognize and will result in author contributions not being added in the first place. We have to remind ourselves that without authors who are energized, appreciated, motivated, happy, and appropriately credited, this whole bird just ain't gonna fly. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:07, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I found that edit humorous because I had just finished reworking the welcome statement. It really should say "The Anthropology Workgroup Lead" but we don't have those yet. Steve's point about working shoulder-to-shoulder is important I think - my name is all over the recent changes page in large part because Lee has been so appreciative of my edits. So... what else can we do to get everyone involved in building the community?--Joe Quick (Talk) 15:21, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
—Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I stand by that edit, and it is an important point to make. The point is that CZ was established precisely so that content could be guided, or led, by experts. As we all know very well, from experience, it is possible for editors and authors to work shoulder-to-shoulder on the wiki, as they do, and yet the editors have real authority and to be our main representatives on content and editorial issues.
- I suspect that there are two points of interest here, and we needn't really get all dramatic and disagree on either one. One is, as I said, that editors actually have authority over content and editorial issues. They are the experts about such issues. The other is, of course, that authors are extremely important as well--the project simply cannot succeed without them--and we ought to recognize and be grateful for their input, and they do need and deserve some authority as well.
- If we can't embrace both of those principles, this project probably won't survive. --Larry Sanger 15:32, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Larry, I didn't mean to criticize the edit. I just thought the coincidence was funny. I think we all agree with your points above. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:33, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with Larry, too, except that I don't see any contradiction to it by allowing a Workgroup to speak as a workgroup to help facilitate esprit de corps. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:24, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Hi all, one of my thoughts was to get this workgroup page up and running - I think - at the pace it is going (thanks Joe) - it would be pretty good in a week. I was (am) going to then email a select group of colleagues and ask them to sign up as editors - each in the fields that are listed. I have very specific people in mind. Yes - the danger of this is that it is growing from "my" circle, but academic integrity and the normal referee process I trust enormously. I had written to Stephen that I thought we could go forward as early as late next week or the week after, but I think we are moving much faster. Please don't worry about the sense of community and authors - they really will come naturally - AS LONG AS THEY KNOW CZ EXISTS - that is both Larry's job and - as academics - ours. If we can get a "fill in the blanks" page that looks good - I know of plenty of academics and students who will "bite". On just a simple note - lets not (again my opinion) in the early stages, where there are no "real" problems - separate the "Editors" from the "Authors" - the latter - as has been said will "make this bird fly".
Lee R. Berger 15:30, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
P.S. after re-reading this I would like to point out that the whole community is "pretty small" so the "Deliverance syndrome" probability is pretty low!
Lee R. Berger 15:31, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Couple things: I think I'll modify the Welcome statement to say, "on behalf of all of us contributing here, authors and editors alike, we welcome you," or some such. I'll also try to drum up some interest in the professional circles I move in as well. —Richard J. Senghas 19:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Critical mass
With community in mind it is important to have enough authors to make it a happening place. I wonder if well thought eduzendium projects, that could make workgroups a happening place, might be the way to get some of these groups kickstarted. Not only will the students be generating their own good articles, they will serve as honey to other editors and authors that want to see more activity before jumping in. Chris Day (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I'm all for that and after my student meeting on monday will be posting on the forums my "experiment" - authors are the key.
Lee R. Berger 13:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, one thing I'm contemplating, now that I'm back in the saddle again, is possibly assigning work on CZ pages as special projects or extra credit assignments for my students. But that would probably wait until the end of this semester or the beginning of the next.... —Richard J. Senghas 13:42, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- I think if we can set up a good system here to help academics run such classes, then it will help the recruitment a lot. Especially if the students like this environemt, it could be our best recruiting tool from the academic sector for both authors and editors. Chris Day (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
It's a good idea. See CZ:Eduzendium. As I've told Lee, and as Eduzendium director Sorin Matei has privately confirmed, it's all right if we do not use the full apparatus of Eduzendium as described there. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
"Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. "
- Thought you would say that - just thought I'd ask it out in the open... (I also think you are right...)
Lee R. Berger 13:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Format for the Priority List
Okay, so I realize that my new system looks stupid and clumsy, but I think you'll see the benefit in the near future. Each section of the list lives on a separate template, which is editable from the link next to the section heading. They're split up be cause we are eventually (probably not very soon, admittedly) going to need to split this workgroup into smaller units anyway - we simply cover too much territory to try to hold it all together on one page. We'll have sub-workgroup pages where the same templates will be used to keep track of progress. AND (here's the payoff) the master list will always be the same as the sublists, which are editable from either location.
It will be a minor pain in the neck to keep track of this at first, but people should catch on pretty quickly. I hereby volunteer to maintain it unless (or until) we come up with something better. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:30, 14 September 2007 (CDT)