CZ Talk:Why should experts join CZ?: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (Please do provide more suggestions!) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I'd agree with both of those points. I would add that I originally listed those questions not with the notion that this would be best cast as a Q&A, but just that those were questions the document should answer. Right now, at least, the ''formatting'' of the Q&A (if you want to keep it that way) looks too informal. But the big problem with it now is that it does not give a "unified narrative" answering the question in the document title. I'd be happy to give further ideas on that if you want them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:19, 23 April 2008 (CDT) | I'd agree with both of those points. I would add that I originally listed those questions not with the notion that this would be best cast as a Q&A, but just that those were questions the document should answer. Right now, at least, the ''formatting'' of the Q&A (if you want to keep it that way) looks too informal. But the big problem with it now is that it does not give a "unified narrative" answering the question in the document title. I'd be happy to give further ideas on that if you want them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:19, 23 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
: I will shamelessly and gratefully accept any and all help! :-) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 14:11, 23 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:11, 23 April 2008
Two points
Two points, Noel-- a broad one, and a smaller one. My broad concern would be that this page spends too much time taking issue with Wikipedia, and too little describing Citizendium's unique ethos. I think it's important to emphasize that our priority is making a top-notch, reliable encyclopedia, and there are many other legitimate goals for an online community which we forgo. It's important to emphasize that our articles have (or will/might have) stable versions. It's important to emphasize the prominence of professionalism at Citizendium. And though there may be some of this at Wikipedia, I think it's legitimate to emphasize that we have a slightly different group of people-- Citizendium contributors are interesting and intelligent and often ferociously knowledgeable. Personally, I have been really struck by the level of discussion about terrorism recently, which is a very rare thing! I guess what I'm saying is that I think it would be nice if we could capture the more intangible qualities of being a Citizendium contributor.
The minor, quibbling point is that I don't know we want to broadcast being able to take credit for articles, as this is a matter of policy that's still getting hammered out. I can see people being honked off if they join up, invest some time, and then have the policy changed under them. Thanks, Brian P. Long 20:03, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
- Good points. I'll update this soon to take them into account. J. Noel Chiappa 22:30, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
I'd agree with both of those points. I would add that I originally listed those questions not with the notion that this would be best cast as a Q&A, but just that those were questions the document should answer. Right now, at least, the formatting of the Q&A (if you want to keep it that way) looks too informal. But the big problem with it now is that it does not give a "unified narrative" answering the question in the document title. I'd be happy to give further ideas on that if you want them. --Larry Sanger 13:19, 23 April 2008 (CDT)
- I will shamelessly and gratefully accept any and all help! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 14:11, 23 April 2008 (CDT)