<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scores of invitees descend upon Citizendium pilot project wiki&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.citizendium.org/2006/10/30/scores-of-invitees-descend-upon-citizendium-pilot-project-wiki/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/2006/10/30/scores-of-invitees-descend-upon-citizendium-pilot-project-wiki/</link>
	<description>Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Citizendium Blog &#187; Pilot project work ramps up</title>
		<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/2006/10/30/scores-of-invitees-descend-upon-citizendium-pilot-project-wiki/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Citizendium Blog &#187; Pilot project work ramps up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.citizendium.org/2006/10/30/scores-of-invitees-descend-upon-citizendium-pilot-project-wiki/#comment-6</guid>
		<description>[...] I have to admit that I was a bit worried at the relatively slow start we made with our first 100 invitees last Sunday, but the technical difficulties, together with a Sunday launch, seem to have explained that. Yesterday participation really shot up, and today has increased even more. There were 307 edits today (i.e., Wednesday, though I write this after midnight!). Some 57 articles are &#8220;live,&#8221; meaning that we have worked on them or started them from scratch. I estimate a half-dozen of these are brand new articles, but I just don&#8217;t know&#8211;could be two or three times that. Presently there are 131 people registered as having read/write access to the wiki. About half of these, I would estimate, are editors. There are also a few dozen people who have registered usernames, but whose usernames haven&#8217;t been activated (hint, they need to tell us to activate their usernames; we&#8217;ll get around to it, though, even if they don&#8217;t tell us). And there are still over 200 applications&#8211;no exaggeration&#8211;waiting for the &#8220;personnel administrators&#8221; (there are five of us doing this now) to &#8220;let them in.&#8221; And we&#8217;re still receiving, I would say, at least 10-20 new applications per day. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I have to admit that I was a bit worried at the relatively slow start we made with our first 100 invitees last Sunday, but the technical difficulties, together with a Sunday launch, seem to have explained that. Yesterday participation really shot up, and today has increased even more. There were 307 edits today (i.e., Wednesday, though I write this after midnight!). Some 57 articles are &#8220;live,&#8221; meaning that we have worked on them or started them from scratch. I estimate a half-dozen of these are brand new articles, but I just don&#8217;t know&#8211;could be two or three times that. Presently there are 131 people registered as having read/write access to the wiki. About half of these, I would estimate, are editors. There are also a few dozen people who have registered usernames, but whose usernames haven&#8217;t been activated (hint, they need to tell us to activate their usernames; we&#8217;ll get around to it, though, even if they don&#8217;t tell us). And there are still over 200 applications&#8211;no exaggeration&#8211;waiting for the &#8220;personnel administrators&#8221; (there are five of us doing this now) to &#8220;let them in.&#8221; And we&#8217;re still receiving, I would say, at least 10-20 new applications per day. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
