Comments on: Topic Informants: how the Citizendium would handle Seigenthaler and Microsoft http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/ Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:46:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Ray Tomes http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1129 Ray Tomes Sun, 04 Feb 2007 00:16:04 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1129 I have experienced similar problems in wikipedia when trying to make sensible articles on the study of cycles (repeating phenomena, not the wheeled things). Articles are repeatedly butchered and proposed for deletion by ignorant people. The category:cycles was deleted because someone thought the only thing the articles had in common was that the things had cycles in them! Isn't that the point? At present I am following a procedure in wikipedia concerning the lies and wrongful procedures relating to deletion of an article where the vote was to keep the article but the action was to delete because they said there were sock puppets and only one valid keep vote. I know for absolute certainty that this was very wrong, and it amounts to libel against me (as I voted so I am being accused of making all the votes). Please read more about this in my blog at http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/02/02/is_wikipedia_broke_anti_cycles_behaviour I have joined CZ with the hope of a better way of keeping little known cycles research from the past alive. There is still the issue of how cycles research fits into the CZ subject scheme as it is interdisciplinary. There will surely be other such cases. I have experienced similar problems in wikipedia when trying to make sensible articles on the study of cycles (repeating phenomena, not the wheeled things). Articles are repeatedly butchered and proposed for deletion by ignorant people. The category:cycles was deleted because someone thought the only thing the articles had in common was that the things had cycles in them! Isn’t that the point?

At present I am following a procedure in wikipedia concerning the lies and wrongful procedures relating to deletion of an article where the vote was to keep the article but the action was to delete because they said there were sock puppets and only one valid keep vote. I know for absolute certainty that this was very wrong, and it amounts to libel against me (as I voted so I am being accused of making all the votes). Please read more about this in my blog at http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/02/02/is_wikipedia_broke_anti_cycles_behaviour

I have joined CZ with the hope of a better way of keeping little known cycles research from the past alive. There is still the issue of how cycles research fits into the CZ subject scheme as it is interdisciplinary. There will surely be other such cases.

]]> By: Larry Sanger http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1144 Larry Sanger Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:42:03 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1144 Glad to have you, Ray. Glad to have you, Ray.

]]> By: Sudarshan Palliyil http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1188 Sudarshan Palliyil Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:12:14 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1188 A Suggestion: How about a method of having an anonymous paid "Topic Introducer". There will be a separate queue where an Anonymous user can turn up and say. Please have a look at this resource and please consider this possibility or Argument. I will pay 5 cents for each character I will submit here. You draw your own conclusions. But think in this direction. Since I am paying for this, I will not Ramble and Citizendium can look at references for further info. There can be an upper limit for contributions about each article to prevent indirect bribery. All such Paid Opinions will be kept separate and could be explored by CZ not becoz it believes the introducer but coz someone thinks looking at it is worth some money he is prepared to sacrifice. It will reduce rambling and will help topics to bubble up even if the informant is not an expert. In fact I would say, you could introduce a Dutch Auction like google does. Pay more to send your Message higher. All the circus just to attract attention. But once bubbled up, only an Editor can include it. The money collected could be used for operational cost. To the user, the cash is like a Gamble. You may produce zero results, but it worth a try. If some tries to prove GW Bush lived in a Sewer for 18 years and pays the cash, it is lost for ever. But at least he can pay cash to bring a topic to the special notice of an editor. Maybe u can mutate this to suit CZ. I leave it to u. Just a thought. Yet another suggestion for CZ in general. Pick all NPOV disputes in Wikipedia and show Wikipedia, how elegantly NPOV disputes can be resolved by experts without much Mudslinging. Create a situation where, users who visit Wikipedia articles on a disputed topic immediately think of CZ. The mere availability of a "superior" resource for all disputed topics, will increase the PageRank for those Articles on Google. I think Handling NPOV articles could be first priority. Another area would be well known misconceptions. The Experts know people have some typical misconceptions. These can be dug up from Wikipedia and fixed in CZ. The name "Citizendium" looks ugly :-) and the Key needs a redesign. A Suggestion: How about a method of having an anonymous paid “Topic Introducer”. There will be a separate queue where an Anonymous user can turn up and say. Please have a look at this resource and please consider this possibility or Argument. I will pay 5 cents for each character I will submit here. You draw your own conclusions. But think in this direction. Since I am paying for this, I will not Ramble and Citizendium can look at references for further info. There can be an upper limit for contributions about each article to prevent indirect bribery. All such Paid Opinions will be kept separate and could be explored by CZ not becoz it believes the introducer but coz someone thinks looking at it is worth some money he is prepared to sacrifice. It will reduce rambling and will help topics to bubble up even if the informant is not an expert. In fact I would say, you could introduce a Dutch Auction like google does. Pay more to send your Message higher. All the circus just to attract attention.

But once bubbled up, only an Editor can include it. The money collected could be used for operational cost. To the user, the cash is like a Gamble. You may produce zero results, but it worth a try. If some tries to prove GW Bush lived in a Sewer for 18 years and pays the cash, it is lost for ever. But at least he can pay cash to bring a topic to the special notice of an editor. Maybe u can mutate this to suit CZ. I leave it to u. Just a thought.

Yet another suggestion for CZ in general. Pick all NPOV disputes in Wikipedia and show Wikipedia, how elegantly NPOV disputes can be resolved by experts without much Mudslinging. Create a situation where, users who visit Wikipedia articles on a disputed topic immediately think of CZ. The mere availability of a “superior” resource for all disputed topics, will increase the PageRank for those Articles on Google. I think Handling NPOV articles could be first priority.

Another area would be well known misconceptions. The Experts know people have some typical misconceptions. These can be dug up from Wikipedia and fixed in CZ.

The name “Citizendium” looks ugly :-) and the Key needs a redesign.

]]> By: Sudarshan Palliyil http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1189 Sudarshan Palliyil Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:50:22 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1189 Another Suggestion: Not sure if this popped up somewhere already. The Red links on a CZ Page look Bad. Dunno why u have not imported full WP. If it is legal, then no comments. If is technical, I mean lack of resources, then here is an idea. How about Tricolor links 1. Blue Links : Normal CZ Links. 2. Bluish Green Dull Links : WP articles not yet imported to CZ. When these links are clicked, one of 2 things could happen. Open a WP article in a new page or Open up the WP page within the CZ Page using Ajax or Curl. If the user clicks edit and submits the article now becomes a CZ article then onwards. Of corse some approval step can be added if necessary. 3. Red Links : No data on either WP or CZ. Another Suggestion: Not sure if this popped up somewhere already. The Red links on a CZ Page look Bad. Dunno why u have not imported full WP. If it is legal, then no comments. If is technical, I mean lack of resources, then here is an idea. How about Tricolor links
1. Blue Links : Normal CZ Links.
2. Bluish Green Dull Links : WP articles not yet imported to CZ. When these links are clicked, one of 2 things could happen. Open a WP article in a new page or Open up the WP page within the CZ Page using Ajax or Curl. If the user clicks edit and submits the article now becomes a CZ article then onwards. Of corse some approval step can be added if necessary.
3. Red Links : No data on either WP or CZ.

]]> By: Sudarshan Palliyil http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1190 Sudarshan Palliyil Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:54:05 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-1190 Create a branding for CZ centered around Authority and Approval. Eg a Green Tick Mark. A Slightly uncommon Green Tick mark which reminds you of CZ whenever one sees it. A tick mark that indicates "expert approved content". Create a branding for CZ centered around Authority and Approval. Eg a Green Tick Mark. A Slightly uncommon Green Tick mark which reminds you of CZ whenever one sees it. A tick mark that indicates “expert approved content”.

]]> By: Citizendium Blog » Wikipedia article defames golf pro, who sues company with IP address of anonymous contributor http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-2679 Citizendium Blog » Wikipedia article defames golf pro, who sues company with IP address of anonymous contributor Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:57:47 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-2679 [...] The Citizendium, so far, has few if any articles about living persons among its 1000+ articles in development.  When we do start adding such articles, they will come under the management of our Topic Informant Workgroup (see this blog post for more).  Furthermore, we will have a zero tolerance policy toward any even possibly defamatory remarks: to say something that might tend to impugn someone’s reputation, even if true, will require extremely good documentation.  If no such documentation is offered, or if it does not check out, the person who makes such claims will be “escorted to the door.”  We simply won’t tolerate it. [...] […] The Citizendium, so far, has few if any articles about living persons among its 1000+ articles in development.  When we do start adding such articles, they will come under the management of our Topic Informant Workgroup (see this blog post for more).  Furthermore, we will have a zero tolerance policy toward any even possibly defamatory remarks: to say something that might tend to impugn someone’s reputation, even if true, will require extremely good documentation.  If no such documentation is offered, or if it does not check out, the person who makes such claims will be “escorted to the door.”  We simply won’t tolerate it. […]

]]> By: Ray Tomes http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-4137 Ray Tomes Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:36:19 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/26/topic-informants-how-the-citizendium-would-handle-seigenthaler-and-microsoft/#comment-4137 Just an update on my situation in wikipedia. The link is to the full discussion in my blog, which is perhaps worth looking at. However here is the most recent comment that I added: "As a result of my complaint about wrong vote counting and removal of a cycles category, user SilkTork was assigned to the case. He has worked with me at looking at the issues in a fair and balanced way. He asked me whether I wanted to deal with the complaint about procedures or just get material re-established that was wrongly removed, such as the category for cycles articles, which he agreed was not a proper decision. I agreed to do the latter, re-establishment. Recently he re-established the article on The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and I did some work on tidying it up, but more remained to be done. Yesterday I spent many hours reviewing over 1000 wikipedia articles on cycles. The problem is that "cycles" has multiple meanings, being wheeled things that people ride, processes such as the carbon cycle, collections such as in music and mythology, and finally repeating phenomena. I was only interested in this last group and found 44 articles that reasonably belonged in such a category. I created the category and put it into those 44 articles. This morning I arrived to find that all the work that I had done was deleted, the category was removed and the FSC article put there by SilkTork was also deleted. I was blocked from editing anything in wikipedia except my own talk page. The person who did this goes by the name "Ruud Koot" - go figure. Well, my contention that Wikipedia is broke is not about to be changed at this point in time." Just an update on my situation in wikipedia. The link is to the full discussion in my blog, which is perhaps worth looking at. However here is the most recent comment that I added:

“As a result of my complaint about wrong vote counting and removal of a cycles category, user SilkTork was assigned to the case. He has worked with me at looking at the issues in a fair and balanced way.

He asked me whether I wanted to deal with the complaint about procedures or just get material re-established that was wrongly removed, such as the category for cycles articles, which he agreed was not a proper decision. I agreed to do the latter, re-establishment.

Recently he re-established the article on The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and I did some work on tidying it up, but more remained to be done.

Yesterday I spent many hours reviewing over 1000 wikipedia articles on cycles. The problem is that “cycles” has multiple meanings, being wheeled things that people ride, processes such as the carbon cycle, collections such as in music and mythology, and finally repeating phenomena. I was only interested in this last group and found 44 articles that reasonably belonged in such a category. I created the category and put it into those 44 articles.

This morning I arrived to find that all the work that I had done was deleted, the category was removed and the FSC article put there by SilkTork was also deleted. I was blocked from editing anything in wikipedia except my own talk page. The person who did this goes by the name “Ruud Koot” - go figure.

Well, my contention that Wikipedia is broke is not about to be changed at this point in time.”

]]>