Comments on: Citizendium considers giving contributors on-page credit

By: Brad Fitzgerald

Brad Fitzgerald — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:34:59 +0000

Larry, this is a dishonest practice. If there is only 1 contributor responsible for 95%, then they own the byline. Why mislead readers? Eventually even Wikipedia will have tools to show that User Anonymous475 is the main contributor to a certain article (maybe as a Firefox extension w/ other tools) Your idea has no-risk and is full of fear about how editors might act, get jealous, and so on. C’mon!

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:30:26 +0000

That’s why it’s not a byline, or a list of authors; it is a list of contributors. And if people insist on reading that as a list of authors, as I fear they will, then I will have to conclude that it is impossible to create a list of contributors without slipping down the slippery slope to a culture of credit.

My view is not based on fear, it is based on observation (of Encyclopedia of Earth and Scholarpedia) and my intimate acquaintance with the psychological dynamics of collaborative projects. Besides, a short and modest pilot project should shed light on the matter. I don’t know why people are resistant to that.

By: Brad Fitzgerald

Brad Fitzgerald — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:55:24 +0000

You’re trying to hide what people want to know! Who were the primary editors behind an article. Is anyone really interested in a top five list that includes people who may or may not have been significant in writing the article. Larry, it seems to me that you’re hesitant to let any individual gain their merited credit other than yourself, as editor-in-chief.

By: Brad Fitzgerald

Brad Fitzgerald — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:08 +0000

Larry, how come my comment at 11:45pm was removed? I thought I made a good point about how readers will want to know who the primary editors of an article are rather than a top five list of possibly largely insignificant contributors. There’s nothing wrong with a culture of credit, which you benefit from as editor-in-chief.

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:53:59 +0000

No comment was removed to my knowledge, Brad.

Right now, no authors are specifically credited on the articles, and for a very good reason: introducing a culture of credit would play havoc with the collaborative ethos of the website. The question before us now should not be how much of credit we should apportion out, but whether we should make a truly radical change and apportion out credit (for article authorship) at all. This is a point I explained in great detail, so I won’t repeat myself on this blog. If you want to engage a person in a serious, mature dialogue, then you should seriously grapple with his arguments, not engage in insulting ad hominem attacks.

I regularly give credit where it is due for various organizational activities, but since you’re not in the project, I suppose you didn’t know that.

Anyway, as long as you are so unfair and hostile in accusing me of dishonesty, of acting out of “fear,” and of merely acting selfishly, it is hard to take anything you say seriously.

By: Ori Redler

Ori Redler — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:00:16 +0000

I must say that the “no credit” policy on Wikipedia (and then CZ) always made me feel a bit uncomfortable. It always felt like being a little termite in some underground cave, nibbling my way silently at some rot.

That aside, perhaps the best method is neither here nor there. Editors of sections and areas should, in my opinion, be given more liberty to decide on a credit policy.

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:26:09 +0000

I am as responsible as anyone for the policy you’re complaining about, Ori, on both websites. I regularly enforced WP’s early-stated rule against signing articles. I think this is one of the things that really made Wikipedia take off.

Your idea that workgroup leads (of which we have none at present, but no matter) should be given more liberty to decide about “credit policy” is interesting…

By: Brad Fitzgerald

Brad Fitzgerald — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:22:41 +0000

Larry, I read “Why not go ‘all out’ and distinguish amounts of or roles in contribution?” and my impression is that you don’t trust that people will collaborate and share credit, fearing that they will become overly competitive and eschew collaboration to become the “top author”. This is the fear that I’m talking about.

There are many featured articles at WP that are highly authored, but even those individuals collaborate on other articles. You may find that the competitive drive you fear will take a different form, but a more healthy one. I don’t like illusions, which is what a list of contributors presents.

If I made a 5% contribution to an article I don’t want to be listed as a contributor when two other editors made 60% and 30% contributions between them. Now, when you tell-it-like-it-is you can marvel at certain articles that truly are a collaboration of ten or so contributors each putting in 4-10% contributions.

By: Stephen Ewen

Stephen Ewen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:07:19 +0000

Dejavu.

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:13:18 +0000

It’s not a matter of trust, as if we were naturally good little boys and girls, who only need Teacher to “trust” them to do the right thing. It’s a matter of understanding what human behavior is like. We’ve already seen evidence that, when “lead author” and “curator” names are put on articles, other people stay away. If I make that observation, am I therefore being distrustful (or fearful)? Of course not. Merely observant. Saying that I lack trust, or that I am motivated by fear, is an easy way for you to escape discussing the observation. And I had other arguments, Brad, if you read that section (and others); why not attack my actual arguments? Surely they’re wrong, and you can refute them!