Citizendium considers giving contributors on-page credit
As anyone very familiar with Wikipedia and other wikis knows, no authors are credited on most wiki encyclopedia article pages. The Citizendium, however, uses real names; they are found in the article histories, though, not on the article pages themselves. So we are in a position to give people “byline” credit and real-world recognition for their contributions, where Wikipedia and many other typical Web 2.0 projects are not. As a result, for quite some time, there has been a movement among some Citizens — how many and how representative, I dare not say — to give a full rundown about who has done for each article.
I believe there is serious danger lurking here: to honor people in different amounts based on how much they have worked on an article would have the general tendency to lead to authorship disputes, which would be a huge drain on both time and smooth social relations. More importantly, however, I think it would tend to make the project less robustly collaborative: it would encourage a culture of credit, where we now have the typical culture of strong collaboration that is associated closely with wikis. In other words, identifying people as “the lead author” or “the lead authors” of an article would tend to make them guard “their” article more closely, and tend to make others more wary and more likely to ask “permission” to contribute.
I am, however, always game to try new things, as long as they are in a form that I think won’t lead to total disaster. So I produced a version of the general idea of contributor lists where, among other things, (1) there must be five contributors on the contributor list, if any them is to be credited in the contributor list; (2) they are to be listed in alphabetical order and otherwise not specially singled out for how much work they have done on the article; (3) they are listed under the heading “Contributors” and a message just below their names reads, “CZ is an open collaboration. Please join these people in developing this article!”; and (4) one may get contributor credit for writing just two substantive sentences.
On the one hand, people might well be at least a little more motivated to get involved because of the carrot of seeing their name on an article page. On the other hand, by requiring a minimum of five contributors, and allowing someone to be listed for writing just two sentences, we deliberately remove any distinctions among the various contributors to a given article. So, I hope, having the contributors listed in this form will not lead to a sense of defensive ownership, competitiveness, as well as un-bold timidity (to a greater degree than already exists, anyway).
Well, due to the demand from some quarters, and after many months and many conversations, I have put the latter proposal, in the form of a two month pilot project, before the Citizendium Editorial Council. The next step is a silent comment period. Then a Council debate. Should be highly innerestin’.
Immediately prior to this, we used our new proposals system to do one final general debate about the proposal. The page is extremely long!
Candidly, it is worrying to me that some of our Citizens are gunning aggressively for the “full enchilada,” as the Encyclopedia of Earth and Scholarpedia have it — not robustly collaborative projects, those — that is, they want the full apparatus of “lead authors” and “contributing authors,” and people listed according to how much they have contributed, and listed even if there is only one contributor to an article. As I have repeatedly said, and as they have almost as often pooh-pooh’ed, such a proposal could actually kill the collaborative engine that runs the project, or greatly slow it down, with activity “silo’d” into individuals and groups who jealously defend their authorship credentials and who do not want to share byline credit with people whom they do not respect. But suffice it to say that I very much doubt that we will “go whole hog” that way before doing a more modest test such as I propose.
The interesting question really will be whether this increases our attractiveness to potential new contributors (and gets old ones more excited). The pilot project should give us a good idea.
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!
Comment by Brad Fitzgerald — March 9, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
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.
Comment by Larry Sanger — March 9, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
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.
Comment by Brad Fitzgerald — March 9, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
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.
Comment by Brad Fitzgerald — March 10, 2008 @ 1:19 am
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.
Comment by Larry Sanger — March 10, 2008 @ 6:53 am
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.
Comment by Ori Redler — March 10, 2008 @ 9:00 am
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…
Comment by Larry Sanger — March 10, 2008 @ 9:26 am
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.
Comment by Brad Fitzgerald — March 10, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Dejavu.
Comment by Stephen Ewen — March 12, 2008 @ 12:07 am
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!
Comment by Larry Sanger — March 12, 2008 @ 9:13 am