User talk:Robert W King: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jitse Niesen
imported>Pat Palmer
(I intend to return to Computers soon)
 
(171 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
{{TOC-right}}
{{TOC|right}}


Hi Robert,
== Why is contribution down lately? ==


Can you please document (give clear brief instructions for) your template documentation stuff?  Link to it from within the template that you put on my new template, please. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:02, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Any ideas? [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:Could you help with the template issue on [[International economics]], please? I tried to help,. biut still the thing is not right. Many thanks, [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (CST)
::Thanks! I see that it was some omissions from the metadata, that I had not thouight were needed! [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:47, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:::Actually, you just forgot the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subpages<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on the talk page. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:48, 13 January 2008 (CST)


: I have probably messed up the template for Washington Consensus too. Apologies!  Please put me right.
:Well, the most obvious reason is that by far the most prolific contributor has been banned. And then there are those who have reduced or halted their contributions because they're not happy with the way the site's being run. And others may be able to suggest other reasons. You might like to discuss it at RationalWiki, where they find this site holds a horrible fascination. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:31, 28 January 2008 (CST)


== Chisholm ==
::I'd speculate that (i) the financial situation casts a shadow over the future, and (ii) the quality of articles is declining as the number of participants to keep things in review is too small. A snowball effect may be in progress. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, then. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
::::It was fun while it lasted!  Feel free to email me or leave a message on my page if you wish to stay in contact while I pursue my academia.  (I am not optimistic.) [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Saw you just added the subpages - I left a message on Matt's talk page, they seem to be lacking from quite a few approved articles. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 21:24, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:::::Yes' we've lost Howard Berkowitz who was very prolific.  His abundant edits did tend to make recent changes look impressive, and overall the other contributions are down some as well.  A couple of our editors jumped ship when the financial situation caused them concern that their edits wouldn't last.  This is a quiet time of year, though, so I am looking for things to pick up once school goes back in session.  That could just be my optimistic outlook!  The good news is that we now have some case law that can help quell behavior issues before they drive people away this time. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:30, 6 August 2011
::::::I'm concerned that some of the external analyses of the project are accurate and that there are some serious issues with the way things have been run; so much so that I have less reasons to be optimistic.  I've vaguely caught up on some of the issues and while I can see why they happened, I don't agree with the methodology.  Also I'm troubled by the adoption of... "fringe" subjects and being a staunch atheist and someone who is dedicated to factual representation and presentation, I'm not sure I am motivated enough to continue on (but let it be known: I'm not here to drag the wiki through the mud on these issues, they're just my personal motivations.)  [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I believe the main advantage of CZ over WP is the environment for contributors, which is much less subject to crackpot criticism than WP. I attribute that improvement to having full disclosure of identity, rather than attributing it to the supposed emphasis of CZ upon "experts". Unfortunately, many CZ contributors left anyway and went off to niche wikis like Knowino. It is important to know why this happened. I was too late to actually witness any of these departures, with the exception of Howard. That episode did CZ no good, and showed the so-called "experts" were no better at reaching agreement than the Tea Party. Aside from pissing matches, however, some departures seem to be the result of simple impatience of "expert" contributors with criticism, a tendency to think that their expertise included an undeniable ability at exposition, while actually some long-winded interaction was necessary for the presentation to develop so it could reach a broad readership, as opposed to communication with the more familiar audience of cognoscenti. Some CZ environmental development is needed to help ''prima donnas'' to work together. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::John states my view well. I also understand your concern about fringe, but I think context is everything.  Fringe is out there; if we don't cover it, we won't be complete.  The trick is how we cover it.  The "external analysis" you mention is likely a one sided view.  Surely those sites aren't meant to be the authoritative answer for how to deal with fringe content, but simply a tool for like minded people to drive one point of view.  I have no problem with those views, or with web sites whose purpose is to generate and perpetuate those views - they are actually fodder for us to produce the more balanced view.  Ultimately, however, neutrality is the direction that we are committed to follow; some don't want that - or at least don't understand how it works.  Everyone is welcome as long as they can write neutrally and act professionally - editors and authors alike. That has always been our genre. Nothing wrong with being an athiest, or a devout Buddhist.  As for administration, its job is to get the best from everyone. I think we have the tools in place to keep working in that direction now. At least I don't seem to be spending my time holding "''prima donnas''" at bay! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I get what you guys are saying, I really do.  However you can't just ignore external criticisms and say that they're a conjecture of crackpots and agenda pushers, because sometimes they aren't (even if they *seem* negative or you just don't like what they have to say).  They should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt, but being dismissive of external perception is dangeous, unless you choose to adopt this "We simply don't care and f what the other people say!" kind of totalitarianism.
:::::::::And sure, it can be a goal to reduce drama or problem users over time; no one wants constant headaches from people who cause issues in your community, but sometimes outright and unprecedented removal isn't the way to go (and I'm not talking about Howard here, just in general now that there *is* a precedent.) 
:::::::::I am also completely aware of the goal of a knowledge wiki to cover the entire gamut of ... well knowledge, but even when you have dubious or contentious issues covered on your site, it is ethically responsible to make sure they are covered in a factual way, and not by people who are experts whose main motivation is continue pushing untruthful and innaccurate information DESPITE their volume of knowledge on the topic.  Just because someone is entirely obsessive and "well-informed" (contextual) about boogeymen doesn't mean that boogeymen *actually exist*, and that's the part that worries me. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::"...''it is ethically responsible to make sure they are covered in a factual way, and not by people who are experts whose main motivation is continue pushing untruthful and innaccurate information DESPITE their volume of knowledge on the topic''..."  I am sure that we are talking about the same thing.  I am just confused that you might think that this isn't the case here. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
{{Image|Average CZ edits per day.PNG|right|250px|Page edits from [[CZ:Statistics|statistics page]] with superposed trend lines.}}
←''outdent'' Good points, Robert; maybe not so obvious in how to implement. I'm also inclined to point out that contributions to CZ are not just articles and amendments, nor even the important administrative functions. Contribution has to be fun, and commentary can make it more fun. As a particular example, I think a bit of a Procrustean-bed approach to rule-enforcement in the recent bruhaha was a bit myopic, and may be significant in explaining the recent downtrend in page-edit activity. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:Another good point, John.  Consider the possibility that the recent past (since October 2009) has been preoccupied with the charter process and the subsequent disagreements/conversations and discussions about how to handle behavior.  Actual content building (and those that build it - save Howard) took a back stage.  Now that that process is complete, the contributions/edits related to that process are no longer necessary - and therefore the numbers of edits are down. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::RE: The chart - As I pointed out on Daniel's page: Howard started in May of 2008, Larry Sanger took a sebatical in March of 2009, and the charter process started in October of 2009. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::According to the chart, the most recent decline has happened since Octoberish of 2010.  Ideally, we're supposed to have user and article growth; so much so that having people do administrative work isn't supposed to drag down the productivity of the wiki.  The overall trend from the graph does not look good and it's indicitive ''that we're not doing something right''.  I can't simply believe that summer break is what's killing us; the data doesn't reflect that.  [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: I agree with you, Robert. The steady drop in edit activity is long and unprecedented on CZ, and is quite contrary to previous rebounds following setbacks. I suppose the hypothesis is that the steady drop is due to a steadily increasing diversion of edits to administrative matters during recent re-organization and away from the editing of articles. I don't think this distraction is likely to be a steadily increasing matter, especially over such a long period. In any event, that distraction is over, but editing of articles is not on an upswing. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


== the 1941 EB ==
::::: Larry was a driving force for public relations.  This is what we are missing.  I am encouraged that Larry is back on the MC and I would be surprised if that doesn't make the difference.  One of Larry's principles, though, is to hand over activities to citizens. So, it behooves us to learn how to fund raise and interest others in the project (something that has not been done since Larry left in March of 2009). [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's too heavy to carry downstairs! I just weighed one volume with a v. accurate kitchen scale calibrated in metrics, then muliplied by 24 volumes, then divided by 454. Result: 99.8 pounds. Including accumulated dust, that's probably 100 lbs. even.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:55, 13 January 2008 (CST)
::::::Again, that's fine, except there shouldn't be a mass exodus of edits just because users are changing responsibilities. Whatever it is that needs to be changed or done in order to increase contributions and users should be a priority, whatever that needs to be. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


==Thanks==
:::::::I agree.  To start, we can do things that encourage discussion and conversation about article content and direction.  Larry used to get us all involved in things like "The Big Delete" and "Core Article Development" and things that caused us all to see the loopholes and places that needed filling.  Ideas such as red links in articles encouraged people to start new articles.  Now they are filled with lemmas... there are many places that we can start.  We just need leadership to draw us all back together and allow us to trust each other again, like we used to - regardless of our individual beliefs.  We need something and someone that can heal the wounds that were caused by trying to divide us. We also need time. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Seconded, but time is not on our side, Matt. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for getting that map looking right. I'm useless with anything remotely technical. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 12:32, 18 January 2008 (CST)
:::::::::I hear ya! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


== Unnecessary Redirects ==
For those interested in the TL;DR version: do something about the hole in the boat first while you start pitching out water as fast as you can; it's almost sunk.  It would be a shame to lose something with a noble intent and have it completely fail.  [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey Robert, how are you deciding that these redirects are unnecessary. Some of them look reasonable, such as [[Habitats]] going to [[Habitat]]. -[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:19, 18 January 2008 (CST)
: I do not have the opportunity to fully join this discussion since I am often away from home right now. When talking about low contrbution we should not count edits -- this is not the most important parameter. It is much more serious that CZ lost more active authors (disregarding proficiency) than it gained. Of those still here some contribute less content than before. Often this is caused by being occupied by other issues (administration, etc.) but some may hesitate to invest effort in a project that has a very uncertain future. It is easier to gain contributors for a growing project than for a stagnating one. (I just heard the news that WP also loses editors -- but that does not help CZ much, doesn't it?)
:I'm not using any "hard-and-fast" criteria, but I generally decide that some redirects that could potentially be used for other subjects (say as a disambig, or for a similar subject but still different)... others simply had broken redirects.  What would be a justification for using a plural form of a word to redirect to the singular anyway? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:22, 18 January 2008 (CST)
: Personally, I feel that new content is now less important than putting effort in shaping the environment for a better future. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::I agree on all points there Peter.  Content is still important though(people judge sites by it now that WP has set some kind of metric for wiki standards).  WP loses editors and authors because the project is reaching or has reached critical mass; the amount of new information able to be documented (without getting into obscure information, which WP frowns upon) is shrinking at a quick pace, and so out of sheer boredom and "completion", people are leaving because they simply aren't needed anymore.  I think Communication of the ACM did an article on this some time ago.  If only we had that problem here, but the environment required to attract growth (with a certain standard) somehow just isn't here. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


==thanks for help on virtual memory==
:::Actually, the WP edit rate reached a plateau in 2007. Since then the same amount of work has been distributed over an ever-increasing numberf articles. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Robert, thanks a million for working on virtual memory (and other computer articles). It doesn't feel so lonely when I see you active too.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:22, 19 January 2008 (CST)
::::Are you sure about that? I distinctly remember reading what I wrote about; maybe it was in IEEE Spectrum magazine instead of Communications of the ACM. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


== Dennis Kucinich ==
:::::The two statements aren't necessarily incompatible. The information I gave was drawn from a graph published on WP itself, in a discussion somewhere. I could track it down if it's important. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::You're right, they aren't, and it's not that important to the scope of this topic.  :) [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


I directly cut and pasted from the government PDF file, so I don't know if someone in the Congress photo crew hated this man :P. But this picture is old anyways, and I might find a better one online. Regards. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 21:47, 20 January 2008 (CST)
::::::: Of course, Robert, content is the most important issue at all and always will be, but CZ must focus on quality instead of quantity. Ideally all present content should be checked if it is acceptable under our claim of reliability. (Some embarrassing material may have to be made invisible.) However, the most important task is finding a sustainable and long-lasting hosting solution, the next important (probably related) task is promoting CZ and making it (again) well-known. Unfortunately I have neither the skills nor the means to help with these tasks -- that's why I concentrate on other issues. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:Just changed the image to a newer one. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 22:04, 20 January 2008 (CST)
::::::::I'd like to give a quick sarcastic kudos to RationalWiki.  Thanks for keeping this whole debacle up-to-date, guys.  I hope this makes your WIGO:CZ feed. [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


== Got [[Stone]]? ==
:For what it's worth, I intend to return to writing (and editing, if requested) in Computers after the end of this year, if the project is still limping along at that point.  I'm teaching now at night (a second job) and so have very little free time.  However, I have felt good enough about content here sometimes to send students here to read some things instead of to Wikipedia. Let's don't all quit just yet.  I still have hopes that we may revive the project, but I've not been able to do much towards that at present due to my double work life.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 
Ciao Robert,
 
I went back to your [[Stone]] article, made a few fixes and awarded you of the point (it was a core article). Even if you didn't want it - it is an excellent work indeed. Thanks! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 04:03, 27 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Olympic Games catalogs ==
 
Would you be kind enough to check out the following page:
 
:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Olympic_Games/Catalogs
 
Check for conformity to CZ naming conventions, as well as whether the proposed catalogs (all currently red linked) are being put in the right sub-dirs. I will use piped links as soon as I am sure they are going to the right place.
 
[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 11:40, 27 January 2008 (CST)
 
==Apologies==
 
I was quite needlessly confrontational last night. Looking over what I wrote again this morning, I feel I owe you an apology. Regards. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 05:04, 28 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Henry The Navigator ==
 
Why do you say this redirect is unncessary? I'm not sure if I agree. There might be a chance that someone types [[Henry The Navigator]] instead of [[Henry the Navigator]], don't you think? And that page was not created from an article move. --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 08:44, 28 January 2008 (CST)
:It is likely the search engine will find "Henry the Navigator" if someone accidently types "Henry The Navigator". --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:46, 28 January 2008 (CST)
 
I still find it strange that people here reply to messages on their own talk pages instead of using the page of the person who left the message. Anyway, as far as I know a "redirect" page is not that "expensive" and it always takes the person directly to the article. --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 09:00, 28 January 2008 (CST)
:I have no absolute position on the redirect; it can stay--I just went through a bunch and marked ones I thought were unnecessary.  Also, in regards to responding on their own talk pages, 1.) it keeps everything (the conversation) in one place, and 2.) it's possibly a carry over from forum-influenced behavior where you have "threads" which you reply to. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:03, 28 January 2008 (CST)
 
I went to Wikipedia and typed Henry The Navigator. It led me to the article. In Wikipedia is recommended that one should create redirects in all variants as possible, so I'm probably influenced by them. I tried to look for any guidelines about redirects here on Citizendium, but found nothing. I don't really see a need for it to be eliminated, but I also don't see a need to make this a big issue! Greetings, --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 10:36, 30 January 2008 (CST)
 
== The Citizen - help wanted ==
 
I saw your notice on the Forum pages and will have a b-i-g help wanted notice for your ''Citizen'' in a couple of days. But first I need to get the "scaffolding" built for the article cluster. Now, if I could only remember what the article was that I was working on . . . Oh, well, it will come to me eventually.
 
By the way, what is ''The Citizen''?
 
[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 10:37, 29 January 2008 (CST)
 
:The periodical newsletter I write for CZ.  It's our version of the signpost.  So far it's scheduled for the first of each month but it may or may not change to the first and 15th (content/activities pending). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:40, 29 January 2008 (CST)
 
Found it! I'll get something to you in time for the Feb 1 issue. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 10:43, 29 January 2008 (CST)
 
:Thanks for the notice in the "Citizen". I edited it to spell out the article names. CAS actually went to "Computer algebra system". [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 12:08, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::Anytime.  I was actually going to ask you about that, but you beat me to the punch.  Good work! <code>;)</code> --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:12, 31 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Eduzendium pages -- not marked anywhere... ==
 
Regarding incorrect speedy deletions, I assume you are referring to [[Bankruptcy]].  I certainly don't want to interfere in any existing initiative, but how could I have know that that page was related to Eduzendium? It literally ''had no content'' either on the page or in the history...  Where should I have looked?  I now see that it is linked to [[CZ:Finance3101 101 TempleUniversity Spring2008]], as one of the topics people could write about, but, nothing has yet been written on it; in fact, the instructions say that blue links should be ''stubs''; not just one of the student's names.  The page '''should''' be deleted, if only to make it clear to students picking topics that there is nothing written on that topic yet.  I appreciate the information about Eduzendium, but please be more careful before claiming something is in error. [[User:JesseWeinstein|JesseWeinstein]] 20:13, 31 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Thanks for the great newsletter ==
Robert, I love the newsletter.  Thank you for doing it.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 11:25, 4 February 2008 (CST)
 
== (1) Timelines; and (2) Proposal page ==
 
Thank you for the Timelines response! I was about to f**k it up. Since there is only ONE timeline, of course it doesn't go in a sub-dir of ''Timelines'' subpage.
 
I recently posted a note (proposal) on [[CZ_Talk:Related_Articles]] about changing the name of ''Other related topics'' to ''Cognate topics''. Should that have gone on the CZ:Proposals page? It seems rather minor.
 
[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 11:38, 7 February 2008 (CST)
:The Proposals page isn't set in stone yet, but I encourage you to go to the [[CZ_Talk:Proposals|talk page]] and voice your opinion, or head to [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1551.msg13950.html#msg13950 this thread on the forum]. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:47, 7 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Tables ==
 
Hello, Todd Coles pointed me to you for this question. I have started a table at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball/Catalogs/Past_World_Series_winners so far, I've done it by hand, is this the only way to do this, or is there someway I can add to that automatically? If it has to be coded by had, that's fine, it's not THAT much work, but I'll feel silly if I do it by hand and find out later that I didn't have to. Thanks. [[User:Joshua Knapp|Joshua Knapp]] 12:40, 8 February 2008 (CST)
:Josh, this sounds like a job for the [[Tennis/Catalogs/Famous_players]] example!  I would look at that page, and then look carefully at [[Template:Tennis header2]] and [[Template:Tennis player2]].  I think you'll find that perhaps you want to develop two templates, one of which is the overall table header, and the other is a data template you can simply make a call to.  I'm not too fond of using the wikitable template method, as I usually create tables by hand using <code><nowiki>{|s, |s, and |-s</nowiki></code> and then fill in all the manual details.  This can get ugly in the process, but if you check out an example like [[2008_United_States_presidential_election]] manually defining the table can net you impressive results.  Think about how you want to arrange the data, what you want to include, and how you want to format it.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:55, 8 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Re nbspnbspspspttptthh! ==
 
See [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian#nbspnbspspspttptthh!]] --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:58, 9 February 2008 (CST)
:See again [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian#nbspnbspspspttptthh!]]  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 15:28, 9 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Eduzendium project ==
Oh. Well, the first paragraph is/was patently nonsense. And was submitted here a *year* ago.  So that's one year that nonsense has been sitting here.  What are we to make of that? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:45, 10 February 2008 (CST)
:Check the history again, the first submission was 7 February '''2008'''. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:47, 10 February 2008 (CST)
::Yeah, I should have had a second cup of coffee this morning -- sorry! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:49, 10 February 2008 (CST)
 
==Break?==
 
So, are you on a break or not? :-) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 08:33, 12 February 2008 (CST)
:Yeah sorta, it's just... complicated. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:27, 12 February 2008 (CST)
 
==Proposals..==
See the New proposals page for my attempt to pick up your idea[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 07:47, 14 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Re: [[Delayed coking]] image ... thanks. ==
 
Robbert: Thanks for centering the flow diagram image. That is something I always do with large images and I don't know how that "left" snuck in there. Some gremlin I guess.
 
What did you think of the article as a whole? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 13:22, 15 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Infoboxes and the Red Sox article ==
From your comment on the Red Sox talk page about infoboxes, i'm beginning to wonder if I should stop adding to Citizendium except in regards to New Hampshire politics and law.
 
That's why I came on here, to provide myself and others a quick(er) reference to that kind of stuff. But I strayed out of interest in the project. But i'm definitely not going to bother in the internal political process of this project, and i'm wondering if i've already invested too much effort if the project doesn't take itself seriously, and in my opinion, if the project doesn't want to look good(i.e: infoboxes), that means the project doesn't take itself seriously. [[User:Andrew Sylvia|Andrew Sylvia]] 15:29, 24 February 2008 (CST)
:Well, chacun a son gout. Some people think info boxes look childish. At WP they are *way* out of hand.... It's not a question of seriousness -- it's a question of what people want the project to look like, and what sort of information it should give, and in what ways. Why don't you go to the Forums and start a topic about infoboxes, stating why you think they should be used. You'll get a dialog going, and, who knows, you may change some minds. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:49, 24 February 2008 (CST)
::Hayford sums it up.  I think that we should have infoboxes but they should not be an avalanche of meaningless stats and data; I don't know where the line is. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:05, 24 February 2008 (CST)
 
== [[Kim Komando]] spelling ==
Robert, for the questionaire I sent you, I might have misspelled [[Kim Komando]], and some of the misspellings lead directly to a porn site, so could you please double the check the spelling to avoid any misadventures? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:14, 26 February 2008 (CST)
:I will double check <code>;)</code> --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:35, 26 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Subpages ==
 
Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought this was the state of affairs:
 
{{tl|Subpages}} ''is'' the latest version - but only for all pages ''other'' than the metadata page. Used on the metadata page, it produces a slightly erroneous display. For that reason, {{tl|No metadata template}} (which calls {{tl|Blank metadata3}} to actually include the blank checklist) instead uses {{tl|Subpages3}}, as you can see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Blank%20metadata3&action=edit here].
 
Am I missing something? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:59, 27 February 2008 (CST)
 
:<code><nowiki>{{subpages3}}</nowiki></code> is depcrecated.  All pages should be using <code><nowiki>{{subpages}}</nowiki></code>.  Upon creation of the page, the first placement of the subpages template will include a link that automatically generates the content of the metadata page.  [[User:Chris_Day|Chris]] is aware of the erroneous display on metadata pages, but that doesn't affect the way the system is actually working, just what is visible. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:02, 27 February 2008 (CST)
 
:: Ah. Well, perhaps you can see how I became confused, what with use of {{tl|Subpages}} producing an erroneous display on the metadata page, and {{tl|No metadata template}} referring to {{tl|Subpages3}} (not to mention how {{tl|Subpages}} uses {{tl|Approved3}}, etc, etc). I think you can see how, in light of those coincidental facts, it was natural to assume that /Metadata pages should be using {{tl|Subpages3}} - especially since Metadata pages that use it work correctly!
:: Sigh, let me further update documentation, then. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 13:39, 27 February 2008 (CST)
 
== Your proposal "Article Content Request help" ==
 
Hello. The proposal record for "[[CZ:Proposals/Article Content Request help|Article Content Request help]]", for which you are listed as driver, says that the current step (community discussion) was due to be completed 22 February. Could you please [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Proposals/Ad_hoc&action=edit&section=3 update the proposal record] on [[CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc]], changing your self-imposed deadline and perhaps the next step? If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Your newly-appointed Proposals Manager, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 16:24, 3 March 2008 (CST)
==More tables?==
If you're in the mood, there are 'list of irregular' two-column tables needed at the top of [[A]], [[O]] and [[U]] now.  I'm sending this same message to Chris.  Thanks - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 15:49, 5 March 2008 (CST)
:Should be a matter of copy and paste, more or less.  If Chris doesn't get it first, I'll get it when I get home from work. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:11, 5 March 2008 (CST)
 
== style guides ==
I welcome your participation Robert. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 11:52, 6 March 2008 (CST)
 
== testing out something ==
It looks terrific to me! I think that even *I* could understand the next time I upload an image! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:15, 6 March 2008 (CST)
 
== Heinlein pix ==
Hi Robert -- I thought that I *had* replied to you! I certainly meant to. Lemme go back to my email program and see exactly what's going on there. Maybe I didn't reply, or maybe they're jammed up somewhere. Hold on.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:30, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
:I just compared all four pix several times. I looks as if you have definitely improved both of them but it's definitely a question of making something out a sow's ear -- there's only so much that can be done! As I recall, I once spent a while in PhotoShop screwing around with the two of them, then gave up. I'll let you decide what you want to do with them -- and what you want to about putting one or both in the article. All the best! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:40, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
::Okay, I will upload both of them, and then either stick them on my own user page or in the TI article about Heinlein. Or both. Unless you have some other suggestion. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:58, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
 
==Timelines==
Robert, it looks impressive! It's also going to take me a lot of time considering the number of entries involved :). Can I make a suggestion? The colours probably need to be more subtle for these. Bright colours tend to be off-putting for readers. If I was to do these, I would rely mainly on tints of grey shading with only subtle colour hints on the box borders. Something that doesn't distract the readers. Well done though. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
 
== Your proposal "Technical Consolidation" ==
 
Hi Robert. You need to create a page for your proposal to consolidate the different fora to discuss technical matters. This page allows you to develop the proposal in more detail, and it allows the rest of us to discuss the proposal. You can create the page by following the link "Start complete proposal" in the section "Technical Consolidation" on [[CZ:Proposals/New]]. -- The Proposals Manager, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 07:27, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
 
I suppose you lost interest in the proposal as you haven't done anything, so I moved the proposal record to [[CZ:Proposals/Discarded]]. If you want to revive the proposal, just update the deadline in the proposal record and create the proposal page. -- The Proposals Manager, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 16:39, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 
== How make a template ==
Robert, can you make a "how to make a template" section for the [[CZ:How To]] page? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 10:25, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
 
== Recording ==
 
Great! You'll find links to all the letter pages on my user page, plus the [[apostrophe]], which is part of the same series.  I'm watching them all, so you can leave any comments/queries on the talk pages.
 
Please consult me beforehand if you have any doubts, particularly about the British pronunciations, which, as I'm a Londoner, will tend to precede the American ones. Indeed your American accent will add some desirable balance there. You may even notice where we need to add AmE elements to the texts.
 
Thanks: I really appreciate your enthusiasm. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 12:18, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
:Can you give me a rough idea of a framework of what you'd like to have recorded? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:23, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
 
Well, as [[User:Stephen Ewen]] suggested on [[Talk:S]], just reading the article is probably the best way. Have a look at [[X]], a nice short one, and rehearse it in your mind. Any problems with that page?  (I've just put in the AmE pron of 'excoriate', so that's one improvement already!) [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 12:53, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
:Ok, I'll give that one a shot. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:02, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
 
Also, can you read the articles on [[A]], [[O]] and [[R]], please, which are the letters where AmE & BrE differ most.  Actually, I have an article on the differences between the 2 types: perhaps I should upload that first?  Just tell me how confident you are about the BrE pronunciations, because, if you get them right, we won't need two versions. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:10, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
 
Brackets, oh, sorry, that's BrE for parentheses - of course you can leave out the plug for [[English phonemes]] & in other cases you'll only need to say the word once, because if you read the parenthesis you'll be repeating it, if you see what I mean! - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:21, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
 
Of course if you'd rather just do an American version, no problem... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:30, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
 
== Clarke ==
Yes, I saw that last night just before going to bed. I suppose I ought to start a stub about him to go with the [[Robert A. Heinlein]] one. And there should be an [[Isaac Asimov]] at some point. So much to do.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:28, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 12:18, 13 October 2011

[User bio is in User:Your Name]

Why is contribution down lately?

Any ideas? Robert W King 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious reason is that by far the most prolific contributor has been banned. And then there are those who have reduced or halted their contributions because they're not happy with the way the site's being run. And others may be able to suggest other reasons. You might like to discuss it at RationalWiki, where they find this site holds a horrible fascination. Peter Jackson 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd speculate that (i) the financial situation casts a shadow over the future, and (ii) the quality of articles is declining as the number of participants to keep things in review is too small. A snowball effect may be in progress. John R. Brews 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, then. Robert W King 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It was fun while it lasted! Feel free to email me or leave a message on my page if you wish to stay in contact while I pursue my academia. (I am not optimistic.) Robert W King 17:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes' we've lost Howard Berkowitz who was very prolific. His abundant edits did tend to make recent changes look impressive, and overall the other contributions are down some as well. A couple of our editors jumped ship when the financial situation caused them concern that their edits wouldn't last. This is a quiet time of year, though, so I am looking for things to pick up once school goes back in session. That could just be my optimistic outlook! The good news is that we now have some case law that can help quell behavior issues before they drive people away this time. D. Matt Innis 03:30, 6 August 2011
I'm concerned that some of the external analyses of the project are accurate and that there are some serious issues with the way things have been run; so much so that I have less reasons to be optimistic. I've vaguely caught up on some of the issues and while I can see why they happened, I don't agree with the methodology. Also I'm troubled by the adoption of... "fringe" subjects and being a staunch atheist and someone who is dedicated to factual representation and presentation, I'm not sure I am motivated enough to continue on (but let it be known: I'm not here to drag the wiki through the mud on these issues, they're just my personal motivations.) Robert W King 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the main advantage of CZ over WP is the environment for contributors, which is much less subject to crackpot criticism than WP. I attribute that improvement to having full disclosure of identity, rather than attributing it to the supposed emphasis of CZ upon "experts". Unfortunately, many CZ contributors left anyway and went off to niche wikis like Knowino. It is important to know why this happened. I was too late to actually witness any of these departures, with the exception of Howard. That episode did CZ no good, and showed the so-called "experts" were no better at reaching agreement than the Tea Party. Aside from pissing matches, however, some departures seem to be the result of simple impatience of "expert" contributors with criticism, a tendency to think that their expertise included an undeniable ability at exposition, while actually some long-winded interaction was necessary for the presentation to develop so it could reach a broad readership, as opposed to communication with the more familiar audience of cognoscenti. Some CZ environmental development is needed to help prima donnas to work together. John R. Brews 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
John states my view well. I also understand your concern about fringe, but I think context is everything. Fringe is out there; if we don't cover it, we won't be complete. The trick is how we cover it. The "external analysis" you mention is likely a one sided view. Surely those sites aren't meant to be the authoritative answer for how to deal with fringe content, but simply a tool for like minded people to drive one point of view. I have no problem with those views, or with web sites whose purpose is to generate and perpetuate those views - they are actually fodder for us to produce the more balanced view. Ultimately, however, neutrality is the direction that we are committed to follow; some don't want that - or at least don't understand how it works. Everyone is welcome as long as they can write neutrally and act professionally - editors and authors alike. That has always been our genre. Nothing wrong with being an athiest, or a devout Buddhist. As for administration, its job is to get the best from everyone. I think we have the tools in place to keep working in that direction now. At least I don't seem to be spending my time holding "prima donnas" at bay! D. Matt Innis 13:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I get what you guys are saying, I really do. However you can't just ignore external criticisms and say that they're a conjecture of crackpots and agenda pushers, because sometimes they aren't (even if they *seem* negative or you just don't like what they have to say). They should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt, but being dismissive of external perception is dangeous, unless you choose to adopt this "We simply don't care and f what the other people say!" kind of totalitarianism.
And sure, it can be a goal to reduce drama or problem users over time; no one wants constant headaches from people who cause issues in your community, but sometimes outright and unprecedented removal isn't the way to go (and I'm not talking about Howard here, just in general now that there *is* a precedent.)
I am also completely aware of the goal of a knowledge wiki to cover the entire gamut of ... well knowledge, but even when you have dubious or contentious issues covered on your site, it is ethically responsible to make sure they are covered in a factual way, and not by people who are experts whose main motivation is continue pushing untruthful and innaccurate information DESPITE their volume of knowledge on the topic. Just because someone is entirely obsessive and "well-informed" (contextual) about boogeymen doesn't mean that boogeymen *actually exist*, and that's the part that worries me. Robert W King 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
"...it is ethically responsible to make sure they are covered in a factual way, and not by people who are experts whose main motivation is continue pushing untruthful and innaccurate information DESPITE their volume of knowledge on the topic..." I am sure that we are talking about the same thing. I am just confused that you might think that this isn't the case here. D. Matt Innis 16:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(CC) Image: John R. Brews & Aleksander Stos
Page edits from statistics page with superposed trend lines.

←outdent Good points, Robert; maybe not so obvious in how to implement. I'm also inclined to point out that contributions to CZ are not just articles and amendments, nor even the important administrative functions. Contribution has to be fun, and commentary can make it more fun. As a particular example, I think a bit of a Procrustean-bed approach to rule-enforcement in the recent bruhaha was a bit myopic, and may be significant in explaining the recent downtrend in page-edit activity. John R. Brews 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another good point, John. Consider the possibility that the recent past (since October 2009) has been preoccupied with the charter process and the subsequent disagreements/conversations and discussions about how to handle behavior. Actual content building (and those that build it - save Howard) took a back stage. Now that that process is complete, the contributions/edits related to that process are no longer necessary - and therefore the numbers of edits are down. D. Matt Innis 16:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
RE: The chart - As I pointed out on Daniel's page: Howard started in May of 2008, Larry Sanger took a sebatical in March of 2009, and the charter process started in October of 2009. D. Matt Innis 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the chart, the most recent decline has happened since Octoberish of 2010. Ideally, we're supposed to have user and article growth; so much so that having people do administrative work isn't supposed to drag down the productivity of the wiki. The overall trend from the graph does not look good and it's indicitive that we're not doing something right. I can't simply believe that summer break is what's killing us; the data doesn't reflect that. Robert W King 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, Robert. The steady drop in edit activity is long and unprecedented on CZ, and is quite contrary to previous rebounds following setbacks. I suppose the hypothesis is that the steady drop is due to a steadily increasing diversion of edits to administrative matters during recent re-organization and away from the editing of articles. I don't think this distraction is likely to be a steadily increasing matter, especially over such a long period. In any event, that distraction is over, but editing of articles is not on an upswing. John R. Brews 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Larry was a driving force for public relations. This is what we are missing. I am encouraged that Larry is back on the MC and I would be surprised if that doesn't make the difference. One of Larry's principles, though, is to hand over activities to citizens. So, it behooves us to learn how to fund raise and interest others in the project (something that has not been done since Larry left in March of 2009). D. Matt Innis 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, that's fine, except there shouldn't be a mass exodus of edits just because users are changing responsibilities. Whatever it is that needs to be changed or done in order to increase contributions and users should be a priority, whatever that needs to be. Robert W King 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. To start, we can do things that encourage discussion and conversation about article content and direction. Larry used to get us all involved in things like "The Big Delete" and "Core Article Development" and things that caused us all to see the loopholes and places that needed filling. Ideas such as red links in articles encouraged people to start new articles. Now they are filled with lemmas... there are many places that we can start. We just need leadership to draw us all back together and allow us to trust each other again, like we used to - regardless of our individual beliefs. We need something and someone that can heal the wounds that were caused by trying to divide us. We also need time. D. Matt Innis 17:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded, but time is not on our side, Matt. Robert W King 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I hear ya! D. Matt Innis 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in the TL;DR version: do something about the hole in the boat first while you start pitching out water as fast as you can; it's almost sunk. It would be a shame to lose something with a noble intent and have it completely fail. Robert W King 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the opportunity to fully join this discussion since I am often away from home right now. When talking about low contrbution we should not count edits -- this is not the most important parameter. It is much more serious that CZ lost more active authors (disregarding proficiency) than it gained. Of those still here some contribute less content than before. Often this is caused by being occupied by other issues (administration, etc.) but some may hesitate to invest effort in a project that has a very uncertain future. It is easier to gain contributors for a growing project than for a stagnating one. (I just heard the news that WP also loses editors -- but that does not help CZ much, doesn't it?)
Personally, I feel that new content is now less important than putting effort in shaping the environment for a better future. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree on all points there Peter. Content is still important though(people judge sites by it now that WP has set some kind of metric for wiki standards). WP loses editors and authors because the project is reaching or has reached critical mass; the amount of new information able to be documented (without getting into obscure information, which WP frowns upon) is shrinking at a quick pace, and so out of sheer boredom and "completion", people are leaving because they simply aren't needed anymore. I think Communication of the ACM did an article on this some time ago. If only we had that problem here, but the environment required to attract growth (with a certain standard) somehow just isn't here. Robert W King 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the WP edit rate reached a plateau in 2007. Since then the same amount of work has been distributed over an ever-increasing numberf articles. Peter Jackson 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I distinctly remember reading what I wrote about; maybe it was in IEEE Spectrum magazine instead of Communications of the ACM. Robert W King 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The two statements aren't necessarily incompatible. The information I gave was drawn from a graph published on WP itself, in a discussion somewhere. I could track it down if it's important. Peter Jackson 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You're right, they aren't, and it's not that important to the scope of this topic.  :) Robert W King 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, Robert, content is the most important issue at all and always will be, but CZ must focus on quality instead of quantity. Ideally all present content should be checked if it is acceptable under our claim of reliability. (Some embarrassing material may have to be made invisible.) However, the most important task is finding a sustainable and long-lasting hosting solution, the next important (probably related) task is promoting CZ and making it (again) well-known. Unfortunately I have neither the skills nor the means to help with these tasks -- that's why I concentrate on other issues. --Peter Schmitt 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to give a quick sarcastic kudos to RationalWiki. Thanks for keeping this whole debacle up-to-date, guys. I hope this makes your WIGO:CZ feed. Robert W King 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I intend to return to writing (and editing, if requested) in Computers after the end of this year, if the project is still limping along at that point. I'm teaching now at night (a second job) and so have very little free time. However, I have felt good enough about content here sometimes to send students here to read some things instead of to Wikipedia. Let's don't all quit just yet. I still have hopes that we may revive the project, but I've not been able to do much towards that at present due to my double work life.Pat Palmer 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_W_King&oldid=21987"