Fine, I do get it, but is it turtles all the way down?
I could probably give references to articles in a local paper where the story is factually wrong. If you have ever been in a situation to have first hand information about a story that you have seen run, you may know this to be so.
I simply maintain that un-cited information on a subject is better than no information on the subject. Let those who can improve it do so. Perhaps the person who can fix it, just can't imagine that anyone would want an article on the subject. They will never start one for that reason. But they may improve a small start into a great article if they come across it. Who knows.
"In other words, articles with unsourced statements aren't necessarily invalid, but they're not necessarily valid, either. If plenty of sources for the statements exist, then it's an inconvenience to the user; if no credible sources exist, then it means that the information is unverifiable by the user."
So fine, have tags... All sources cited. Contains un-cited sources. Etc.
Let me just say again. I would likely happily be contributing today if my early stumbling efforts had not been "disappeared." I don't imagine I unique in this.
An encyclopedia article, first of all, and one that is accurate, neutral, coherent, comprehensive, well-written, pitched at the university student level, not original research, family-friendly, and legal and responsible.
The word stub is nowhere to be found on that page.
First, let me say that you have some real nice ideas in your post.
As to Citizendium's problems, you may be right, but I think another part was their stated need for complete articles. That is probably what stopped me the first time around. It is certainly what stopped me the last time I went by to see about contributing.
"Seems vaguely reminiscent of slashdot around the time they introduced moderation. Reading the Fringe could someday be seen as browsing at -1."
I have been thinking more about it. I like your terminology of core. Perhaps edge might serve better than fringe, perhaps not. I think a third category of incomplete might be needed. Or another metric to serve that purpose.
I think that is a part of it. But I can tell you that even when encouraged to switch, by someone who now knows linux better than windows, many resist but still want the free support.
"They are the noise that is in danger of drowning out the knowledge and there simply isn't the people to tidy them. Far better they were removed."
No. Far better that you have some sort of approved article status and don't give them such.
Look, I put up better information about radio stations in the Bahamas several years ago than I could find on there today. My stuff got deleted. I had other missing info that I put up info on, It too got deleted.
I would have no problem with my stuff getting deleted if the "INFORMATION" was still there but in a more suitable form. I had a problem when it got sent to/dev/null only to leave a gap in the information available.
I gave up.
I was likely to never contribute a complete and well written article on anything. But I was likely to add interesting and useful bits of information that were lacking from time to time. Things that had the potential to grow with the help of others.
"What frustrates me lately is the attitude of a large number of editors who follow the mantra "Either facts are sourced or I delete them on sight, and if an article has fewer than x sources, it gets the axe one way or another". To me, that's a destructive attitude and non-condusive to covering the wide spectrum of knowledge."
Especially when a person is writing from first hand knowledge. What do they need to due. Write up the information and host it on another site and then quote it for wikipeida?
"I'd agree with that; just because something's "trivial" doesn't mean it's not credible. The compromise is to allow articles on anything, but to hold all articles to the same editorial standards."
I don't think that is a good enough compromise. Accurate information should not be deleted due to the writing quality found in the "article" - certainly when there is no other information on the topic to be found on the site.
That is my take.
So, tag such articles as incomplete, or lacking in writing quality if need be, but don't dispose of information from the site.
"Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand. Fork wikipedia already, I say, and create an all inclusive wiki, before there is only a handfull of articles left which reference Britannica as their only reliable source. Sigh."
Yup, there are some interrelated problems from my point of view.
I think a possible solution would be to leave stuff in, but somehow promote "good" articles to some sort of "official article" status.
I gave up trying to add to wikipedia a long time ago due to info I added getting deleted. Granted, I never added or tried to add complete essay articles. I added more like bulleted info on areas I knew something about and where I could find no info on the matter on the site.
My take is that some info is better than no info. And it might inspire someone to add a bit to it and things can grow.
So I came across Citizendium again the other day and decided to check if I could perhaps add something there. No, they only want complete articles it seems. That is not my bag. They are going to get nothing from me. I would like to contribute, but they are ruling my contributions out before I begin. Which, I guess is better than after I have spent and wasted time trying to contribute.
I think the dual status idea could help both sites.
Info can be added and remain even if not up to par. (Not talking seriously inaccurate here, just not complete and finished articles.) It can stay this way as long as it takes. When and if an article reaches a certain level of quality or completeness, it can get some sort of official article status.
Give viewers a toggle switch to limit views to only official articles should they so choose.
Not the argument I am making... The argument I see people make when they want to say linux is too difficult for the average person but windows is easy for the average person.
People make the other argument I put down in other circumstances of course.
I do some admin work for friends and family myself. These days, I try to do as little gratis support as possible for those who will not give linux a serious try.
"Which is it? Do you need expert skill and knowledge to run windows properly and safely or not?"
Didn't you see that I put forward two opposing claims that people make about windows ease and linux difficulty?
Not saying you or anyone else who didn't get my post are at fault. With so much misunderstanding, I figure I was unclear even though I thought I was.
Can you help me pin down where the lack of clarity was so I don't make the same mistake again.
I have pointed this issue out more than once in the past. This is the first time with so much misunderstanding involved iirc. And the funny thing is, I thought that I had done a better job this time before all the confusion popped up.
"Windows is easier than linux if you started with it, and most people started with windows."
Personally, I find linux easier and I did windows before linux. Of course, I was doing fortran on punch cards to start and my first personal work was on a TRS-80 Model I. 16K ram 4K rom iirc.
"So the million people that bought Eee PCs are all above average?"
I guess I wasn't clear enough. People seem to be taking it as if I were making one of the claims in my post. No, those are conflicting claims I see windows supporters or linux detractors making. I say they can't have it both ways.
Linux is too difficult for the average person, they will need outside help. But windows is so easy the average person can handle things themselves, no need for outside help.
Whereas other times we see things like you put forward:
"Now what are those people complaining about? That they didn't research what "Vista Capable" entails? That they have no clue on how to do IT?"
Problems with windows really aren't windows problems, they are due to clueless users.
Which is it? Do you need expert skill and knowledge to run windows properly and safely or not?
"They're beginning to make compromises. With this controversial section removed, it's just that much closer to becoming a law, which is bad for everyone."
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, I do get it, but is it turtles all the way down?
I could probably give references to articles in a local paper where the story is factually wrong. If you have ever been in a situation to have first hand information about a story that you have seen run, you may know this to be so.
I simply maintain that un-cited information on a subject is better than no information on the subject. Let those who can improve it do so. Perhaps the person who can fix it, just can't imagine that anyone would want an article on the subject. They will never start one for that reason. But they may improve a small start into a great article if they come across it. Who knows.
"In other words, articles with unsourced statements aren't necessarily invalid, but they're not necessarily valid, either. If plenty of sources for the statements exist, then it's an inconvenience to the user; if no credible sources exist, then it means that the information is unverifiable by the user."
So fine, have tags... All sources cited. Contains un-cited sources. Etc.
Let me just say again. I would likely happily be contributing today if my early stumbling efforts had not been "disappeared." I don't imagine I unique in this.
all the best,
drew
Well,
someone else can do that if they like. Certainly not my bag.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
My take on ebooks and readers:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/11/ereaders-and-ebooks.html
Summary:
You need a great reader at a great price.
eBooks should be way less than regular books people.
Have every regular book come with an eBook in a sleeve in the back or have a code printed in it that allows for a free download of the book.
A bit more at the link and a place for more permanent comments.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"not true, stubs are welcomed at citizendium."
If that is so, they could explain things better:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:How_to_start_a_new_article
What should you write?
An encyclopedia article, first of all, and one that is accurate, neutral, coherent, comprehensive, well-written, pitched at the university student level, not original research, family-friendly, and legal and responsible.
The word stub is nowhere to be found on that page.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
First, let me say that you have some real nice ideas in your post.
As to Citizendium's problems, you may be right, but I think another part was their stated need for complete articles. That is probably what stopped me the first time around. It is certainly what stopped me the last time I went by to see about contributing.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Seems vaguely reminiscent of slashdot around the time they introduced moderation. Reading the Fringe could someday be seen as browsing at -1."
I have been thinking more about it. I like your terminology of core. Perhaps edge might serve better than fringe, perhaps not. I think a third category of incomplete might be needed. Or another metric to serve that purpose.
Core incomplete. Do you need an edge incomplete?
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
I think that is a part of it. But I can tell you that even when encouraged to switch, by someone who now knows linux better than windows, many resist but still want the free support.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
What is the problem with unsourced statements exactly?
What if I personally know how many FM stations broadcast in Nassau, but don't know where to find a writeup on that fact.
Do I need to write up an original blurb and host it elsewhere and then use the article I myself have written as a source?
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"They are the noise that is in danger of drowning out the knowledge and there simply isn't the people to tidy them. Far better they were removed."
/dev/null only to leave a gap in the information available.
No. Far better that you have some sort of approved article status and don't give them such.
Look, I put up better information about radio stations in the Bahamas several years ago than I could find on there today. My stuff got deleted. I had other missing info that I put up info on, It too got deleted.
I would have no problem with my stuff getting deleted if the "INFORMATION" was still there but in a more suitable form. I had a problem when it got sent to
I gave up.
I was likely to never contribute a complete and well written article on anything. But I was likely to add interesting and useful bits of information that were lacking from time to time. Things that had the potential to grow with the help of others.
Not gonna happen. Other fish to fry.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"What frustrates me lately is the attitude of a large number of editors who follow the mantra "Either facts are sourced or I delete them on sight, and if an article has fewer than x sources, it gets the axe one way or another". To me, that's a destructive attitude and non-condusive to covering the wide spectrum of knowledge."
Especially when a person is writing from first hand knowledge. What do they need to due. Write up the information and host it on another site and then quote it for wikipeida?
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"I'd agree with that; just because something's "trivial" doesn't mean it's not credible. The compromise is to allow articles on anything, but to hold all articles to the same editorial standards."
I don't think that is a good enough compromise. Accurate information should not be deleted due to the writing quality found in the "article" - certainly when there is no other information on the topic to be found on the site.
That is my take.
So, tag such articles as incomplete, or lacking in writing quality if need be, but don't dispose of information from the site.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand. Fork wikipedia already, I say, and create an all inclusive wiki, before there is only a handfull of articles left which reference Britannica as their only reliable source. Sigh."
Yup, there are some interrelated problems from my point of view.
I think a possible solution would be to leave stuff in, but somehow promote "good" articles to some sort of "official article" status.
I gave up trying to add to wikipedia a long time ago due to info I added getting deleted. Granted, I never added or tried to add complete essay articles. I added more like bulleted info on areas I knew something about and where I could find no info on the matter on the site.
My take is that some info is better than no info. And it might inspire someone to add a bit to it and things can grow.
So I came across Citizendium again the other day and decided to check if I could perhaps add something there. No, they only want complete articles it seems. That is not my bag. They are going to get nothing from me. I would like to contribute, but they are ruling my contributions out before I begin. Which, I guess is better than after I have spent and wasted time trying to contribute.
( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page )
I think the dual status idea could help both sites.
Info can be added and remain even if not up to par. (Not talking seriously inaccurate here, just not complete and finished articles.) It can stay this way as long as it takes. When and if an article reaches a certain level of quality or completeness, it can get some sort of official article status.
Give viewers a toggle switch to limit views to only official articles should they so choose.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"For what it's worth, not everyone misunderstood your point."
I did see that and thank you for noticing, but either most did, or I misread most responses.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"At best, a geeky friend who can fix the problems."
Yes, but surely linux would be easy enough with a geeky friend as well...
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Actually yes, the argument you're making"
Not the argument I am making... The argument I see people make when they want to say linux is too difficult for the average person but windows is easy for the average person.
People make the other argument I put down in other circumstances of course.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
I do some admin work for friends and family myself. These days, I try to do as little gratis support as possible for those who will not give linux a serious try.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
I was obviously unclear, but it surprises me.
Didn't you see:
"Which is it? Do you need expert skill and knowledge to run windows properly and safely or not?"
Didn't you see that I put forward two opposing claims that people make about windows ease and linux difficulty?
Not saying you or anyone else who didn't get my post are at fault. With so much misunderstanding, I figure I was unclear even though I thought I was.
Can you help me pin down where the lack of clarity was so I don't make the same mistake again.
I have pointed this issue out more than once in the past. This is the first time with so much misunderstanding involved iirc. And the funny thing is, I thought that I had done a better job this time before all the confusion popped up.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Windows is easier than linux if you started with it, and most people started with windows."
Personally, I find linux easier and I did windows before linux. Of course, I was doing fortran on punch cards to start and my first personal work was on a TRS-80 Model I. 16K ram 4K rom iirc.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
Got it.
But when it comes to virus and spyware issues, claims bubble up that you may need to be expert to safely run the thing even.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"So the million people that bought Eee PCs are all above average?"
I guess I wasn't clear enough. People seem to be taking it as if I were making one of the claims in my post. No, those are conflicting claims I see windows supporters or linux detractors making. I say they can't have it both ways.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Users are not a problem."
Just to be clear, I was not making that claim, just pointing out that I see it made when it suits certain people.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"Which version of Windows is this? And when is it coming out?"
Don't ask me, I see the claim made on a regular basis though.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"They are NOT meant to administrated by users. What marketing says is one thing, reality is another."
Fine, so again:
Which is it? Do you need expert skill and knowledge to run windows properly and safely or not?
And, if you do need the experts, who should the administrator be for the average home user?
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
Depending on the situation:
Linux is too difficult for the average person, they will need outside help. But windows is so easy the average person can handle things themselves, no need for outside help.
Whereas other times we see things like you put forward:
"Now what are those people complaining about? That they didn't research what "Vista Capable" entails? That they have no clue on how to do IT?"
Problems with windows really aren't windows problems, they are due to clueless users.
Which is it? Do you need expert skill and knowledge to run windows properly and safely or not?
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/
"They're beginning to make compromises. With this controversial section removed, it's just that much closer to becoming a law, which is bad for everyone."
Bingo! Bingo! BINGO!
Mod parent up!
Which is why I say we need a copyright offensive:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
That way, after we are done compromising, we are in a better state than when we started, not in a worse state.
Your comments very much appreciated.
all the best,
drew