User talk:Robert W King: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chris Day
imported>Pat Palmer
(I intend to return to Computers soon)
 
(369 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|auto=long}}
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
{{TOC|right}}


== Why is contribution down lately? ==


=== Welcome ===
Any ideas? [[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


{{awelcome}}
: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)


You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link [[CZ:Workgroups]].You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.
::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)


Have fun and Happy editing!
:::::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)


--[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 19:00, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
::::: 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)
::::::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)


== Image ==
:::::::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)


Hi Rob. Do me a favor and put some licensing data at the screenshot image page you uploaded. Thanks! [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::::::I hear ya! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:I will modify the licensing info today, when I figure out what I need to put!


== Formatting line ==
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)


That line in USS Almaak and other ships is on my browser, too. I think it's the way things work, though I wish it would cut off at the table. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 20:41, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
: 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?)
:Maybe it's a known issue and is already on the forums.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:16, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
: 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)


==history of computing==
:::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, hi there, and thanks for contributing to [[Talk:History_of_computing]]. I'd like to request that you please don't strike out more of the items on the brainstorm list; they are just suggestions at this point and of course are subject to debate. Instead, please register your opinions as comments below (begin with multiple colons) or new sections on the page. I assure you we will listen to your opinions.Pat Palmer 07:43, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
::::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)


==too much Babbage on "history of computing"; can we move stuff to "Charles Babbage" instead?==
:::::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)
Thanks for working on the article. I'd like to keep the Babbage part on [[history of computing]] short, and add the details over on [[Charles Babbage]] if at all possible. You might think over which place the details you added would best reside; I didn't give it a lot of thought, but I feel the Babbage part of [[history of computing]] is now too long (relative to the other sections there). [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 14:12, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
::::::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)
:See Talk page on history of computing for my response. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:28, 14 May 2007 (CDT)


== History of Computing Timeline ==
::::::: 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)
::::::::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)


[[image:timeline.jpg|center|thumb]]
: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)
 
== timeline as table YES! ==
Robert, I like the table version of the timeline at [[User:Robert_W_King/Sandbox]].  It might be nice to narrow it up just a bit, but that works; people can add items later if they feel a need.  Thanks for checking in about it (and working on [[history of computing]]. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 19:56, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==Quill pens==
At least I don't use a quill pen on my legal pad -- although with all the quail running around my back yard I suppose that I could catch one and fashion my own.  How about a CZ article on making quill pens and one's own ink?  Cheers, [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==Burnt toast==
I agree with your comments.  In fact I'm *appalled* by all the nonsense in it.  You should see the hundreds of links that I've already cut out.  I'll try whittling it down some more from time to time.... Best, [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:15, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Billiard Balls? ==
 
Nope, No idea!!!  Funny though :)  Do you think he is talking about how billiard balls ricochet off the sides like light reflects???  Dr. Tito definitely keep me thinking:-) [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 13:21, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== apple ==
 
The picture was blurry when it was taken, and though I tried to edit it to make it better but that didn't help. I will probably try to take a better picture later and then upload it. Regards. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:04, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:I've got a better one on it's way.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:03, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
::It's a lot better. Thanks. You can request deletion of my blurry picture. Just have a question, on your image it says they are two different types of apples, but why they look the same? Regards. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:19, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:::With apples, often the skin gives it away.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:23, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:::Additionally, I ate them right after taking the picture.  They had different texture and slightly different taste, but you'd never know that from the photograph.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:28, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Are there no green apples in the USA? About half of apples in Europe are red, the others are green or yellow-green. WE should try to get some pics of non-red ones LOL --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:38, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:He ate the green one before the picture... and that must be a really good camera phone! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 13:43, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
::Example: [[Image:Flowers_edited_compressed.jpg|left|thumb|800px]]
 
==Images==
Thanks for the tip -- after lunch (no french fries, chips, martinis, or manhattans!), I'll try to make some sense of this image stuff once and for all.  Is a puzzlement! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:54, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
:I just posted this to Stephen Ewen talk page: "It looks to me as if Attribution gives more rights away, whereas the other one restricts more.  And the green color of the Attribution notice apparently means that it is freer than the yellow of Cc. So I guess that in respect to my own photos that I've uploaded it's Attribution that I wantThanks for the help!" So I thank you also -- this whole image business is certainly an enormous can of worms! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:56, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Versions ==
 
Just a question, what is the difference between cc license versions like 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0? As far as I can read from the text of the licenses, they look the same verbatim. Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 15:35, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 
:One can read the CC lists about how they change details in the licenses. It is kind of ridiculous, actually, given that the changes are not really THAT significant, and that it complicates things so much via proliferation of licenses. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:23, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Virginia image ==
 
Sure, but it is too big to upload it to CZ, would you like me to email it to you? Also I have several other images from Mount Vernon I took during the March trip, if you would like to see them I can email those as well. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 
:You can just get a free image viewer life IrfanView which has a simply function to resize images. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:22, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
::Image email sent. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:39, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
:::It's great! You are an expert in photoshopping. I may resize and upload it. Your credit will be there, but which license would you prefer? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:00, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
::::Just CC-by-sa or whatever the rest of my images are, version 3.0.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 22:33, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
:::::Hey, no problem, and seems like the mess has been fixed. Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 10:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Humorous edits ==
 
Just saw the humor list on your user page. Glad I made the list! Naturally, I saw the edit sum just as a clicked the "post" button and said, "Oh, s**t". But here's one for the ages. On the ''Highland games'' article on Wikipedia, one sentence (I wrote it) used to read:
 
:The various clan societies make the Highland games one of the main foci of their seasonal activities . . ."
 
The Wikipedia editor changed ''foci'' to ''focus'' commenting in his edit summary that "this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin". Perhaps he should have said "bad English" since there is now an incorrect agreement of number (singular / plural). Also, I was wondering: should I now start deleting all the Latin (and Latin derivative) words from WP? The word ''focus'' is Latin? [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 12:35, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 
==[[:Image:Mtvernonli.jpg]]==
It's a good idea to say in what way you modified the image.  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Thanks ==
 
.. for the help on [[Unertan Syndrome]].  Very much appreciated ;-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 15:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
:Anytime.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:36, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== Camembert ==
 
Thanks for the offer -- I didn't see it until I had muddled my way through.  I must have dropped a </ref> or something somewhere -- this is NOT an intuitive process![[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:25, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks -- I'll study those and see what I can do with them.  I've mostly just been copying other sources and/or recalling my old U. days many centuries ago.  I'm sure, however, that neither CZ or WP will ever be standardized in this matter, no matter how much effort goes into it. Viz, for instance, the arguments about Harvard vs. Vancouver vs. CMS for footnotes.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
==NFPA==
After this edit [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:NFPA_2_0&curid=100020861&diff=100128358&oldid=100128355] the problems still persisit in mozilla, firefox and safari.  I have to run but will be happy to check things from my end later on. Sorry to be the bearer of this frustrating news. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 16:21, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
[[Image:New look.jpg|thumb|400px|Left is from the template page, right is from the [[Scandium ]] page.]]
:The sticky problem has gone away now.  When i scroll all the elements stay put. There is still a ''fitting together'' issue.  You can see what i see on my browser in the figure to the right. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 09:47, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
::Note i just added the mozilla and firefox screenshots.  i have no idea which are the latest versions so i added that info too.  Possibly that could make a difference?  Not that all three browsers show a subtly different version.  Mozilla places the text in the correct place and seem to give the best result.  i don't have netscape or IE. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 10:21, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 
:::I just added the scandium page screen shots.  The mozilla one looks perfect. :)  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 10:29, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 
==Hayford the Wikicomber==
Thanks!  I wish I had his collection of rum, though![[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:35, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 
==Famous tennis players table==
I sure hope so! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 13:35, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
:I'll stop editing now.  I just noticed i undid your davis info move.  There seems to be a lag in the server which may expain that accident. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
 
==Could you check how it looks in your browser?==
 
I have been tinkering with the subpage templates and would be interested, or should I say dread, to hear how it looks on your browser.  Can you have a quick look at the [[Anthropology]] and [[Life]] clusters?  Thanks [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 02:11, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
 
==NFPA Template==
Responding to your request for feedback on the NFPA template, here is how it looks to me. You can see the text in the Blue, Yellow, and White quadrants doesn't line up right. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.6 under Windows XP.
[[Image:NFPA_Template_Firefox_Error.png|thumb|400px]]
 
== Misplaced speedydelete template ==
Re [[Template:Def First Great Awakening]] you apparently have not seen [[CZ:Definitions]] and, for example, [[Biology/Related Articles]].  In the latter, click on one of the [e] links. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:20, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 
:Gah, whoops!  Apologies Larry, et al!--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:21, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== Four Courts image ==
 
Absolutely, and thanks. [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 11:40, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 
:Excellent job - well done! [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 12:12, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 
==NPA in Safari still a problem==
[[Image:NPA latest.jpg|right]]
Firefox looks perfect. I'm afraid it is still not completely fixed in Safari but getting much closer. You did correct the letter displacement but the triangle placement is still not fixed. Half way there. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 20:40, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 
==Approvel==
Thanks [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:32, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== Velera picture ==
 
The modification on [[Eamon de Valera]] picture was good, but now I just discovered that the picture might not be the Irish president since the label on the library page only says it's "E. de Valera", I just asked two involved author/editors to verify it. Thanks! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 14:23, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== Sea Stallion ==
 
Thanks for the help - no idea what was going on there.  I'd tried spaces and underscores both.  Though do note its the Sea S'''t'''allion - the ship has no connection with the Onion Knight that I know of :-)  Oh, and nothing wrong with playing a Blood Elf, except that they're obviously not as cool as Orcs ;-)  Regards, [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 13:58, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
 
==? fixed ?==
So it's Ok on the talk page now? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 13:07, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
:yes, it's fixed on your talk page.  On the bottom one.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:07, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
 
== Timeline work ==
Hi Rob, your timeline work is looking pretty slick.  But, please, check in with Richard Jensen and maybe some other history editors (are there any others active?) and get their crucial input. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:13, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
 
==Weird little bug, needs squashin'==
Any idea why this one on the left shows up as intended:
 
{|align="left" cellpadding="0" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; width:0%; border: 1.5px solid #aaa; margin: 15px 15px 15px 0px;  font-size: 90%;"
|
|<div class="floatleft"><small><small>CLICK PICTURE FOR LARGER IMAGE</SMALL></SMALL>[[Image:Kitchen-clinton-butler-staff.jpg|350px|alt text]]<div style="text-align: right;"><small>[[Image:Cc.logo.circle.svg|13px]]&nbsp;Photo: John Doe</small><BR></div><p class="small">
A butler (second from left) overseeing preparation of a meal in the White House's Family Kitchen during the Bill Clinton administration.</p></div>
|}
 
But when I add the code to templates it appears like:
 
{{Image right}}<small><small>CLICK PICTURE FOR LARGER IMAGE</SMALL></SMALL>[[Image:Kitchen-clinton-butler-staff.jpg|100px|alt text]]<div style="text-align: right;">{{GNU photo by|John Doe}}A butler (second from left) overseeing preparation of a meal in the White House's Family Kitchen during the Bill Clinton administration.{{Image end}}
 
{{clear}}
 
==updates to subpage template==
[[Image:Example tabs.jpg|thumb|500px|<br>Safari on Mac OS X [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:50, 15 September 2007 (CDT)]]
[[Image:Talktabstretched.jpg|thumb|500px|<br>Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Mac OS X [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 12:45, 15 September 2007 (CDT)]]
[[Image:McC.jpg|thumb|500px]]
 
Hi Robert, i just made the edits you suggested. But only to the talk button and the "?" button.  I suspect i will have to make a few more similar edits to perfect the PMAU buttons. I just want to see if this is having the desired effect or not. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:11, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 
:So adding that code make some big changes at my end.  Here is are a couple of screen shots one fron an approved article and the other from an unapproved article.  First, while the button is 25px the space for the buttons cell is significantly bigger.  Strangely in the approved article it is massive compared to the unapproved article. Second, the "?" button seems to be cut off from the bottom. Thirdly the unapproved article is not stretching to fill the 100% width, but rather, is just filling in from the left as needed.  That is an attribute i want for the tabs but not for the table as a whole.  I won't do any more until you have a chance to fiddle some more. Lastly, the talk and "?" buttons are too small, note they do not reach the same height as the other tabs. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:39, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
::I just checked moxilla and that looked the same as firefox. i.e. the talk button looks OK apart from the stretch, but the "?" button has height issues as well as strech issues. Note that with 100% width issue is variable. For both safari and mozilla [[New York City]] does not stretch to 100% whereas other unapproved pages, such as the [[Alipiopsitta_xanthops]] example above, do stretch the full 100% fine. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:54, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
:::I just noticed an approved article ([[Barbara McClintock]]} which has the same problem of not allowing a 100% width on a page. <s>I'm not sure why the width problem is only occuring on some pages.</s>[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 16:00, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
::::The 100% width problem is due to the differences between {{tl|subpages}} and {{tl|subpages9}}.  Those differences can be [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ASubpages9&diff=100165939&oldid=100164782 seen here]. Given that difference I am assuming that the ''display:table'' addition to this part of the code;
::::<code>{|class=noprint width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="background:#ffffff;display:table;"</code>
::::Is interferring with the width parameter, at least. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 16:13, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
:::::try "display:inline;" --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:14, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 13:18, 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)