Category talk:Health Sciences Editors: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
imported>Stefano Bartoletti
(avoid repetition)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 62: Line 62:


Several of the above comments strike me as rather disrespectful, and the purpose of this sort of list is unclear--at best.  The compiler states that the data is "worrying" and "needs discussion."  I disagree; they are par for the course, being representative of the sort of participation that is ordinarily seen in online communities.  I would suggest that someone post them on cz-healthsci (excluding the last section which is outdated now), and remove them from this page.  I don't believe that any contributor should take it upon himself to report on the contribution habits of other users, except perhaps in summary fashion.  ''That'' would be fine, although again, the data are indeed par for the course. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:09, 14 October 2007 (CDT)
Several of the above comments strike me as rather disrespectful, and the purpose of this sort of list is unclear--at best.  The compiler states that the data is "worrying" and "needs discussion."  I disagree; they are par for the course, being representative of the sort of participation that is ordinarily seen in online communities.  I would suggest that someone post them on cz-healthsci (excluding the last section which is outdated now), and remove them from this page.  I don't believe that any contributor should take it upon himself to report on the contribution habits of other users, except perhaps in summary fashion.  ''That'' would be fine, although again, the data are indeed par for the course. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:09, 14 October 2007 (CDT)
:My purpose was ''clearly'' stated above: to request that "since they do not meet the current criteria for a valid registration", the users listed immediately above should at least "be downgraded from editorship to authorship", if not deleted entirely. What I find worrying is that on one hand CZ declares a transparent approach and requires you to state who you are, while on the other it allows users to be not just authors but ''editors'' in a given field without even declaring what their qualifications in that field are. I value CZ's characteristic transparency, and I consider this particular phenomenon to be at odds with it. But I do realise ''I'' may have gotten the wrong idea here; if being an editor in a field despite not having declared any competence in it is considered acceptable, I will readily admit that I simply had the wrong impression about how CZ differs from other encyclopaedia projects. No big deal.  --[[User:Stefano Bartoletti|Stefano Bartoletti]] 09:44, 7 November 2007 (CST)

Latest revision as of 09:46, 7 November 2007

Responsible editor for Human Anatomy

Hello all, is there among you an editor who is responsible for the topic Human anatomy? Please pay attention to that page. Or the editor that wants to take responsibility there. Thanks for answering to this call. Robert Tito | Talk 18:40, 17 February 2007 (CST)

A serious check on editors

Hello people. Since I needed the advise of a Health Sciences editor, I went looking for one with a certain type of expertise by browsing their User pages. And I realised something. So I have taken the liberty to run a check on the editors listed on the Category:Health Sciences Editors page, and there is some worrying data that I think deserves to be discussed. In simple terms: we currently have only seven Health Sciences editors. The rest are either inactive, or... not editors at all. --Stefano Bartoletti 11:50, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Currently active Health Sciences Editors

These people deserve a mention of honour because they contribute actively to CZ (some significantly, some marginally), so I'll list them first:

Currently inactive Health Sciences Editors

These people have been active in the past, but are no longer contributing to CZ. Let's hope they come back sooner or later.

Not really editors

These people may have the credentials to be editors, but they are seemingly content with having registered, since they have never been active on CZ (not a single edit). They apparently like to have their credentials displayed for all to see on CZ, but only for the purpose of having a "vanity page", apparently. Let's hope some of them eventually find the time to contribute.

Anonymous editors

These people not only have never contributed to CZ (not a single edit), but they have apparently never stated their credential or written a bio (empty user page). Since this is a blatant violation of the founding principles of CZ, as someone who subscribes to them, I would demand that they at the very least be downgraded from editorship to authorship. I understand these are old registrations, but since they do not meet the current criteria for a valid registration (i.e. they wouldn't be even allowed to register now), their accounts may just as well be erased. We wouldn't be losing anything, after all, since they've never contributed a single word.

Several of the above comments strike me as rather disrespectful, and the purpose of this sort of list is unclear--at best. The compiler states that the data is "worrying" and "needs discussion." I disagree; they are par for the course, being representative of the sort of participation that is ordinarily seen in online communities. I would suggest that someone post them on cz-healthsci (excluding the last section which is outdated now), and remove them from this page. I don't believe that any contributor should take it upon himself to report on the contribution habits of other users, except perhaps in summary fashion. That would be fine, although again, the data are indeed par for the course. --Larry Sanger 22:09, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

My purpose was clearly stated above: to request that "since they do not meet the current criteria for a valid registration", the users listed immediately above should at least "be downgraded from editorship to authorship", if not deleted entirely. What I find worrying is that on one hand CZ declares a transparent approach and requires you to state who you are, while on the other it allows users to be not just authors but editors in a given field without even declaring what their qualifications in that field are. I value CZ's characteristic transparency, and I consider this particular phenomenon to be at odds with it. But I do realise I may have gotten the wrong idea here; if being an editor in a field despite not having declared any competence in it is considered acceptable, I will readily admit that I simply had the wrong impression about how CZ differs from other encyclopaedia projects. No big deal. --Stefano Bartoletti 09:44, 7 November 2007 (CST)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category_talk:Health_Sciences_Editors&oldid=18850"