Category talk:Healing Arts Editors

Hey guys,

Christo just made an interesting statement of the Jesus talk page and Gareth clarified it some moreconcerning the lead in our articles. For me this seems like what could be a major differentiating feature between WP articles and CZ articles. WP requirements that the lead become an "abstract" "definition" of what is to follow is probably one of the most destructive elements of the writing process. It breaks the flow of an article and more often than not, sets an antagonistic tone for the rest of the article. I would venture to say that this method is not an efficient method for introducing a reader to a subject.

Anyway, considering the controversy that can erupt in healing arts articles, I wanted to see how everyone feels about turning some variation of "the lead is not an abstract" idea into a format that we use on our articles. Matt Innis (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Let me answer this on Talk:Jesus. --Larry Sanger 13:09, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I agree that the lead is not an abstract. It's the introduction and that's not the same. Further, I'd say that the article is not a list-but a narrative essay. I think we have to put our style consensus somewhere pretty quick, or we will be doomed to fight the recurrent battle of edits-people experienced at Wikipedia coming in and "correcting" everything, and then a whole re-establishment of convention. Without some guidelines, they -and people who are totally naive on a wiki, are left adrift.Nancy Sculerati MD 13:16, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Agree, and it isn't that it is their fault. We are all creatures of habit. I do think we can do this without alienating past WP editors. In fact, I would venture to say that most would be relieved by this type action because I am sure they feel the same way, just some on a less conscious level. -Matt Innis (Talk) 13:20, 26 February 2007 (CST)

One of the niceties of WP is that there are extensive "manifesto" type pages, describing in some detail the goals and philosophy of the project. It makes disagreements less arbitrary, so that instead of arguing "I think we should make the page x, and you think the page should be y," the argument is "You are not adhering to WP:NPOV, I am making changes to your edit." It's a better place to be arguing, IMHO, less prone to ad-hominem attacks.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I think it's a lot more advantageous to have a body of people interpreting a stated, documented philosophy than it is having ten or fifteen people pointing fingers at each other making insinuations. Larry, the CZ manifesto is brilliant, but seems like the philosophy of CZ is still evolving. I think it needs a little more meat on the bone.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Here's a modest proposal: we should import the WP manifestos and edit them to our liking.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

By the way, I think the lead should avoid making unsubstantiated statements, but that it should attempt to summarize in a narrative fashion the concepts presented in the body of the article. Some of the topics are really broad--what should the lead paragraph about anemia say? The concept of a lead probably is more apropos of some topics than others.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Here's another novel idea--I have taken the liberty of creating a CZ:Lead page so we can house all this erudite discussion in its own home, instead of looking for it on the Jesus page...--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

These last remarks have no connection what so ever with healing arts, would you mind moving them to the appropriate pages? They will be deleted in 2 days. Robert Tito | Talk 18:07, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Why 2 days? Also, I took the liberty of creating Citizendium_Pilot:Lead paragraph. Check it out.--Michael Benjamin 01:11, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Michael, thanks, I do appreciate your comments. I do understand your WP addiction, as I was there at one point as well. It's a hard one to crack. Do feel free to bring your experience with you, but I would encourage you to take the next step and study the difference between NPOV and Larry's neutral policy. The Jesus page is probably as good a start as any. If you can't find it there, you can't find it anywhere:) Matt Innis (Talk) 21:07, 27 February 2007 (CST)

You are kind. You'll see that I'm not so much addicted to wikipedia so much as I am amazed by its success (and perplexed by its failures). Perhaps there are some advantages to the WP way, and some to the CZ way. I think keeping the baby but not the bathwater is prudent. I will read the Jesus page, but maybe the "Larry's neutral policy" deserves its own dedicated page?--Michael Benjamin 01:11, 28 February 2007 (CST)

I read the Sanger point of view discussion referenced from the Jesus page. It's hosted on Wikimedia, for one thing. Also, it doesn't really address his vision for the Citizendium project, only Wikipedia. As I've said here and other places, and as others have said here, I think there needs to be a clear vision of what the goals are for the CZ project specifically. In fact, that probably should come before people write a lot of stuff, since otherwise they might be wasting their time on the wrong thing.--Michael Benjamin 01:24, 28 February 2007 (CST)