CZ Talk:Myths and Facts
What is an "overeducated" person?--Paul Wormer 11:46, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- From the OED: Brit. /vrdjketd/, /vrdketd/, U.S. /ovrdkedd/ [< OVER- prefix + EDUCATED adj. Compare later OVER-EDUCATE v.]
- Having been educated to a higher academic level than is necessary or desirable.
- 1788 C. T. SMITH Emmeline I. vi. 99 He was not inclined to marry at all; or if he did, it should not be one of those over-educated puppets. 1836 Fraser's Mag. 13 314 Flaunting, fortuneless, over-educated girls. 1899 W. JAMES Talks to Teachers 257 To be imprisoned or shipwrecked or forced into the army would permanently show the good of life to many an over-educated pessimist. 1935 D. L. SAYERS Gaudy Night xvii. 364 How many women care..about anybody's intellectual integrity? Only over-educated women like us. 2000 Providence (Rhode Island) Jrnl.-Bull. (Nexis) 29 Sept. 7B, [He] railed against providing free education for all the returning G.I.s, claiming we would end up with large numbers of overeducated people for whom there were no commensurate jobs.
- --I had to get some use out of my OED subscription. :-) --Larry Sanger 18:57, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
I really appreciate Dr. Sanger's mention of younger contributers & "some active high school students who have done good work". : ) (Chunbum Park 17:35, 17 June 2008 (CDT))
Re reject, hate, and dislike
It doesn't make sense to say "they reject the idea that we ask people to take real-world responsibility for their contributions and that we make a special role for experts." They can't reject those ideas, because those ideas are also facts over which they have no control. They can't control the fact that we do make a special role for experts, but they can hate or dislike it. --Larry Sanger 09:57, 18 June 2008 (CDT)
- Well, they reject them interiorally (if that's a word), and either refuse to join the project because of that rejection, or they criticize the project because of that rejection. It makes perfect sense to me.... Hayford Peirce 11:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)
Some inspiration for myth debunking
Can be found in the TEDtalks of Hans Rosling, e.g. Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen. -- Daniel Mietchen 03:40, 20 June 2008 (CDT)
- And some new targets may be found in a blog post suggesting the creation of a Wikipendium instead of Wikipedia and Citizendium. -- Daniel Mietchen 06:21, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
Conflating politics and epistemology
In the last paragraph, there are links to the Edge essays, using the language of both - radical egalitarians and closet anarchists. I think that this should probably be rephrased. Both are referring to an epistemic egalitarianism or anarchism, but could easily be misread to say that Web 2.0 advocates are politically anarchists or radical egalitarians. I'd say I'm pretty radically egalitarian when it comes to rights, and have mentally flirted with anarchism in the past - but that never made me think that a fourteen-year-old high school kid was, by default, equal in knowledge to an expert. The "online temples" bit is also a bit over-the-top, and sounds like it could quite easily be in an Andrew Keen rant. --Tom Morris 18:15, 6 October 2008 (CDT)
"commented out some strong phrasing that may not be helpful in making the case of this very page"
I'll bite...how is the commented-out phrasing "strong," and how does it undermine the page's case? I'm afraid I don't see it. --Larry Sanger 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- This page is meant to correct some misunderstandings about CZ. Correcting misunderstandings, particularly in type-written communication that circumvents many of our evolved emotional signals, requires exceptionally clear, unambiguous and polite phrasing (CZ:Neutrality Policy reflects this by stating "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, fairness demands we present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone."). In my eyes, labels like "closet anarchists", "radical egalitarians" and "strawmen" do not meet this goal, and so I commented them out. I also think the "temples" phrase should have to go but didn't find a good way to comment it out. --Daniel Mietchen 08:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Exact count of pseudonyms
" We have given out roughly 10 pseudonyms." Since there are so few, why can't they be counted? Questioningly, George Garrigues 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why even bring it up? Russell D. Jones 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As to privacy, biographies are not indexed by Google (or any other search engine that respects the "noindex" tag).
This is misleading, since the forums are indexed by Google and other search engines, they do come up as the first result for some people's names, and they do have links to our bios.
Personally I don't mind the bit about links to our bios so much, I just don't want the forums showing up on Google at all.
Caesar Schinas 07:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
some minor formatting bug
At the bottom of the first section, Myth-we're experts only, there's a
that shows up in the lower left margin. But I can't edit it out.... Hayford Peirce 22:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- gone... but not forgotten.
Have we decided to drop it: Citizendium, not the Citizendium? Ro Thorpe 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere, there should be a section, "this is another fine myth you've gotten us into, Stan!" Howard C. Berkowitz 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)