User talk:Sage Ross

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! -- ZachPruckowski 21:24, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Hi Sage

I checked out Citizendium after seeing your proposal for an article on it at the Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. At the moment CZ seems a very empty place, but Logicus has about convinced me that Wikipedia is a fatally flawed concept. Steve McCluskey 22:51, 29 January 2007 (CST)

welcome

Thanks for popping in. Hopefully your expertise can be attracted here to guide some of the history of science projects. There is no reason why you cannot contribute to both. As Samsara points out there is no way biology would get a wikipedia GA. The difference is we are trying to produce a stable and user friendly articles and maintain the flexability as much as possible. Cleary there is room for improvement and I had suggested that Samsara come and join the project here since I thought he might be able to make a difference. Unfortunaltely, Pschemp and he appear to be very cynical of this formatt. A shame, since it is different and has a lot of potential. Not to mention it is a fallacy to think one has to be affiliated with one or the other. Congrats on your adminship and good job rocking the boat. Chris Day (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

I hope Citizendium succeeds (and really hope, for the sake of both projects, that cooperation is facilitated by adopting a compatible license), but as it is, the community of editors is much stronger at Wikipedia for the things I'm interested in. For people like me raised on the internets, who don't get too stressed from having to deal with the occasional cantankerous anon or misinformed but interested (a nice way to say "meddling") user, Wikipedia offers much more potential for fruitful interaction. As I see it, my job (as an educator and world-changer) is not done until an article is stable despite being editable by anyone. But there are many academics who would never join the rabble at Wikipedia (or would leave after a bad experience or two), but might contribute happily in the Citizendium atmosphere; the more knowledgeable people we can get to put the fruits of their efforts into the world of free culture, the better. I also have to agree with Samsara that I'm uncomfortable with the colloquial CZ house style, but it would be interesting to find out what portion of John Q Readers prefer each style.--Sage Ross 18:36, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Certainly all experiments are worth exploring to their full potential. And nothing is set in stone. I have to say my main peeve with wikipedia is the continual reversion of petty edits. Just check the histories of cloning or photosynthesis, not to mention evolution. It wears you down eventually to have to revert the watch list first. May be the history of Science articles are slightly more stable? Either way we should collaborate and break down the us vs them mentality. That is a very frutiless path to take and illogical given that the editors in wikipeda and here have common goals. Chris Day (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (CDT)