User talk:Matt Lewis

Welcome!

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 CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Dan Nachbar 14:36, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Wikipedia

CZ isn't big on categories, but it would probably be fun to start a Category:Ex-Wikipedians! J. Noel Chiappa 13:26, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

Trouble is I'm still editing there, like yourself I see! It would have to be Category:Semi-retired Wikipedians. --Matt Lewis 16:30, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

I only occasionally dabble a teensy bit there. I've pretty much switched full-time to here. I think Wikipedia's fundamentally broken, and unlikely to reform (although it might, if given competition). J. Noel Chiappa 21:56, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now having had a little CZ experience. I can suddenly see a few things about Wikipedia that work well (and the overall standard is not as bad as I sometimes say it is). I do agree it is clearly corrupted - have you seen the Chapters? Where are they going I wonder? (apart from to Israel, with an already apparent bias I notice when reading through it last year). These projects have to somehow stand above politics and areas so easily exploited (like any kind of quango - or 'removed' body).

Interesting what you say about competition - I've been wondering if CZ'z best chance of long-term 'survival' is by somehow changing (and merging into) Wikipedia. But then again, it would have to get pretty big to do that - so maybe the two can co-exist (a good thing for all in my opinion, provided Wikipedia gets to grips with its faults). There is a CZ-styled Wikipeida 'offshoot' called Veropedia that gives me the creeps (I'd rather Wikipedia was fully organic and CZ dual-format). I do think that CZ should get to grips with its editor problem, or consider returning some of its AA's for general editing. I think you have to have a proper infrastructure before you do things like AA's. They need to be as strong as Wikipedia's FAs, and although FA's aren't always that great, the AA's I've read just aren't as strong. Reading through them I find many of them lack 'strong encyclopedic' prose - I think it's about more than just accuracy. --Matt Lewis 12:37, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Maybe your expectations of CZ are influenced by your experience at wikipedia? Is there any reason why an approved article has to be a finished product? Why not just a first step that is accurate but not necessarily complete? Further approvals will rachet up the quality towards a featured article status. Also, considering the infancy and the limited number of participants, thing will inevitably move more slowly at citizendium.

It is very easy to look at the quality and quantity and wonder if wikipedia is the better choice. But consider what you are doing here compared to wikipedia. No vandalism to go through on a watch list. No extended, over years?, arguments on any given article. The potential for a stable version if you can get it up to the first approval version. Which is a better use of you valuable time? For me the current choice is clear. Chris Day 12:53, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

I suppose I did think of AA's as (relatively and flexibly) 'finished products'. I'll re-think it. --Matt Lewis 09:21, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

I didn't catch what you were referring to with the I didn't expect this - but I'm in two minds now? Can you expand?

As to AA quality - yeah, we've got issues. As much to do with unsettled debates as to who to write for, as much as anything, I think. Also do realize that this is miniscule project (in terms of people) compared to WP. Not everyone is a brilliant expositor of material in his field.

Rome wasn't built in a day. We'll get there... J. Noel Chiappa 01:47, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

RE being in "two minds": I partly meant which current article to develop - the CZ or the WP one I've been working on (rather than jumping in and editing, I keep weighing it up). To a lesser degree I suppose I meant which encyclopedia to stick with, as I'm finding it harder to weigh them up against each other now - partly as I had expected CZ to win out on top-level quality (which was perhaps naive of me). I knew I'll always find WP too important for me to ignore a personal handful of articles that need attention. I'm currently dipping in-between the two, which isn't the most productive way - but that's life I suppose. Hopefully this will just be for what I consider the important articles on Wikipedia (in the serious sense)- I still think my new stuff should be here, and that it's important for CZ to be developed. --Matt Lewis 09:21, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

False dichotomy? We are allowed to edit both ;) Chris Day 10:40, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Wales

Please see discussion on the article Wales. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:33, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Blank lines

Well, I like 'em; makes it easier to come along and drop a comment in, I find! J. Noel Chiappa 11:59, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Resigning

I'm resigning and sticking with WP. I've looked around over a few days, and this place isn't for me. The overall problem is it's too niche. Too many contributors lack the sensitivity and awareness of the general reader, or the desire to write the boring stuff in article - in fact, I'm not sure there is even any "general reader" ethos on CZ at all! Perspective is what is needed. For a 'highbrow' institution, it's simply not good enough either (even with all the considerations of its youth and resources etc taken into account) - better editors are on WP, where there is a much stronger sense of the many elements that constitute a strong encyclopedic article - maybe all the 'WP:' actually works? Sorry to be harsh! Best of luck anyway to anyone reading. --Matt Lewis 09:58, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

With respect to: "I'm not sure there is even any "general reader" ethos on CZ at all! ", only yesterday there was a lot of discussion on this topic at Quantum mechanics and in the forums. I'd suggest yhou can edit both, depending on your mood. There is no race here. I believe they will end up being fundamentally different and compatible products. Chris Day 10:43, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Goodbye Matt, I did enjoy your contributions and hope that you consider returning at some point. Certainly there is lots of room for improvement and input from users such as yourself is valuable in order to advance the project in the direction that you suggest. I did have to change your user page since you did make some valuable contributions and other users might need to see who you are. Once enough time has passed, I will then delete the account. In the meantime, do feel free to stop in and help out wherever you feel you can make a difference. Good luck in all of your future endeavors. --D. Matt Innis 11:44, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

Matt, we are sad to see go. But be asured that the topics of audience level and readability are actively being discussed and your comments will certainly be read by the new and previous Editorial Council members for consideration.

Our finished products will have discussions aimed at several audiences, depending on the topic. Thus quantum mechanics wil have an entry level description and a very advanced section. In fact, it has just been rearranged so that the main page has now become the advanced section, because it was too complicated for the general reader. At present, many or most articles are being written by experts in their respective fields, so initially the product may be very complicated, but with time, and the participation of non-experts, the readability factor will go way up. Your comments make we wonder if all articles should be approved not only by editors in the field, but by several authors with absolutely no knowledge in the field. Such authors would be tasked with pointing out the less than optimally explained areas.

Your comments will be heard

Regarding WP, I too tried both WP and CZ for awhile. For me, the final straw occurred when after several attempts to fix inaccuracies in an article (Protein NMR I think). I fixed the errors at least twice, and both times a non-expert reverted my corrections back to incorrect statements, despite my explainations and citations to what the truth was. Because I actually am an expert and run the very experiments I was trying to fix the corrections for, I found this quite intolerable. At CZ, we discuss things and come to a consensus, and even the non-expert can convince the experts they are wrong using citations.

In terms of cliches, you may have the wrong impression from your time here. Some people do know it other quite well due to their frequent writing. But be assured, those same people also have pointed, but civil disagreements, which are typically handled in a professional and polite manner, with few exceptions. I do hope you reconsider coming back to join us, and we certainly do appreciate your contributions to the project to date. Thanks for contributing to the online community, both here and at WP. David E. Volk 13:03, 7 April 2008 (CDT)