CZ Talk:New Workgroup Requests: Difference between revisions
imported>Stephen Ewen (This might be good for a CZ-l post.) |
imported>Stephen Ewen (→Make them prolific: new section) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:This might be good for a CZ-l post. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 12:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT) | :This might be good for a CZ-l post. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 12:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
==New workgroups or subgroups?== | |||
What is our goal here, to subdivide the workgroups, to add new workgroups or both? For the subgroups concept, do we have a plan in place yet? The reason I mention this is that the Music workgroup seems to be going along the route of splitting into subroups (see discussion on the [[CZ_Talk:Music_Workgroup]]) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 10:58, 7 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Maybe both. We haven't gotten around to deciding even that. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Suggested schema == | |||
I've made a suggested workgroup schema, listed here: [[CZ:New Workgroup Requests/Sweeney]]. Comments and suggestions welcome. Note my thoughts on possibly using the same schema as an existing directory project, such as DMOZ. [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 06:34, 18 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
== one possible way forward == | |||
Large universities have tons of departments. See [http://www.ox.ac.uk/divisions/department_az.html Oxford], for example. Someday, perhaps, we will have enough people involved in CZ to justify having just as many workgroups and subworkgroups. For now, I suggest we take a cue from a few small colleges in revamping our workgroup scheme. Most of the departments that such institutions have would be appropriate workgroups, I think. See my [http://www.carleton.edu/curricular/ alma mater], for example. We clearly don't need workgroups for every language or subfield of another discipline, but a comparison across many such colleges might give us a good idea for how to proceed. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 22:53, 11 January 2008 (CST) | |||
== Make them prolific == | |||
Been thinking about this...for practical reasons, we probably want MANY, MANY subworkgroups. Why? Well, let's say someone is wanting their article on [[Haitian art]] approved. They WILL NOT want to wade through everyone in several macro workgroups. Best is to be liberal with the amount of sub categories, as liberal as are expertises. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:03, 12 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:03, 12 January 2008
All, here is something you can feel free to do.
In the next month or two, we (I or someone else, doesn't matter) will be wanting to make a new resolution that gives an expanded (and perhaps only very slightly revised) set of workgroups. What is needed more than a list of individual possibilities is a single coherent list of all workgroups, including the old ones.
If you like, feel free to develop such lists as subpages of CZ:New Workgroup Requests. For example, I might (but probably will not anytime soon) make my list under CZ:New Workgroup Requests/Sanger. Then you can invite others to help you with your list. Others, who have a different vision, can start their own lists.
Please feel free to dive in. This is a task I need help with. --Larry Sanger 11:58, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- This might be good for a CZ-l post. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
New workgroups or subgroups?
What is our goal here, to subdivide the workgroups, to add new workgroups or both? For the subgroups concept, do we have a plan in place yet? The reason I mention this is that the Music workgroup seems to be going along the route of splitting into subroups (see discussion on the CZ_Talk:Music_Workgroup) Chris Day (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Maybe both. We haven't gotten around to deciding even that. --Larry Sanger 10:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Suggested schema
I've made a suggested workgroup schema, listed here: CZ:New Workgroup Requests/Sweeney. Comments and suggestions welcome. Note my thoughts on possibly using the same schema as an existing directory project, such as DMOZ. Anton Sweeney 06:34, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
one possible way forward
Large universities have tons of departments. See Oxford, for example. Someday, perhaps, we will have enough people involved in CZ to justify having just as many workgroups and subworkgroups. For now, I suggest we take a cue from a few small colleges in revamping our workgroup scheme. Most of the departments that such institutions have would be appropriate workgroups, I think. See my alma mater, for example. We clearly don't need workgroups for every language or subfield of another discipline, but a comparison across many such colleges might give us a good idea for how to proceed. --Joe Quick 22:53, 11 January 2008 (CST)
Make them prolific
Been thinking about this...for practical reasons, we probably want MANY, MANY subworkgroups. Why? Well, let's say someone is wanting their article on Haitian art approved. They WILL NOT want to wade through everyone in several macro workgroups. Best is to be liberal with the amount of sub categories, as liberal as are expertises. Stephen Ewen 03:03, 12 January 2008 (CST)