imported>Larry Sanger |
|
| (75 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Procedure for a tie== | | {{Archive box|auto=long}} |
| One thing I've noticed is that there is no clear procedure for what to do in case there are multiple articles with the same number of votes at the designated time. As written it seems that the first article in alphabetical order would be chosen, but that seems a little unfair. My suggestion is that whoever is moving the article to the front page should be allowed to choose among all the articles with the same number of votes. This would get rid of an alphabetical bias, and give the program administrators something more to do. On the other hand would this be giving the administrator too much power? This situation isn't likely to happen too often, but it is worth thinking about. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:53, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> |
|
| |
|
| ==Article of the Week Administrators== | | == Revising score for voting == |
| I noticed the little section at the bottom of the page calling for Administrators for the AotW. Since no one else had signed up and I've been looking for a little way to contribute to CZ in adition to authoring I figured I'd jot my name down.
| |
|
| |
|
| It's still quite unclear what, exactly, an AotW administrator's duties are, except for posting the weekly selection on the front page. Maybe I'll be able to play a role in shaping the program, although it looks like the existing guidelines should work fine for now. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 14:21, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2732.0.html here] in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2. |
|
| |
|
| --
| | The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created. |
|
| |
|
| I'm going to apply to join up for the time being to help it get started - I'll probably hand over the reins come October when College starts and my access to a computer at a certain time cannot be guaranteed :( Only heed my volunteering if it is a more than one man job - I am in a very roundabout way saying 'If no-one else volunteers, pick me!' PS- Carl, sign your posts at the end for clarity purposes :) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:25, 8 August 2007 (CDT) | | Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
| : Whoops! Fixed. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Article of the Week==
| | :Glad to see some wholesome initiative here! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
| Larry, Citizendium, etc al,
| | ::Thank you for the swift change Milton.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| In addition to "holding up an article to the limelight" to show how good it is, can we have basically the opposite? Should we have a "focus article" of the week that we can collaborate on? [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:09, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| | ==Tie== |
| | As there was a tie this week I assume torture will automatically get AOTW next week?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :<s>Why not have both? Wikipedia has a Collaboration of the Week for certain WikiProjects; we could have wiki-wide improvement drives. [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]] 12:48, 25 July 2007 (CDT)</s> Whoops, I mis-read your post. I think it'd be a great idea to have a focus article. (: [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]] 12:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT) | | :It would appear that [[Torture]] will win next week easily now that it has gathered more votes. |
|
| |
|
| Well, that's solving a different problem and therefore there might be a better solution. The problem the Article of the Week solves is putting something attractive on the front page and rewarding people for producing our best work. A "Collaboration of the Week" would evidently be aimed at getting people to, well, work on articles. I agree that encouraging, in various creative ways, people to work on articles is the best way to motivate them, but I don't immediately see why choosing just one article for people to work on will actually do much more than get some of them working on that article. So...? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:00, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| | :As for this current rule: <font color=blue>The remaining winning articles are guaranteed this position in the following weeks, again in alphabetical order. No further voting would take place on these, which remain at the top of the table with notices to that effect. Further nominations and voting take place to determine future winning articles for the following weeks.</font> |
|
| |
|
| :''Red links'' in the front page looks rather odd. Can we ensure that at least the portion of the article of the week that is showcased in the Mainpage does not contain those? [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]] 23:06, 25 July 2007 (CDT) | | :It is simply too cumbersome and too involved. Especially that bit about no further voting on the article that was tied but didn't win. I am thinking of just removing that rule altogether and letting the votes speak for themselves. That would be much simpler and more straightforward. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| They don't bother me so much, because they encourage people to write articles on those subjects. But if you want to remove those links, or if you feel strongly about them, let's remove them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| | == Approval and acclamation == |
|
| |
|
| = Vote =
| | I'd like to propose a change, which may serve us well until the happy day when masses of articles are being approved. |
|
| |
|
| Notice, dear Citizens, the [[Biology]] article featured on the [[Main Page]]. This illustrates the concept of [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.0.html the Article of the Week.] We'd like to find out if there's enough interest in this and also in a Contributors of the Week thingie. Alternatively, consider the [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.msg8481.html#msg8481 <s>Creation of the Week</s> New Article of the Week]. Sign with three tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>) and let us know!
| | When an article, such as [[Led Zeppelin]], is approved, I would like it to become, immediately, the Article of the Week. If there are non-approved articles in the list, their vote becomes deferred for a week. |
|
| |
|
| == Interested in Article of the Week? ==
| | I have some nominees for AOTW, but I am reluctant to nominate them until I see that the triumph of this article, including Meg's content leadership and Joe's organization, is properly honored. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
| | :Yes, this seems reasonable under certain controlled conditions. I don't think it can be the rule that any approved article if nominated has to become AOTW -- or else that will make it too easy to manipulate. By the way, the correct title of non-approved articles is supposed to be Draft of the Week, but this seems to have been lost in the last year. I suppose some clearer formal rules would help. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, voting on articles of the week.
| | :: I was under the impression that "Article/New Draft of the Week" are "sleeping" at the moment. Hardly anyone paid attention. Perhaps it should be "of the Month" until interest increases again? [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
| | == Transclusion doesn't look right on homepage... == |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]]
| |
| # [[User:Michael Underwood|Michael Underwood]]
| |
| # [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]]
| |
| # [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]]
| |
| # [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]]
| |
| # [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]]
| |
| # [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]]
| |
| # [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]]
| |
| # [[User:Andrew Fleisher|Andrew Fleisher]]
| |
| # [[User:Ruth Ifcher|Ruth Ifcher]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]
| |
| # [[User:Thomas Mandel|Thomas Mandel]]
| |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| |
| # [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]]
| |
| # [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]]
| |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| |
| # [[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]]
| |
| # [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Tapril|Stephen Tapril]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Heuer|Greg Heuer]]
| |
| # [[User:Andrew Staroscik|Andrew Staroscik]]
| |
| # [[User:JeromeDelacroix|JeromeDelacroix]]
| |
| #[[User:Ian Johnson|Ian Johnson]]
| |
| #[[User:Steve Mount|Steve Mount]]
| |
| #[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]]
| |
| # [[User:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Interested in Contributors of the Week? ==
| | The current transclusion of the lede of articles into the homepage doesn't look at all right, especially on a small screen. Look at the homepage currently with the transclusion of [[cryptography]]. So utterly broken. Instead of transcluding the lede, why not just transclude the rpl-template? It would look nicer, would be more minimal, wouldn't break the layout so much and it'd be quite clear what is going on. Currently, the homepage is just a total mess because of AotW. |
|
| |
|
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, nominating a Contributor of the Week or a New Contributor of the Week.
| | Indeed, I've suggested this before - that we get rid of AotW and just have a rolling log of current good articles - it'd just have 5 or 10 articles - either approved or developed - that have been through a nomination process broadly like that of the Article of the Week. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
| | |
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
| |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| |
| # [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]
| |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| |
| # [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]]
| |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| |
| # [[User:JeromeDelacroix|JeromeDelacroix]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]]
| |
| # [[user:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| |
| | |
| ==New Article of the Week? ==
| |
| I moved this discussion to [[CZ Talk:New Article of the Week]]. [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:34, 8 August 2007 (CDT) | |
| | |
| = Further comment =
| |
| == Feedback? ==
| |
| | |
| Well, what do you think of the rules here? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:13, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : Everything appears to have worked well to me. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:27, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Its working well - I think this is a good idea, its good to have something like this clearly expressed on the front page. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:10, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Clearing the votes ==
| |
| | |
| I agree with leaving the previous week's nominated, but unselected, articles on the voting template, but perhaps we should remove the votes from them to give people the opportunity to vote for a different article if they choose. I'd do it but don't want to overstep my bounds here. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Well, until there's more interest in the Article of the Week concept, we should probably leave the votes there. Otherwise we might find that there are no votes for any nominees! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:49, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Perhaps we should place a link to the voting page near the current Article of the Week on the mainpage? It could be that a lot of people don't realize this is going on. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 08:06, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Actually, the link is there :-) just click [ "about" ]. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 11:32, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::: I was thinking of something more prominent. I think part of the reason the Write-a-thon was so popular was because there was a big template plastered on the front page. Not that we need something that big, but perhaps a note saying "Vote here by Tuesday for the Article of the Week!" or something similar that will draw attention. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Clarify: ==
| |
| | |
| Can one vote for more than one article of the week? —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 14:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Isn't it clear enough from the "voting" section? [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 15:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::[[User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#Double_voting|I thought so.]] —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 19:43, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::: I see. Interestingly, my double vote has been spoted as "illegal" too (by another Citizendian). So let us make it more explicit. I added a little something but feel free to reword it as you like. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 02:30, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ==Specialist supporters==
| |
| | |
| I'm not sure its fair that an expert gets three votes, mainly because Its unfair to say, have a history expert vote for say, 'The Roman Empire' and get three votes but someone writes an article about 'Gordon Brown' but actually has a better article and loses because no politics expert is there to vote for it. What do you think? [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Well, I fail to see how fairness comes into it, for the simple reason that there is no way to guarantee the slightest bit of fairness here in the first place. A much bigger problem, fairness-wise, than the one you cite is the problem that we do not exhaustively explore all possible candidates. What if someone happens not to notice a better article? That's "unfair," too, and more likely to happen than the situation you describe. But we do know that we want to encourage editors to give us their opinion, and their opinion ''should'' be worth more because they know more about their areas of expertise. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Maybe one way we can ensure that one topic doesn't dominate the Article of the Week is through some kind of rule ensuring rotating subject matter. For example we could require that the article of the week must not belong to any of the same Workgroups as the previous week's article. This would take care of Denis's example above by ensuring that even if the History article wins one week another history article won't be eligible the next, so the Politics article stands a better chance. It would also ensure that Biology articles will make up no more than half of the articles of the week. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 12:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::: I don't really think we need to worry about which articles are "better" here. They are all good articles, hence their approved/near approved status. The way I view it, atleast, is that this is more of a showcase of what we've produced, and the voting process is just a friendly way of deciding which one gets put up each week. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 12:50, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::: I agree there, Todd. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:00, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
Revising score for voting
About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at here in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2.
The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created.
Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. Milton Beychok 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to see some wholesome initiative here! Hayford Peirce 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift change Milton.Drew R. Smith 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Tie
As there was a tie this week I assume torture will automatically get AOTW next week?Drew R. Smith 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would appear that Torture will win next week easily now that it has gathered more votes.
- As for this current rule: The remaining winning articles are guaranteed this position in the following weeks, again in alphabetical order. No further voting would take place on these, which remain at the top of the table with notices to that effect. Further nominations and voting take place to determine future winning articles for the following weeks.
- It is simply too cumbersome and too involved. Especially that bit about no further voting on the article that was tied but didn't win. I am thinking of just removing that rule altogether and letting the votes speak for themselves. That would be much simpler and more straightforward. Milton Beychok 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Approval and acclamation
I'd like to propose a change, which may serve us well until the happy day when masses of articles are being approved.
When an article, such as Led Zeppelin, is approved, I would like it to become, immediately, the Article of the Week. If there are non-approved articles in the list, their vote becomes deferred for a week.
I have some nominees for AOTW, but I am reluctant to nominate them until I see that the triumph of this article, including Meg's content leadership and Joe's organization, is properly honored. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems reasonable under certain controlled conditions. I don't think it can be the rule that any approved article if nominated has to become AOTW -- or else that will make it too easy to manipulate. By the way, the correct title of non-approved articles is supposed to be Draft of the Week, but this seems to have been lost in the last year. I suppose some clearer formal rules would help. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "Article/New Draft of the Week" are "sleeping" at the moment. Hardly anyone paid attention. Perhaps it should be "of the Month" until interest increases again? Peter Schmitt 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Transclusion doesn't look right on homepage...
The current transclusion of the lede of articles into the homepage doesn't look at all right, especially on a small screen. Look at the homepage currently with the transclusion of cryptography. So utterly broken. Instead of transcluding the lede, why not just transclude the rpl-template? It would look nicer, would be more minimal, wouldn't break the layout so much and it'd be quite clear what is going on. Currently, the homepage is just a total mess because of AotW.
Indeed, I've suggested this before - that we get rid of AotW and just have a rolling log of current good articles - it'd just have 5 or 10 articles - either approved or developed - that have been through a nomination process broadly like that of the Article of the Week. --Tom Morris 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
