CZ Talk:Group Editing: Difference between revisions
imported>Tom Kelly mNo edit summary |
imported>Daniel Mietchen (legal aspects) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:copied from link above | :copied from link above | ||
::"I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)" | ::"I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)" | ||
== Good examples? Bad examples? == | |||
Do we have articles that are the result of concerted group editing (as opposed to the usual model where very few people edit before the approval process is initiated)? Did it bring significant improvements, or did it cause friction due to increased talk? I am looking for cases that could suitably be mentioned in the PLoS article as examples for pros and cons of collaborative wiki writing. Thanks! -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 06:51, 26 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
== More "we"== | |||
I've changed the language of the page to remove "you" and put "we" -- to indicate that everybody, and not just "you", goes through these problems of adjusting to group editing. This, in my view, fits in better with the ''we're in this together'' ideal. [[User:Vipul Naik|Vipul Naik]] 17:20, 9 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
==Signed Articles== | |||
The second sentence of this "policy" states that we do not sign articles. Yet we have a whole section devoted to our policy of signed articles, a category for signed articles, templates for signed articles, signed articles for a whole slew of subject areas (see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Signed+Articles&fulltext=Search this search]). Obviously the second sentence is false. In fact, I think this is one of the better ideas of CZ and one that makes us unique. However, I do not think it appropriate to introduce the idea that "we allow signed articles under certain conditions" for this policy page. I took it out. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 02:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Legal aspects of wiki collaboration== | |||
...are discussed in [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1353606 Wikipedia, Collective Authorship, and the Politics of Knowledge] by [http://law.anu.edu.au/scripts/StaffDetails.asp?StaffID=238 Matthew Rimmer]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 9 March 2009
This article is an effort to help allievate the frustration many editors and authors have when "other people start editing "their" article."
- copied from link above
- "I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)"
Good examples? Bad examples?
Do we have articles that are the result of concerted group editing (as opposed to the usual model where very few people edit before the approval process is initiated)? Did it bring significant improvements, or did it cause friction due to increased talk? I am looking for cases that could suitably be mentioned in the PLoS article as examples for pros and cons of collaborative wiki writing. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen 06:51, 26 June 2008 (CDT)
More "we"
I've changed the language of the page to remove "you" and put "we" -- to indicate that everybody, and not just "you", goes through these problems of adjusting to group editing. This, in my view, fits in better with the we're in this together ideal. Vipul Naik 17:20, 9 August 2008 (CDT)
Signed Articles
The second sentence of this "policy" states that we do not sign articles. Yet we have a whole section devoted to our policy of signed articles, a category for signed articles, templates for signed articles, signed articles for a whole slew of subject areas (see this search). Obviously the second sentence is false. In fact, I think this is one of the better ideas of CZ and one that makes us unique. However, I do not think it appropriate to introduce the idea that "we allow signed articles under certain conditions" for this policy page. I took it out. Russell D. Jones 02:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Legal aspects of wiki collaboration
...are discussed in Wikipedia, Collective Authorship, and the Politics of Knowledge by Matthew Rimmer. --Daniel Mietchen 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)