CZ Talk:We aren't Wikipedia

Shortcut: CZ:WAW. For allowable usage of shortcuts, see Don't spill the alphabet soup!

Larry, do you think that number four might be regarded as a challenge? I'd say ignore them. Chris Day (Talk) 23:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Of course we won't be able to say this forever. When we have our first vandalism outside of that self-registration period, we can change this to read, "We have had virtually no vandalism." Vandalism isn't much of a challenge, first of all; and it's not a challenge for us to shut down. But it's really important that we include this in a list of differences--it's one of the biggest (and most positive) differences between the projects. --Larry Sanger 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Certainly from the perspective of a serious editor, low levels of vandalism is a huge attraction to edit here rather than wikipedia. In my mind that, along with the protected, approved pages, are the two most important distinctions. Chris Day (Talk) 00:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Hey Steve, I noticed that you made several formatting changes, which I reverted. So I thought I should explain why. The headings seemed redundant. The document itself is short, and does not need headings that repeat headings that are in bold. We could simply put == around the now-bold headings, such as "How is the Citizendium similar to Wikipedia?" But this would have the body of the text, such as "In quite a few ways," responding to the heading, which seems like poor style. Theoretically, an article should make sense without having to read a heading title (surrounded by ==).

The introductory lines you added were also redundant with the evident structure of the page, and so unnecessary; give the reader a little credit for being able to figure it out. "Wikipedia style" has a very annoying tendency to spell out absolutely everything in its help pages, even when it becomes more tiresome and confusing to have the exhaustive explanation. Let's not do that.

In long bulleted lists, putting spaces between items increases readability, so I would agree to that, except that the text is also structured by the bold headings after the numbers. So it's easy to keep your place as you read.

You also had de-spirited some of my punchier formulations, which I have reverted. :-) I appreciated the other clean-ups though. --Larry Sanger 09:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

My goal in creating the headers was to be able to link to them, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Wiki software sometimes does not create a menu. Stephen Ewen 12:59, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Citizendium: My Opinion

I want to say this because I felt like I should. I was introduced to Wikipedia when I was searching for information and noticed how their could be errors and you don't know who wrote them.

I don't believe Citizendium will get a mass of people like Wikipedia as fast is because of the stringent guidelines, BUT Citizendium will have more quality authors and editors. In this case, it's quality over Quantitiy. Who cares if you got 30,000 members when the 3,000 here write better?

Jonathan Snyder 19:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

I think many of us could be quite surprised at just how many people will be interested in working here. Personally, I think that, once we really get rolling, we could have more people wanting to work with us than on Wikipedia. I say this only because I think our system will be more productive of high-quality content, and it will be a more pleasant place to do work. --Larry Sanger 14:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)