User talk:Ben Alpers: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==History approval== | ==History approval== | ||
Ben, here's some information that may help you. First off all: the approval standards [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Standards] | Ben, here's some information that may help you. | ||
These are open to interpretation and, as editor, you of course must feel satisfied that the article meets the standards for approval. However, no article is ever fully there- there's always something that can be improved and please know that when an article is nominated for approval, then it can have a week or more (just never less than 24 hours) of copyediting and discussion before it is frozen for approval. Even after it is frozen, the nominating editor (perhaps you) can indicate copyedits to the approvals management editor (presently, me). These are typos and the sort of thing that you can change in a proof of a print article for publication, not changes of content. But- even after that, a non-frozen of the article is available for editing. Anyway take a look at:[[Pittsburgh, History to 1800]] and [[Pittsburgh, History since 1800]]. These are our only approved history articles so far. Our very first approved article was [[Biology]], which has already gone through a couple of updated editions in approvals. At the risk of answering your e-mailed question too thoroughly, I am copying an answer I gave to a mathematics editor concerning a recently approved math article, [[Complex number]]:Greg, the truth is that it's up to you (and Jitse) as Editor(s). I do think that your concerns are exactly correct and that the crux here has to do with the "nature or purpose of an encyclopedia article". At what point does this article qualify as meeting those guidelines? That's your call. The Approved version is just a stable version that is true and accurate, and a "good-enough" encyclopedia article. That phrase "good-enough" is borrowed from the parenting literature, Pediatricians use it reassure good mothers and fathers that they don't have to be perfect or better to raise their children, they do have to be... Once approval is made, more work continues on the draft - so it's not like a print edition decision, there s more leeway.Obviously, though, you want to be proud of the article. I'd say the best way to get an idea of where we are in the process is to go to the Main page and click through the Approved Articles. They are all on different levels, some are more complete than others, the writing in some is better than in others, but all are decent. As the Approvals Management Editor, and as somebody who worked on most of the approved articles as an author, I'd say that we continue to argue among ourselves over both those aspects of the approvals decision and nobody can really settle it for you. Here are some pragmatic questions: Is the subject covered so that the reader knows - by the end of the article -what the title of the article means? Can the reader learn from the article without having to already know what the article covers? Is the article a narrative that can be followed from start to finish? Can you as Editor feel confident that it is not plagerized and that references are appropriate? Is it nicely illustrated? Are spelling and grammar correct? Are there typos in the math? There will be an opportunity after Approval to fix minor errors- copyedit by contacting me - but the article should be in good shape by approval. When the article is nominated for approval, the editor can choose between 48 hours and 1 week between the time the approval nomination template goes up and approval will occur. During that time others will be invited to look. Other Mathematics Editors could remove the template if they think the article is really problematic, you yourself might if problems of an unsuspected magnitude or a large number of small problems are pointed out such that the article isn't smooth by the approval date. Hope this long winded comment helps. By the way- the reason that there is the new "copyedit through the Approvals Editor" rule is that, often, as Approval nears the article gets swarmed by editors/authors trying to get it better. This often results in big improvement, but leaves a rough edge. You probably have to experience it to understand what I mean, once you get a couple of articles approved, you'll see- that is, if Mathematicians are anything like Biologists. We know you are better, of course - we just don't know how much. The end of the approval process for us has always been asymptotic. :) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:32, 17 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
*First off all: the approval standards [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Standards] | |||
These are open to interpretation and, as editor, you of course must feel satisfied that the article meets the standards for approval. However, no article is ever fully there- there's always something that can be improved and please know that when an article is nominated for approval, then it can have a week or more (just never less than 24 hours) of copyediting and discussion before it is frozen for approval. Even after it is frozen, the nominating editor (perhaps you) can indicate copyedits to the approvals management editor (presently, me). These are typos and the sort of thing that you can change in a proof of a print article for publication, not changes of content. But- even after that, a non-frozen of the article is available for editing. | |||
*Anyway take a look at:[[Pittsburgh, History to 1800]] and [[Pittsburgh, History since 1800]]. These are our only approved history articles so far. | |||
*Our very first approved article was [[Biology]], which has already gone through a couple of updated editions in approvals. | |||
*At the risk of answering your e-mailed question too thoroughly, I am copying an answer I gave to a mathematics editor concerning a recently approved math article, [[Complex number]]:Greg, the truth is that it's up to you (and Jitse) as Editor(s). I do think that your concerns are exactly correct and that the crux here has to do with the "nature or purpose of an encyclopedia article". At what point does this article qualify as meeting those guidelines? That's your call. The Approved version is just a stable version that is true and accurate, and a "good-enough" encyclopedia article. That phrase "good-enough" is borrowed from the parenting literature, Pediatricians use it reassure good mothers and fathers that they don't have to be perfect or better to raise their children, they do have to be... Once approval is made, more work continues on the draft - so it's not like a print edition decision, there s more leeway.Obviously, though, you want to be proud of the article. I'd say the best way to get an idea of where we are in the process is to go to the Main page and click through the Approved Articles. They are all on different levels, some are more complete than others, the writing in some is better than in others, but all are decent. As the Approvals Management Editor, and as somebody who worked on most of the approved articles as an author, I'd say that we continue to argue among ourselves over both those aspects of the approvals decision and nobody can really settle it for you. Here are some pragmatic questions: Is the subject covered so that the reader knows - by the end of the article -what the title of the article means? Can the reader learn from the article without having to already know what the article covers? Is the article a narrative that can be followed from start to finish? Can you as Editor feel confident that it is not plagerized and that references are appropriate? Is it nicely illustrated? Are spelling and grammar correct? Are there typos in the math? There will be an opportunity after Approval to fix minor errors- copyedit by contacting me - but the article should be in good shape by approval. When the article is nominated for approval, the editor can choose between 48 hours and 1 week between the time the approval nomination template goes up and approval will occur. During that time others will be invited to look. Other Mathematics Editors could remove the template if they think the article is really problematic, you yourself might if problems of an unsuspected magnitude or a large number of small problems are pointed out such that the article isn't smooth by the approval date. Hope this long winded comment helps. By the way- the reason that there is the new "copyedit through the Approvals Editor" rule is that, often, as Approval nears the article gets swarmed by editors/authors trying to get it better. This often results in big improvement, but leaves a rough edge. You probably have to experience it to understand what I mean, once you get a couple of articles approved, you'll see- that is, if Mathematicians are anything like Biologists. We know you are better, of course - we just don't know how much. The end of the approval process for us has always been asymptotic. :) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:32, 17 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:36, 17 May 2007
Welcome!
| Citizendium Getting Started | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians | |||
Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! See CZ:Discipline Workgroups to add yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- David Tribe 00:58, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
A few words about workgroups
We are indeed happy to have you in the community. We would also like to introduce you to Citizendium's Workgroups and encourage you to--
- Join a workgroup if you haven't already
- Help us add workgroup category tags to articles, especially any articles you create
- Help us spread the word about workgroups within the CZ community
What are workgroups? To answer that question, I'd like to give you a quick tour.
- Start by checking the various workgroups we have at CZ: List of Workgroups. This link can also be found in the left navigation-bar in the 2nd box (Project Pages), 3rd link in that box (Workgroups). The Workgroup Home(s) can be found in the 2nd column in the List of Workgroups.
- For the purposes of this tour, please take a look at the Biology Workgroup Home: CZ:Biology_Workgroup.
- Now let's take a look at the first table on the Biology Workgroup Home (below).
Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata. |
 | |||||||
| Biology article | All articles (1,622) | To Approve (0) | Editors: active (1) / inactive (46) and Authors: active (441) / inactive (0) |
Workgroup Discussion | |||
| Recent changes | Citable Articles (25) | ||||||
| Subgroups (12.5) | |||||||
Checklist-generated categories:
Subpage categories:
|
Missing subpage categories:
Article statuses:
| ||||||||
- In the 2nd column, find the link that says, "all articles," which lists all articles that users have placed [[Category:Biology Workgroup]] at the bottom of their articles.
- Now click on the "recent changes" link underneath the "all articles" in the 2nd column in the top table. This lists all recent changes in articles that have been tagged [[Category:Biology Workgroup]]. In one glance, you can view all the changes that happened while you were away! Feel free to click on all the links to get an idea how the information for your workgroup is organized. All these lists are populated by articles that have the categories properly placed at the bottom of their pages.
This completes your virtual-tour of CZ workgroups. I hope you can see the usefulness of having all articles in Citizendium tagged properly with your Workgroup categories. Make sure to add the Workgroup category labels to your new articles. This is an important part of the Approval process.
Be sure to join a workgroup and take part in this opportunity to collaborate with others who have similar interests as you. You can see what others are working on in the Workgroup recent changes and join in! Remember, we want you to be bold in your contributions at Citizendium.
To add yourself to a workgroup, use the form [[Category:Education Authors|Smith, Bob]], etc., and add it to your user page. Substitute the proper work group for "Education" in the example, and your name-Last, First for the names in the example.
Do not add yourself to the Editors list, only CZ staff add "Editors" to user pages after proper review of applications is completed. To apply to become an editor, please see Editor Application Review Procedure.
To add a workgroup category tag to an article, use the form [[Category:Education Workgroup]] at the bottom of the article. Substitute in the proper workgroup for "Education" in the example.
If you are from Wikipedia originally, you may want to check out this article:
another welcome, as editor
| Citizendium Editor Policy | ||
|---|---|---|
| The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy |
|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"| |}
Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. really glad to have you here with us.If there's anything I can do to help. please put a message on my talk page. Nancy Sculerati 09:11, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
History approval
Ben, here's some information that may help you.
- First off all: the approval standards [1]
These are open to interpretation and, as editor, you of course must feel satisfied that the article meets the standards for approval. However, no article is ever fully there- there's always something that can be improved and please know that when an article is nominated for approval, then it can have a week or more (just never less than 24 hours) of copyediting and discussion before it is frozen for approval. Even after it is frozen, the nominating editor (perhaps you) can indicate copyedits to the approvals management editor (presently, me). These are typos and the sort of thing that you can change in a proof of a print article for publication, not changes of content. But- even after that, a non-frozen of the article is available for editing.
- Anyway take a look at:Pittsburgh, History to 1800 and Pittsburgh, History since 1800. These are our only approved history articles so far.
- Our very first approved article was Biology, which has already gone through a couple of updated editions in approvals.
- At the risk of answering your e-mailed question too thoroughly, I am copying an answer I gave to a mathematics editor concerning a recently approved math article, Complex number:Greg, the truth is that it's up to you (and Jitse) as Editor(s). I do think that your concerns are exactly correct and that the crux here has to do with the "nature or purpose of an encyclopedia article". At what point does this article qualify as meeting those guidelines? That's your call. The Approved version is just a stable version that is true and accurate, and a "good-enough" encyclopedia article. That phrase "good-enough" is borrowed from the parenting literature, Pediatricians use it reassure good mothers and fathers that they don't have to be perfect or better to raise their children, they do have to be... Once approval is made, more work continues on the draft - so it's not like a print edition decision, there s more leeway.Obviously, though, you want to be proud of the article. I'd say the best way to get an idea of where we are in the process is to go to the Main page and click through the Approved Articles. They are all on different levels, some are more complete than others, the writing in some is better than in others, but all are decent. As the Approvals Management Editor, and as somebody who worked on most of the approved articles as an author, I'd say that we continue to argue among ourselves over both those aspects of the approvals decision and nobody can really settle it for you. Here are some pragmatic questions: Is the subject covered so that the reader knows - by the end of the article -what the title of the article means? Can the reader learn from the article without having to already know what the article covers? Is the article a narrative that can be followed from start to finish? Can you as Editor feel confident that it is not plagerized and that references are appropriate? Is it nicely illustrated? Are spelling and grammar correct? Are there typos in the math? There will be an opportunity after Approval to fix minor errors- copyedit by contacting me - but the article should be in good shape by approval. When the article is nominated for approval, the editor can choose between 48 hours and 1 week between the time the approval nomination template goes up and approval will occur. During that time others will be invited to look. Other Mathematics Editors could remove the template if they think the article is really problematic, you yourself might if problems of an unsuspected magnitude or a large number of small problems are pointed out such that the article isn't smooth by the approval date. Hope this long winded comment helps. By the way- the reason that there is the new "copyedit through the Approvals Editor" rule is that, often, as Approval nears the article gets swarmed by editors/authors trying to get it better. This often results in big improvement, but leaves a rough edge. You probably have to experience it to understand what I mean, once you get a couple of articles approved, you'll see- that is, if Mathematicians are anything like Biologists. We know you are better, of course - we just don't know how much. The end of the approval process for us has always been asymptotic. :) Nancy Sculerati 18:32, 17 May 2007 (CDT)