CZ:Quick Start: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chris Day
(italicise quote)
imported>Chris Day
(yes and no? To many links here will stop them in their tracks. They want us to confirm it is easy)
Line 23: Line 23:
|-
|-
|The above two steps look deceptively simple.  Don't I actually have to know a lot more to get involved?
|The above two steps look deceptively simple.  Don't I actually have to know a lot more to get involved?
|Yes and no.  Yes, to really get involved, you should join <span class="plainlinks">[https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l this]</span>, learn some of [[CZ:how to edit an article|this]], learn about [[CZ:Talk Pages|these]], track what's going on [[Special:Recentchanges|here]], and a few other things.  See [[CZ:Getting Started|this]] for lots of good links.  But on the other hand--no.  To start getting involved, all you have to do write and collaborate on articles.  ''That'' is really what it's all about.
|No.  To start getting involved, all you have to do write and collaborate on articles.  ''That'' is really what it's all about.  
|-
|-
|I am a non-technical person.
|I am a non-technical person.

Revision as of 21:59, 20 March 2008

 

Did you just arrive?

 

Want to get started, but don't know how?

 

Well, don't panic![1] Just dive in!


If you're new to the Citizendium fold, we love you already, and we want you to get to work right away, whether you're an author or an editor. We want it to be as easy as possible, and we don't want you to be intimidated by extremely high standards that either you have, or you imagine we have! Yes, we want high quality. But we ain't pretentious, and we know that Rome wasn't built in a day. This is a wiki. Don't know what that means? It means "fast." It does not mean "when I feel ready to produce brilliant work." Brilliance happens later.

What is the first thing you should do after you join? While you can do whatever you like (it's a wiki!), we recommend two things:

  1. Start an article. How? Pick a topic. Then think of a good title for an encyclopedia article about that topic. Then go to Start Article, handily linked on your left--and do it the Easy Way™! Just write a paragraph or two introducing the topic neutrally, beginning with a definition of the concept, or a description of what a thing is notable for. We don't mind very short articles, as long as they have a couple of sentences. They'll be expanded later, trust us. Then...
  2. Edit someone else's article. How? Find an article on a topic you are interested in or know a lot about. You can use the search box, or navigate alphabetically, or enter via "top articles" or workgroups. When you've found an article you want to edit, press the "edit" tab. Add a few sentences. It's OK. They just have to be a reasonably helpful addition. They don't have to be absolutely brilliant. Brilliance happens later.

Are you still worried? Seriously, there is no need for that. Let's cover some main worries.

Worry Why I wouldn't worry about that
The above two steps look deceptively simple. Don't I actually have to know a lot more to get involved? No. To start getting involved, all you have to do write and collaborate on articles. That is really what it's all about.
I am a non-technical person. Can you write e-mail? Then you can handle editing a wiki page.
I'm skeptical. I'll never be able to figure out that complicated wiki markup. Complicated wiki markup is generally not needed. Besides, you can pick it up by looking at what other people do. If you want the basics, look at the top of this page. It's not hard. Trust us.
Subpages and "metadata"...I'll never figure it out. Then don't try. Someone else will add any needed technical mumbo-jumbo. Baby steps, baby steps. We don't have an Easy Way™ for nothin'!
Isn't this a waste of time? How can you catch up with Wikipedia? The question is not 'can we catch Wikipedia', the question is 'can we create enough content to be fully useable?' Once we have that, we will get users, because people can rely on our content. (The world could use a more reliable free encyclopedia, no? That's why we're here.) And yes, we're confident we can reach that goal: we have a better operational model - one that draws lessons from the Wikipedia experience; we have added more words than Wikipedia did in its first year; and we're accelerating. See Why Citizendium? if you're still unconvinced.
There are so many instruction and policy pages! How can I ever read all that? Um, who said you had to? Seriously, you're not neglecting any duties if you fail to read all that. The only people who do are the people who have to resolve difficult disputes and give advice about our standards. Everybody else flies by the seats of their pants, and we still love them very much.
I'm no expert, and this is an expert project, right? I won't fit in. Why not? "We ain't elitist." Experts and the general public work well together, shoulder-to-shoulder. How can it possibly work? Well, we can theorize all we like about that, but the fact is that it does! We want you here! We need you here!
I'm a professional, and this is an open wiki. Won't I end up butting heads with amateurs, like I have on Wikipedia? Probably not. Yes, we are committed to openness, but we aren't Wikipedia. And if you butt heads with an "amateur," it will probably be very polite, and as editor you have the right to guide decisions in case of controversy.

See? No worries!

Do you want more introductory material? Then see Getting Started for a bunch of good links.

Notes

We don't actually require notes, but they are nice.

  1. With apologies to Douglas Adams.