User:Nat Makarevitch

Male and computer nerd (opensource software), born 19670728, French living in France.

I co-founded a French opensource company (IDEALX, now OpenTrust). I'm also directing a book collection published by a French book company ('Eyrolles') and I used to work for O'Reilly.

I'm French, living in France.

My homepage is like me: somewhat messy but not to the point of being unable to diagnose it.

About Citizendium (CZ)

To attract contributors CZ has to maintain dedicated people tackling various technical missions in order to enhance user experience, from the bare user interface to giving an assurance that any consensual plea (which may for example be "a wiki with private articles and some workflow enabling some to publish articles") from contributors validated by the project leaders will be fulfilled (for example by searching/extending/developing an adequate extension). This was and remains a major component of Wikipedia thrust: some talented people soon started to help developing the underlying software (Mediawiki, also used by CZ) in order to enhance it according to the project's needs. In some cases proposals or patent needs were not expressed at technical needs but the developers assessed the situation and proposed then refined adequate software modules, which became major reasons for contributors and visitors to like the project.

I don't see here anything like that on CZ, and this is IMHO a problem.

The model "the project is the group of its contributors" just doesn't work ("Let's have a party! Bring all your own food and let's have it in your place!"). Any newcomer has to see that the project has a good approach ('policy': CZ is very good, Wikipedia is IMHO misleaded) AND has resources to leverage it (CZ isn't good at it, Wikipedia tackled this efficiently) enabling the potential contributor to think "I will give knowledge and work (living matter) as the project already offers an adequate 'mold' to it (policy, rules, tools and technical infrastructure). Right now CZ 'tools' are, IMHO, not convincing as the software used (Mediawiki) is made for the Wikipedia approach, usages and context. Note: Mediawiki is extensible, I'm not advocating adopting another software.

CZ contributors chat about what we can do, but who can give a green or red light to a proposal (public and not vetoed) implying some software development, for it to pass into 'realization' stage? Is there any developer intervening in mature users dialogs about some new rules/functionality in order to say "OK, I saw a way to help you achieve this goal thanks to a new software module..."? I already wrote about this, illustrating my point thanks to some examples, without anyone explaining why I'm misleaded or how we may solve this problem. I'm not criticizing the CZ tech staff, they do a wonderful job given the resources available and I'm very grateful. A new edition, for example the French one, starting under a new consensual project contract (as there is a social contract) defining what the project and the contributors have to try (hard!) to give to each other, may help.