381:. However, as time goes on, the core practices of the Knowledge (XXG) model may prove themselves very inefficient, quality-limiting tools for the task of making an encyclopedia that is consistently great and correct. So I see Knowledge (XXG) and Citizendium ultimately filling different niches: our philosophy to explicitly empower experts may more elegantly lend itself to producing many types of encyclopedic content, whereas Knowledge (XXG)'s radically egalitarian philosophy may be particularly suited to topics outside of the traditional academy, being a uniquely powerful
838:. What happened instead was that Ragesoss toned down his - already quite dry and fact-based article even more, while you wrote a highly opinionated piece short on actual facts and rich in personal judgements. And please stop pointing me to discussions that I have already read (and referred to), if I had found the answers there I wouldn't have asked here. My "concerns about Complex number" have not been answered - are you going to argue that division by a complex number z is indeed geometrically equivalent to complex conjugation (up to a scaling factor), etc.?
944:
up claims in the article such as your predictions in the first footnote. Like I was pointing to numerous facts and quotes which could have been interesting to you, even if you didn't like my conclusions. However, if you don't feel like putting in this kind of work to justify your text or your project against criticism, that is entirely up to you and I don't blame you for it (perhaps you are just in the same situation as I was before, lacking the time). Just don't be surprised then if the "productive turn" doesn't happen, and don't blame
849:
some quite specific and fact-based criticism of CZ. I do not "hate" Citizendium (in fact, I would be happy to get an account there now and make a few edits to help repair the "Complex number" article, but the forced disclosure of real names and biographies keeps me from this, as I am sure it does many academics. And as said above, I find some of your arguments why it is in WP's interest to have CZ around quite convincing). I just think it is time to hold CZ up against its own claims, and also I think that you are doing your organization
718:
tell the whole world self-righteously that
Citizendium is expert heaven and Knowledge (XXG) expert hell. I am not saying he has always been wrong with his criticisms of Knowledge (XXG) (I used to cite his essay "Why Knowledge (XXG) must jettison its anti-elitism" quite often). But as a Wikipedian one just gets fed up with being portrayed as a professor-stabbing lemming by Sanger, especially when being an university scientist oneself and/or cooperating with them all the time on WP.
73:
93:
742:
envision. I actually think that your remarks about the "sample size" and the importance of a long term competitor are quite insightful. To come back to the
Signpost articles mentioned above, the sample size has always been larger than 1 for those people able to look at other language Wikipedias. (Arguments like "no, we don't want to happen here what happened at en:" or "this works very well on en:" are quite on the German Knowledge (XXG), for example.)
813:
the organization I'm volunteering with, most likely I'll be able to do no right in your eyes... and it's my interpretation that this is really the factor which drives your complaint. If you think it's not, and want honest dialog about substantive issues, I suggest you prove me wrong by toning down your tone and realizing there are at least partial (though arguably sufficiently complete) answers to the concerns you mention available
539:
53:
83:
103:
63:
189:
more easily apply, and allows us to approve applications with a single click should they meet our basic identification requirements. While it still requires users to jump through a hoop before they edit (something I personally still have qualms about), I expect that an easier application system combined with quicker responses will
113:
996:
Yet if on the other hand someone is mentioning
Citizendium's flaws, you are feeling hurt and complain about "hostility" (Ragesoss), "guns blazing", "veiled insults" (me), or that the opponent just wants "to produce a neat little snarky blog post" and whine "you don’t do real dialog about these issues
960:
Put simply, there are many other people with whom I can have a similar conversation about
Citizendium and Knowledge (XXG), who won't attempt to plant what I consider veiled insults every other sentence. At this point (past addressing concerns of whether my article was suitable for the Signpost, which
812:
High, with all respect, if it seems I'm giving you the run-around, it's because I saw a lot of hostility in your initial comment (not necessarily directed at me, but perhaps more at Larry Sanger and
Citizendium in general) and I have no wish to get into a tit-for-tat, drawn-out flame war. If you hate
717:
are difficult to reconcile with the fact that the very existence of
Citizendium is based on publicly criticizing Knowledge (XXG)'s content and community - that is what the project's founder has been doing for years in order to drive contributors and readers to CZ, he obviously still feels the need to
291:
words, a "very flat official hierarchy, and very steep, complex, multidimensional unofficial one". I think more formal governance has the potential to be a lot "saner", but also higher friction. We're doing what we can to prevent that, but sometimes friction can only be gauged by trial-and-error and
981:
As a
Signpost reader since its inception two and a half years ago, I stand by my statement that I don't remember having read such an advertising piece before. Of course I realize now that you were not familiar with its style and just saw the marketing opportunity from your perspective as Citizendium
939:
feedback about your article. You are right that I posted it shortly after the publication, when it was too late to improve the article, but unfortunately I had been busy with other things over the weekend until Monday night (when publication was supposed to be imminent) - you had started the article
789:
Thanks for the reply, but of course I was aware that you had written this on the invitation of
Ragesoss and the Signpost's editors, and my first sentence above should have made clear that I consider "writing about Citizendium at Knowledge (XXG)" (including the Signpoost) a good idea in principle. My
372:
I have a lot of respect for what
Knowledge (XXG) is, what it's accomplished, and what it might become (I have no idea what Knowledge (XXG) will look like in five years, but—speaking as someone who uses Knowledge (XXG) almost every day—I'll be interested to see it). And I don't want to damn Knowledge
173:
I think there are many hopeful signs. We've got 2400 articles, 31 approved articles, and over 2000 users (265 of whom are editors). What do these numbers mean? Well, nobody really knows. But I think the health of our project can also be judged by what 'meta' projects we've done or are in the process
134:
Hello
Knowledge (XXG)—this is Mike Johnson, casual Wikipedian, and member of Citizendium's Executive Committee. Before I start talking about what's been going on at Citizendium (unofficially and with a healthy dose of personal opinion), I'd like to thank Sage Ross and Michael Snow for the invitation
1154:
I've never considered creating an account on Citizendium, partly because I don't wish to give out my real name, but mostly because I disagree with the elitist idea of giving additional power to "experts". However, reading this article, I think we can learn from Citizendium in one important respect;
943:
This might have become a productive dialog - productive in the sense that each of us would learn something from it - if you had bothered to actually talk about the issues involved, using some of your knowledge about Citizendium (and, perhaps, Knowledge (XXG)) to try and refute what I said, and back
848:
m volunteering with (the unwashed Wikipedian masses should restrict themselves to non-academic topics like building a "search engine-slash-web directory", leaving the serious encyclopedia work to the Real Men at CZ, etc.), yet you were very quick to accuse Ragesoss and me for "hostility" because of
741:
Sanger's motives for constantly attacking WP are entirely understandable, but only if CZ grows up, becoming less dependent on the fiction of Knowledge (XXG) as The Sinking Ship and actually starting to live off its own accomplishments, can there be the kind of friendly competition that you seem to
188:
to jump into, and our participation numbers, though good, haven't been as good as they could have been due to our relatively hard registration system. As I'm writing this, though, our tech guys are implementing a semi-automated registration system based on a MediaWiki plugin, which allows users to
920:
I am happy to engage in productive dialog, but I'm not seeing a productive turn in this dialog. You seem to want me to justify certain things which I feel no need to justify. I don't mean to call you out in general, or trivialize your thoughts-- but I see this headed for nothing more than being a
1185:
I think most people who are familiar with the German and English Knowledge (XXG) would agree that governance on the German Knowledge (XXG) is less formal. The German Knowledge (XXG) tries to keep the number of the rules pages in the Knowledge (XXG):... namespace low and does not classify them as
424:
theory is there'll be a quality differential between Knowledge (XXG) and Citizendium depending on the type of content: articles on inherently ambiguous topics, such as history and society, articles on controversial topics, and articles which are introductions to a topic may benefit the most from
402:
explains, "The problem is that Knowledge (XXG) forces its contributors to come to a consensus, and building consensus with a crank is a fool's errand. ... And a crank can single-handedly destroy an article's usefulness." Obviously excluding people from a knowledge project must be done very, very
231:
Still on the issue of content, both projects have borrowed a bit of content from the other without attribution, and sorting out how to handle things (and how irritated to get) when this happens will be an ongoing process. Generally speaking, our projects' relationship will be many things to many
703:
If you look at the above examples and compare them with your own article, you will find a noticeable difference. Of course these writers also presented what they considered the successes of their project, but in a much more factual way, and didn't shy from mentioning problems. Everytime you are
760:
The sections on "Governancy" and "Citizendium 2.0" are interesting, although I would prefer them to be written less like an advertisement. As an occasional reader, I found the power structure with its numerous different title hard to grasp; you explained at least some of the ideas behind it.
352:
in Citizendium's success since having a viable competitor is invaluable for the long-term health of any organization. I won't make the full argument here, but it could be that if 10% of Wikipedians left and joined Citizendium, it'd be better for Knowledge (XXG) in the long run. It's just a
1194:; "ignore all rules" is still invoked frequently. The German Knowledge (XXG) set up an ArbCom only recently, officially still as a test trial. On a scale of formality of governance, I would rank the English Knowledge (XXG) between Citizendium and the German Knowledge (XXG). Regards,
468:
As noted in Sage Ross's article, we haven't settled on a free content license yet- essentially, we're still waiting for more community buy-in on the discussion. People know it's important in the abstract sense, but it takes a little while to realize that content licenses actually
425:
Citizendium's collaborative model of explicitly empowering expertise (e.g., those are the sorts of articles I think of as benefiting the most from a "guiding hand" and "lucid expert narration", or on the flip-side, being hurt the most by edit wars, over-compromising, and cranks).
779:
Thanks for the thoughts. Speaking to your first, and I think primary, concern, this was written as an invited response to Ragesoss's article (the invitation originated with Ragesoss, to his credit). I realize writing about Citizendium at Knowledge (XXG) may be a touchy topic.
1111:
3. if, once you get around to considering my points, you still feel my Signpost article was a crime against humanity (or more likely, you're still in the mood for a flame war), I seriously encourage you take it up via official channels, because this conversation is over.
790:
concern is rather with the writing style; the Signpost is not the right place for advertising pieces. I am looking forward to the explanation what made you require an NPOV style for Ragesoss' article while explicitly rejecting it for your own. Regards,
482:
I'm 26 with "just" a BA, and though I've never felt marginalized because of this while working at CZ, I do plan on pushing for explicit author representation within the CZ governance structure, perhaps within the Editorial Council or via an ombudsman
859:- obviously you have chosen to ignore several positive remarks that I made about your article. But if you can point me to the precise sentences where I have engaged in "flame war" in your opinion, I am prepared to listen and reconsider what I wrote.
1159:, but on a very large one, formal governance is needed to ensure that admins and bureaucrats do not exceed their powers. So I think a separation of powers, along with term limits, are very good ideas, and should be implemented on Knowledge (XXG).
688:(although the reasons given for these accusations did not sound very convincing to me, for example "struggling" seems a term that any journalist from a mainstream media source could use with good conscience to describe the current development of
757:. One of them was found after a few days by an outside contributor (causing headaches on how to get around the approval protection quickly to fix the embarassment), the rest of the article has not been improved for nearly a quarter of a year.
835:
I don't have any objection in principle to carrying a response from the other side, as this would address the balance issue with the Signpost being Knowledge (XXG)-oriented, and leave you a little more liberty to draw conclusions from your
693:
974:
I am not eager to get "more of your time", especially now that I am becoming familiar with your style of evading factual discussion by responding with attacks and belittling remarks (which several blog commenters have also noted on you
212:, clearly both models can create good content. I'm certainly optimistic that the Citizendium model will tend to produce markedly better content than the Knowledge (XXG) model (else I wouldn't be volunteering there), and I do think our
265:
A binding community charter: in addition to setting out rights, duties, and expectations very clearly, a charter allows a community to have some explicit control over how it evolves. Without a constitution or charter, governance just
940:
on Saturday and left that note on Sunday. My apologies for that, but most authors appreciate it if somebody spends time to read what they have written, think about it and react to it - even if they can't correct the text anymore.
629:
1016:
I feel you're all over the map: let me put this simply. I have made two points in support of my piece. You have ignored them, insulted me, and complained that I don't engage your concerns. Why should I talk to you?
749:- is not here yet. In discussions on how to set up a "stabilizing" process for WP which produces reliable content, I am certainly going to point to the appalling failure of CZ's approval process in the case of the
803:- I believe the replies on that page answer your questions about this (re: being a NPOV vs opinion piece and about how I see this and Ragesoss's piece fitting in) as well as your concerns about Complex number. --
568:
497:
456:
442:, "I finally came to realize that Knowledge (XXG)’s attitude is not set on creating an encyclopedia by means of a freely editable wiki, but on creating a freely editable wiki and calling it an encyclopedia."
201:
593:
578:
517:
505:
603:
525:
598:
521:
664:
660:
656:
314:, where "The Citizendium invites graduate seminar instructors to include the crafting of a Citizendium article as an assignment" (we'll be running at least one Eduzendium pilot project this fall);
965:
a question of who I want to spend time discussing Citizendium with. If you had opened without guns blazing, you probably would have gotten more of my time. For what it's worth, for the future. --
818:
563:
493:
181:
has a pretty good take on this: "Trying to fight off our smarter vandals without having our antivandal people tends to result in people having to make registration hard which kills the project."
39:
734:
Sanger "astonishingly bad informed" about the realities in today's Knowledge (XXG), which include the participation of many scientists (in a reaction to a lengthy piece by Sanger appearing in
844:- "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye ...". You seem to have absolutely no problem with publishing lots of unsubstantiated belittling remarks about the organization
1140:
With all due respect, "High on a tree", your flamebait discourse here, only made possible behind a veil of anonymity, is a perfect, partial response to the question, "Why Citizendium?"
745:
One of the areas where WP could profit most from studying CZ's experiences is the approved articles system that you and Ragesoss are describing, since the Knowledge (XXG) analogon - the
588:
513:
209:
1155:
project governance. On Knowledge (XXG), we really, really need more formal and clear governance, as I've been saying for some time. On a small wiki community, it may be effective to
726:
and organizer of "Knowledge (XXG) Academy", a conference which aims at bringing scholars to (the German) Knowledge (XXG) - its second installment in August will be supported by the
583:
509:
357:
I don't want to play up the competitor angle too much, however, since I think we're ultimately on the same side: that of making more and better free content available to the world.
550:
150:
Experts (e.g., professors, experienced professionals, or equivalent) are empowered to arbitrate disputes over matters of content within (and only within) their field of expertise;
830:
You mean that you consider Ragesoss' piece to be constrained by NPOV and your own text the exception? I don't think that was the plan of the WP editors. On July 20 Michael Snow
727:
707:
The touchiness that CZ users have displayed on the talk page of Ragesoss' article against information that could make CZ appear in a less that favorable light, and your remark
56:
156:
The governance structure is more explicit than that on Knowledge (XXG), with arguably firmer and clearer laws and an editorial framework designed to better focus effort.
1276:
283:
Separation of power between the branches, via various checks and balances, term limits, and the rule that no one may be a member of more than one governing body.
932:
At least we are agreeing that your article is differing fundamentally from the other reports from other projects which have previously appeared in the Signpost.
21:
1252:
300:
We're taking advantage of Citizendium's editorial infrastructure to push through some interesting side-projects under the "Citizendium 2.0" title, namely,
1247:
1242:
892:
345:
The second follows the saying, 'let a thousand flowers bloom': it becomes easier to understand and improve your wiki once your sample size rises above 1.
162:
Knowledge (XXG) was concerned with making a working online encyclopedia; Citizendium is concerned with making a community that, if it works, will make a
236:
is that we're fundamentally sister projects working toward basically the same goal, albeit with some occasional good-natured sibling rivalry (see also:
338:
The first is the most obvious. We're an alternative to Knowledge (XXG), and we have a lot of good and interesting things going on. You might consider
556:
1001:
blogger). One gets the impression that the people you "want to spend time discussing Citizendium with" are mainly those which agree enough with you.
204:
takes a look at this question, and though we appear to come out fairly well in his analysis, I'm not sure how fair it is to have either Wikipedians
704:
mentioning problems on CZ it just seems to be an attempt to put an observation "into perspective" that Ragesoss already made about the same topic.
1237:
274:
398:
Perhaps the primary difference in 'legal' outlook between the two projects is that Citizendium is committed to weeding out cranks and trolls.
1169:
Hi Walton One, I hear the German language version has some interesting governance things going on-- do they speak at all to your concerns? --
287:
It'll be interesting to see how such formal governance structures will work out. Clearly there is a nuanced hierarchy on Knowledge (XXG) (in
683:
the general tone of seems vaguely hostile towards Citizendium (in certain places unfairly so) perhaps more could be done to make it NPOV?
1081:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-07-30/Citizendium_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=146117135
1076:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-07-30/Citizendium_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=147879233
961:
I believe my points did quite handily, and yes, I disagree with your categorizations of my article and what I say in my article), it's
1232:
538:
342:. We welcome Wikipedians, and a lot of you may appreciate how we do things and what problems we don't suffer from (e.g., vandalism).
17:
990:
The realities of Citizendium's situation mean that the more we publicize Knowledge (XXG)'s flaws the more likely we are to succeed.
651:
I think it is a good idea to let someone from another encyclopdia project write an overview article about it for the Signpost. See
899:
I also left a pre-publication note on the other Citizendium piece, soliciting feedback. I did not see any feedback from you then.
452:
439:
1207:
1198:
1173:
1163:
1144:
1116:
1021:
1008:
969:
955:
925:
866:
825:
807:
794:
784:
768:
1191:
814:
800:
754:
675:
473:. The leading candidates are CC-by-sa, CC-by-nc, the GFDL, the upcoming GNU Wiki license, and various dual-licensing options.
135:
to write this piece for the Signpost. Once we start our own community newsletter I'll be happy to extend the same courtesy.
382:
349:
237:
1187:
408:
153:
Experts vet and approve excellent-quality, 'stable' versions of articles, though progress can continue on 'draft' pages;
746:
712:
Im not sure how fair it is to have either Wikipedians or Citizendians attempt to publicly critique each others' content
304:
Collecting a rich set of related reference content on clearly-organized subpages (example: the right-hand panel on our
438:
also lends itself better to the important task of fleshing out often-disjoint content into a lucid encyclopedia. As
177:
Our main project bottleneck has been registration, as Sage Ross briefly alludes to in his sister article. Geni from
1071:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=148059356
1095:(yes, if you had been more polite I'd flesh the argument out more for you, but you weren't, so I don't care to),
399:
1258:
1223:
986:
before. Which rely greatly on attacking WP - to quote yourself from your blog on your main marketing strategy:
735:
719:
976:
288:
258:
723:
983:
280:
Four branches of government: Executive, Legislative, Enforcement (our "constabulary"), and Judicial.
1195:
1100:
1005:
952:
863:
791:
765:
921:
common flame war, and I have better things to do. Once again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. --
831:
348:
The third may not be intuitive, but I think it's very real: I suggest that Wikipedians should be
178:
753:
article, which was approved amidst much backslapping among the contributors despite containing
66:
1141:
625:
185:
86:
1179:
1156:
386:
96:
1160:
696:
numbers). What made you change your mind since then and decide to write your own article
652:
193:
benefit our numbers, and it'll also allow us to start doing serious academic recruiting.
116:
1204:
1170:
1113:
1018:
966:
922:
891:. I see it as sort of a news/op-ed piece. I would note that uninvolved Signpost editor
822:
804:
781:
213:
126:
407:
instances of bad faith or repeatedly assertive cluelessness), but it should help with
1270:
674:
highly for its neutral, factual style. You seemed to be of the same opinion when you
321:
for more): personally, I'm most excited about the concept of a Citizendium-refereed
850:
106:
322:
731:
277:, and there's no central, credible process by which to make fundamental changes.
76:
225:
750:
689:
435:
311:
305:
143:
A quick primer: Citizendium is a wiki encyclopedia everyone can edit, but
339:
238:
David Gerard's and my positions on project rivalry and cross-criticism
217:
353:
thought—but do think about the value of having a strong competitor.
221:
897:
Everything looks great; I especially like the Citizendium pieces.
887:
I feel we have very different interpretations of what my article
160:
If I had to summarize Citizendium into a sentence, it'd be this:
998:
208:
Citizendians attempt to publicly critique each others' content.
318:
253:
I think most Wikipedians would agree that project governance
821:. In which case I will be happy to dialog with you. Best, --
537:
232:
people, but the one which has always made the most sense to
377:
bright and shining spots, and taken as a whole it's simply
997:
any favors by only linking to criticisms of us" (against
1080:
1075:
1070:
857:
most likely I'll be able to do no right in your eyes...
641:
634:
614:
670:However, I (and many other readers) also value the
639:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
270:. That can be a strength, but governance also just
842:If you hate the organization I'm volunteering with
738:last week, a translation of his edge.org essay.)
147:Users must log in under their real names to edit;
1104:making these comments, and that you're doing so
853:in dismissing specific criticism as "hostility".
1182:? Which governance things are you thinking of?
330:Why should Wikipedians care about Citizendium?
244:Other exciting things happening at Citizendium
373:(XXG) with faint praise: Knowledge (XXG) has
8:
1108:with wildly flailing ad hominem attacks, and
261:to be a new sort of 'online republic', with
728:Federal Ministry for Education and Research
1277:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2007-07
1221:Make sure we cover what matters to you –
665:Report from the Japanese Knowledge (XXG)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
698:with a healthy dose of personal opinion
661:Report from the Finnish Knowledge (XXG)
642:
618:
365:
33:
657:Report from the Danish Knowledge (XXG)
292:we'll have to adjust things as we go.
411:as well as user retention in general.
317:Various other initiatives (check the
184:Such has been a uniquely challenging
7:
755:several serious mathematical errors
736:Germany's largest quality newspaper
197:How good is Citizendium's content?
28:
624:These comments are automatically
403:carefully (it'll only be done in
383:search engine-slash-web directory
275:down the path of least resistance
984:other such CZ advertising pieces
387:massively collaborative newsroom
111:
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
801:talk page of Ragesoss's article
174:of doing (more on that later).
1203:Thanks, that's interesting. --
1087:which I have pointed out that
635:add the page to your watchlist
389:. Just thinking out loud here.
1:
1089:directly address your concern
799:I would point you toward the
1098:2. realize that you are the
982:evangelist, who has written
655:precursors of your article (
216:are simply great (examples:
210:Andrew Keen notwithstanding
1293:
1208:05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1199:00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1174:20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
1164:14:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
1145:07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
1117:08:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1022:05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1009:04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
970:16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
956:03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
935:What you are getting here
1178:You are referring to the
926:19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
867:18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
826:16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
808:16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
795:13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
785:09:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
769:07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
334:I'd offer three reasons.
1067:1. examine these pages:
459:'s article for examples.
196:
139:Citizendium at a glance
632:. To follow comments,
542:
434:I think Citizendium's
323:free content brokerage
257:. We're committed and
893:Ral315 commented that
774:Hello High on a tree,
724:Wikimedia Deutschland
574:News from Citizendium
541:
361:Notes and digressions
259:laying the groundwork
34:News from Citizendium
31:News from Citizendium
1093:consistently ignored
628:from this article's
569:Citizendium analysis
498:Citizendium analysis
166:online encyclopedia.
1091:and which you have
1064:Look- I suggest you
594:Features and admins
579:Another desysopping
518:Features and admins
436:workgroup structure
1224:leave a suggestion
1157:"ignore all rules"
678:to Ragesoss that
619:Discuss this story
604:Arbitration report
543:
255:really does matter
171:So, is it working?
1150:Better governance
832:wrote to Ragesoss
720:Frank Schulenburg
643:purging the cache
599:Technology report
529:
492:Also this week:
226:Northwest Passage
214:approved articles
1284:
1261:
1226:
1180:German wikipedia
722:, vice chair of
646:
644:
638:
617:
561:
553:
546:
490:
484:
480:
474:
466:
460:
449:
443:
440:Matt Britt notes
432:
426:
418:
412:
409:expert retention
396:
390:
370:
129:
115:
114:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1152:
1013:High on a tree,
747:stable versions
648:
640:
633:
622:
621:
615:+ Add a comment
613:
609:
608:
607:
564:From the editor
554:
549:
547:
544:
532:
531:
530:
494:From the editor
487:
481:
477:
467:
463:
455:blog entry and
450:
446:
433:
429:
419:
415:
397:
393:
371:
367:
363:
350:deeply invested
332:
298:
296:Citizendium 2.0
251:
246:
199:
141:
131:
130:
124:
123:
122:
121:
112:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1290:
1288:
1280:
1279:
1269:
1268:
1256:
1251:
1246:
1241:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1196:High on a tree
1183:
1151:
1148:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1109:
1096:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1065:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1014:
1006:High on a tree
1002:
994:
993:
992:
979:
953:High on a tree
949:
948:for it either.
941:
933:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
864:High on a tree
860:
854:
839:
810:
792:High on a tree
776:
775:
766:High on a tree
751:Complex number
715:
714:
686:
685:
649:Hi Johnsonmx,
623:
620:
612:
611:
610:
606:
601:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
560:
548:
536:
535:
534:
533:
489:
488:
486:
485:
475:
461:
444:
427:
413:
391:
385:, and being a
364:
362:
359:
355:
354:
346:
343:
331:
328:
327:
326:
315:
309:
297:
294:
285:
284:
281:
278:
250:
247:
245:
242:
198:
195:
158:
157:
154:
151:
148:
140:
137:
132:
120:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1289:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1272:
1260:
1254:
1249:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1225:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1149:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1118:
1115:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1023:
1020:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1003:
1000:
995:
991:
988:
987:
985:
980:
977:
973:
972:
971:
968:
964:
959:
958:
957:
954:
950:
947:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
868:
865:
861:
858:
855:
852:
847:
843:
840:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
824:
820:
816:
811:
809:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
793:
788:
787:
786:
783:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
767:
762:
758:
756:
752:
748:
743:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
713:
710:
709:
708:
705:
701:
699:
695:
691:
684:
681:
680:
679:
677:
673:
668:
666:
662:
658:
654:
645:
636:
631:
627:
616:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
558:
552:
545:In this issue
540:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:Admin resigns
503:
499:
495:
479:
476:
472:
465:
462:
458:
454:
448:
445:
441:
437:
431:
428:
423:
417:
414:
410:
406:
401:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
369:
366:
360:
358:
351:
347:
344:
341:
337:
336:
335:
329:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
307:
303:
302:
301:
295:
293:
290:
289:mirrorshard's
282:
279:
276:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
260:
256:
248:
243:
241:
239:
235:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
194:
192:
187:
182:
180:
175:
172:
168:
167:
163:
155:
152:
149:
146:
145:
144:
138:
136:
128:
118:
110:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
1153:
1142:Stephen Ewen
1139:
1105:
1099:
1092:
1088:
989:
962:
945:
936:
896:
888:
856:
845:
841:
834:
763:
759:
744:
740:
716:
711:
706:
702:
697:
687:
682:
671:
669:
650:
573:
557:all comments
551:30 July 2007
501:
491:
478:
470:
464:
447:
430:
421:
416:
404:
394:
378:
374:
368:
356:
340:editing here
333:
299:
286:
271:
267:
254:
252:
233:
230:
205:
200:
190:
183:
179:Foundation-l
176:
170:
169:
165:
161:
159:
142:
133:
57:PDF download
1259:Suggestions
1106:very rudely
626:transcluded
589:In the news
526:Arbitration
514:In the news
164:really good
107:X (Twitter)
1192:guidelines
676:complained
522:Technology
451:E.g., see
312:Eduzendium
249:Governance
45:Share this
40:Contribute
22:2007-07-30
1253:Subscribe
1205:Johnsonmx
1171:Johnsonmx
1114:Johnsonmx
1019:Johnsonmx
1004:Regards,
967:Johnsonmx
951:Regards,
923:Johnsonmx
862:Regards,
836:reporting
823:Johnsonmx
805:Johnsonmx
782:Johnsonmx
764:Regards,
700:instead?
630:talk page
584:WikiWorld
510:WikiWorld
457:Sage Ross
400:Kyle Gann
202:Sage Ross
186:ecosystem
127:johnsonmx
1271:Category
1248:Newsroom
1243:Archives
1188:policies
1101:only one
851:no favor
672:Signpost
502:response
422:personal
97:Facebook
87:LinkedIn
77:Mastodon
20: |
694:traffic
667:....).
483:system.
379:amazing
308:draft).
306:Biology
272:happens
268:happens
218:Biology
191:greatly
1161:Walton
963:simply
471:matter
117:Reddit
67:E-mail
1238:About
732:calls
653:these
405:clear
222:Wheat
16:<
1233:Home
1190:and
999:this
819:here
817:and
815:here
692:and
690:user
500:and
453:this
375:many
319:blog
420:My
240:).
228:).
125:By
42:—
1273::
1112:--
1017:--
978:).
946:me
937:is
895:,
889:is
846:I'
780:--
730:-
663:,
659:,
524:—
520:—
516:—
512:—
508:—
504:—
496:—
234:me
224:,
220:,
206:or
1227:.
647:.
637:.
559:)
555:(
325:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.