User talk:Pizzabot/Citizendium

Note: the current follies are being reported at WIGO CZ and discussed at its talk page.

Cover? (sticky)
This is not me nominating it for cover. It's seeing if anyone else is interested in doing so. I pushed the last two through, someone else should do this one. Anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for it (not that that will carry much weight) MarcusCicero (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. It is very detailed and even manages to connect to the RW mission. 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support it because it exposes what is wrong with this wikipedia wannabe, in a detailed and on-mission way. -- 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So one of you can do the nomination ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am removing any objections I may have had, due to having the missiony parts of it explained to me. Should the first step be to write a really good precis for the cover subpage? 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisly. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That intro is arse to synopsise. Here's a first hack. It's too long. Feel free to edit - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it too long? Doesn't well on main page?  02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [] (tip for future coverifications: look at the code) -- Nx  / talk 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New section
Citizendium

I suspect someone will come up with a better name for it, but the point is rather important: Wikipedia can pick and choose between what it has and what Citizendium has (and is doing so), whereas Citizendium cannot copy over Wikipedia articles. This means that all the best of Citizendium is already on Wikipedia. (not me, broken code made this)

Citizendium charter doesn't define a quorum? (Sticky)
Am I the only one who noticed that the citizendium charter doesn't define what constitutes a quorum? In at least one case it even seems to contradict itself, Article 51 requires that the editor-in-chief lose his position every time the charter is ratified(odd), but Article 54 does not require election of a new editor in chief, and Article 55 seems to require that the editor in chief remain in office. Aside from the contradiction, this makes it impossible to ratify a new charter until an editor-in-chief is selected. Maybe they meant to eliminate the position, but just created a paradox? --Wackyvorlon (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles around #50 were intended only for the transition from Larry. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't they need to state that in the charter itself, though? There's nothing to indicate that those articles are no longer in force. --Wackyvorlon (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? There's nothing going on over there. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion
Great example of wiki quality, or non-quality. The citizendium article on cold fusion
 * Was only a draft article. Any registered editor could edit it.
 * Jed Rothwell did write the original article. He's a writer and translator, highly familiar with the field, he's funded some of the research. He hardly ever gets it wrong. Abrasive and opinionated.
 * Cold fusion was accused of being pseudoscience on Wikipedia, that was always rejected. It isn't pseudoscience, it's either fringe science (the consensus position on wikipedia) or emerging science -- which is the position in the scientific journals. And, no, I'm not talking about specialized journals like the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. I'm talking about a whole series of mainstream journals, such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, the journals that cover electrochemistry, about 16 reviews of the field in the last eight years, plus continuing experimental and theoretical reports, and support by the largest scientific society in the world, the American Chemical Society. The idea that cold fusion is pseudoscience is generally promoted by physicists who don't want to undertake messy experiments, they understandably prefer the clean, simple, stripped environment of plasma physics, the realm of hot fusion. Cold fusion has been well-covered in the academic press as a turf war between chemists and physicists.
 * Rothwell was never banned on Wikipedia. That he was banned is a position taken by the crowd that sat on the Wikipedia article for years, ejecting everyone who knowledgeably disagreed with them. Rothwell never used sock puppets. He did edit IP, but always signed his edits. In fact, his web site, lenr-canr.org, was blacklisted by JzG, and that's how I got involved with cold fusion, I saw a comment about the blacklisting and thought it was weird. I looked at JzG's edits in the field and he was very clearly involved, with a strong, fixed, and admittedly ignorant point of view. He was depending on his shallow understanding of the opinion of a friend, years before. One of the arguments (and the only argument possibly relevant to blacklisting) was that Jed signed his edits as "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org." That was claimed to be "spamming." Even though it wasn't a link! But another admin could look at the diffs and not notice the lacking http tag. JzG was trout-slapped by ArbComm for his actions, at my request, but Wikipedia almost never undoes mistakes. I was topic-banned on cold fusion the second time by "the community" at the request of JzG, and the reason given for the banning was my request at meta for the de-listing of lenr-canr.org. JzG opposed it and some arguments were given. In answering the bogus arguments, I presented evidence of what had happened, and the Wikipedia administrator who closed the topic ban discussion looked at that and said "wall of text." Topic banned. On Wikipedia, for writing on *meta*. If you know Wikipedia, you know how unusual that was. The delisting request was granted. The meta administrators read the arguments.
 * Basically, the Citizendium article on cold fusion is presently substantially better than what's on Wikipedia and here. It's still got a lot of errors. The article as edited by Rothwell. The current version.
 * The current version represents a decline in quality. For example, the Rothwell version notes, correctly, that the U.S. DoE reports both recommended further research, with limited funding, and that this recommendation was not implemented. The current version has removed that. It's easily verifiable, and relevant, except it does not fit with the "pseudoscience" meme.
 * Rothwell made a number of conclusions in the article that have been removed. They have since been published under peer review; they also exist in many independent sources. Citizendium was designed for expert review and articles could make original claims, if the reviewing experts allow them, so these were not improper on Citizendium in a draft. (Claims and conclusions should always be attributed. Rothwell did source them, but was not an "encyclopedic" writer. Still, the article was close.) --Abd (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)