RationalWiki talk:Nothing is going on at Citizendium
As a point of etiquette, please use the [add topic] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate  tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.
When adding a link to Citizendium, putting <capture></capture> around the link will cause a permanent backup in case the page is deleted or oversighted.
For non CZ-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>
When should we give up?
It might be worth monitoring a bit longer - it was dead for a while, then the rather amusing Approvals Committee came up - but it's basically two or three people, with a couple, like Hayford, who will do something once a month.
I'd like to see how a site dies. But I'm not sure we have an endpoint.
Perhaps we should soft mothball more than officially close the page, but I do think we should give it a little longer to see if it springs back up before doing so. It's very movie-slasher-like in its ability to come back. Citizendium Documentation (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Something I've thought about too. At this point "there's only been one edit" isn't news anymore; but as you say it's still worth keeping an eye on in case something happens. Maybe add fewer new entries, but stress that the WIGO isn't done yet? —Kazitor, pending 01:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Gaps of X days (5? 7?) or more, or particularly strong spikes in activity.
- Projects (on the lines of the Approvals Committee or such) starting or restarting, or elections, and documenting their progress. (Currently, there are no active projects)
- Amusingly stupid writing in articles
- Particularly large financial donations or funding dropping below the amount needed to pay for servers
- Larry-Sanger-related news
- Bad behaviour and missed chances (for example, chasing wehatever new editors they have away)
- Wikipedia-bashing, particularly when they comment on how CZ is supposedly better
- Extreme ego
- Similar events.
- In particular, I think bold text at the top saying that gaps of less than X days arre normal and that all formerly active projects on Citizendium have failed, but that the WIGO is left open as CZ tends to do ridiculous things just when you think it's dead is probably enough to say for a while. Citizendium Documentation (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- This sounds ok. It's now routine to go several days with no edits, or a week with one edit. Maybe focus on the the first time the site hits a milestone of deadness - a full week, two weeks, a month with no activity - and noteworthy events such as you mentioned. Bluebottle (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't blame Hayford. Any other way of approving articles on Citizendium is dead - the Expert Guidance left with the, y'know, experts. Though I doubt me that anyone's going to ever care about a Citizendium citable version. Citizendium Documentation (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't blame Hayford either. But I thought they had done away with the approval nonsense. Do they seriously think anyone cares by this point?
- If they want to continue as a place where people are free to write about whatever strikes their fancy there's nothing wrong with that. It fills a niche where people can write essays in article format without Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and notability. Bluebottle (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would say the problem with CZ continuing is the insane amount of money wasted every month for 7 people to write a few sentences about some random stuff. The thing costs almost $100 a month.
Kinda want to report the response, but....
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Forum_Talk:Technical_Issues#MediaWiki:Sitenotice is likely to be amusing. They've had a site notice claiming the server was being set up for nearly two years. Citizendium Documentation (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's an interesting dilemma. When the message went up, it wouldn't have been appropriate to report it. At what point do you decide that the site notice is noteworthy? And how do you determine which month it remaining belongs under? —Kazitor 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
These guys are just getting painful. And explaining why they're painful takes too long - I doubt multi-paragraph things are what WIGO wants, but how else are we to show they don't know what they're doing at a fundamental level? Citizendium Documentation (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"Expert approved"? Really?
The afore-noted painfulness over the Whole Lotta Love approval shows the "expert approved" claim is hollow. They're voting to approve the article despite admitting they don't understand its "unfamiliar words." The article doesn't even mention one of the most noteworthy things about the song which is the blatant lifting from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love" and the lawsuit over that. Plant even owned up to it IIRC. There's only a passing mention of "some additional lyrical credit to Willie Dixon" which with no context will leave the reader scratching their head. This is expert approval?
If they want to have a website where they can write about whatever they like that's one thing, everybody needs a hobby. But they think there are people in the world outside Citizendium who care about formalities like whether their articles are approved.
He's at it again...
Larry's latest, latest, latest, post-Wikipedia wiki encyclopedia project has just been announced here...
The logic in that escapes me. Wikipedia is bad because a thousands of people edit it, therefore we need more people creating more encyclopedia articles - just in different places, and they can say what they want (even though experts are good and should be respected)? My head hurts! I'm not a robot (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)