Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Active users at Citizendium

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Editor" designation[edit]

It looks as if people designated "Editors" are so designated based on membership in an "Editor" privilege group. That group is obsolete, although a few people may still have it. The proper way to determine Editor-of-foo status is to check for Category Foo Editors on the individual's user page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation, another of these idiosyncrasies of Citizendium. But for the moment, I'll stick to the wiki groups: perhaps Citizendium can update those sometimes :-)
larronsicut fur in nocte 17:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I can say, with fair confidence, that the "editor group" will not be updated -- in fact, I thought it was deleted. The idea of groups was that they specifically mapped to wiki permissions. There are no permissions, at present, that would be unique to an Editor, but one of the pending work items is an overall review of the permission structure. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A deletion of this group would be a kind of upgrade! larronsicut fur in nocte 07:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but within Citizendium, it isn't breaking anything so there's no reason to change it. There are discussions of creating new permission groups that are more tied to functional requirements and have more informative names. For example, different kinds of technical people, such as interface designers, may need privileges that are a subset of "sysop".
Yes, this does make it harder for external analysis such as yours. Unfortunately, there's no role standardization among wikis, so until that does exist, standardized group names don't make much sense. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Strikethrough?[edit]

Perhaps I'm missing something already there, but what do the strikethroughs signify? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Users under an active block at the moment the statistics were extracted?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Update October 2012[edit]

I'm afraid my scripts were never intended for such small numbers: as you are still in the top 50 of active editors when you are making a single edit a month, I get round-off errors which I have to look into - sometimes :-) --larron (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What, noVember? Ro Thorpe (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
*LOL* No, no vember for the time being: Citizendium has a bug in their data-base - I can't make requests which involve time-stamps via the api. Though I have mentioned that time and time again, nothing will be done about it... So I have to go through the html-pages, and every time there is a considerable change of their format, I have to take a closer look and check my regexes - and I don't find time (and motivation) for this at the moment. So, don't hold your breath... --larron (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Thanks for the excellent service! Ro Thorpe (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are almost no active users. I do nothing on CZ anymore except the odd time when I see something online that is relevant to a CZ article. I note it on a talk page. Example: [1]. Just doing that, I'm #10 on your list. Pashley (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I updated the data - it should be correct. For the first time there are less than 50 authors who made at least one edit during the last three months! --larron (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "Dead, but still twitiching" might be a good description. Pashley (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Citizendium's editor base has halved each year since 2010. Holy hell. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity[edit]

How is this particular article relevant to the mission? Sam Tally-ho! 04:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Only so far as CP:Active users and RW:Active users are. Seems like projectspace is a good destination for this page. Blue Talk 05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This shit again?

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

We have 7,464 articles for your enjoyment.

The article doesn't fit in - let's delete it and salt the earth! But perhaps the Mayans will spare us the work... --larron (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Sam Tally-ho! 06:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It reinforces an important point in the Citizendium article, namely that the place is basically dead. So long as LArron still can and will update the page, what's wrong with keeping it? Peter Subsisting on honey 07:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be deleted. As PeterL said, it's part of our analysis of Citizendium.
If we had subpages enabled for mainspace, Citizendium/Active_users would be a good spot for it. This isn't directly related to RationalWiki, so putting it in the projectspace feels odd, leaving mainspace as really the best place for it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone suggested deletion, though it might have been assumed because so many "mission" discussions are deletion attempts in disguise. Blue Talk 09:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick Gardner[edit]

Nick Gardner unfortunately has died. As he had made a few contributions in May, his verdict in the last column of the User Chart could have seen as of bad taste. So I removed the line. --larron (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A fine man who tried hard to contribute in spite of politics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur. He made a few fuck-ups as has been documented, but I'd rather have a good-hearted but occasionally flawed person contributing rather than some of the behind-the-scenes viciousness I saw when I was on the EC. RIP Nick Gardner. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)