Knowino:Village Inn/archive 2

Folks, it's done
I've moved Tendrl to its own VPS hosting. I decided to go with the name "Knowino", since it's quite catchy, isn't easily misspelt, and had available domains. In the coming hours and days I'll enable uploads for all registered users, install LaTeX, and make sure images are functioning properly. Let me know if there are any problems!

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's contributed to the project so far, particularly Paul and Boris for their hard work. Thanks, folks. Here's to a better encyclopedia! :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2010 (EST)


 * Wow! Congratulations! --Boris Tsirelson 04:53, 17 December 2010 (EST)


 * There are a few things that remain to be done—in particular, image resizing needs to be sorted out. I'll try and finish configuration changes tomorrow (Melbourne time).—Thomas Larsen (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2010 (EST)

← Image thumbnailing is now working correctly (I think). I've enabled image uploads for all autoconfirmed users—an user account is automatically confirmed once it is more than 24 hours old and has at least five edits. We do have the disk space necessary for more image uploads now, so feel free to prettify Knowino with lots of nice pictures! :-) I'm in the process of installing LaTeX on the server right now, and once the installation process is completed I should be able to eliminate our dependency on a third-party CGI script to render mathematical formulas. In short, it's all happening!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (EST)


 * I finally managed to sort out mathematical formula rendering.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (EST)


 * Excellent. The problem with the newline in mode is gone too. --Paul Wormer 01:17, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Graphical material
You may have noticed that I updated the graphics of many of the CZ articles that Boris has downloaded. Whenever I need my own drawings, I upload them to WikiCommons (WC). I also get other graphical material from WC. Some drawings are not easy to find, especially works prepared by other Citizens. Out of politeness I don't want to upload their work to WC (and I don't know whether their license allows it, but even so). Now that Knowino is up (and presumably has space to store graphics?), one could consider uploading CZ graphical material to here. Questions: (i) Does the CZ license allow it? (ii) If so, do we want to do it? (iii) Does Knowino have the disk space for it? --Paul Wormer 05:45, 17 December 2010 (EST)


 * (1) It depends on the license used on Citizendium—I'd prefer to use only "free" images, like public-domain or CC-BY-SA pictures, at this stage. (2) I don't see why not. (3) Yes, Knowino now has the disk space for it (within reason, of course)... I'm still sorting out a few fine details of the upload process, but hopefully I'll finish tonight.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2010 (EST)

Budget
I've started Knowino:Budget as a page to keep track of our financial situation. Right from the very start I want to establish Knowino's commitment to financial transparency, and this is the first step in that direction.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2010 (EST)

On approval
Here is my controversial idea of approval, based on my mixed experience with approvals on Citizendium.

There are (here and henceforth, "is"/"are" means "should be, in my opinion") two very different kinds of approval. For now I call them "certification" and "approval", but probably you'll find better terms (assessment? valuation? consent? confirmation?).

An extremal example: imagine an article containing "2+2=4" and nothing else. :-) This is a very bad article, it does not deserve approval. Nevertheless it is free of errors, thus, it deserves certification.

Certification is made by experts only. Approval is made by the wide community (even a poll among non-registered readers could be appropriate). Certification means "free of errors" (and nothing else). Approval means something like "well done, useful for readers" (or even "exciting"). Several levels of approval could exist ("good article", "featured article"), but only one level of certification.

A certificate page "x/Certificate" (or "Certificate:x"?), attached to a certified article x, may look as follows. - Version of Jan 3, 2011.

Free of errors, to the best of my knowledge. Within my expertise, with the following exceptions:
 * Theorem 4.
 * Section "History".

(Signature of Expert A.)

Section "History" is free of errors, to the best of my knowledge. This section is entirely within my expertise. (Signature of Expert B.)

Version of Dec 28, 2010.

Free of errors, to the best of my knowledge. Entirely within my expertise. (Signature of Expert C.) -

Being not an authoritative academic institution, we cannot just claim "this is true". Rather, we inform the reader that Expert B finds it to be true, and (on another page) that Expert B has such and such proofs of expertise.

If several experts can certify an article, — the better: let them all do. However, the responsibility is always individual, not collective.

A discredited expert loses the priviledge to approve.

Unlike Citizendium, we do not bother whether an expert certifies a work of others or of himself/herself.

Waiting for your ideas and opinions, --Boris Tsirelson 10:35, 18 December 2010 (EST).


 * I will think about your proposal as soon as we have an article to certify or to approve. --Paul Wormer 11:18, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * —?? At least, I could certify Set theory just now. And not only. And you probably could certify, at least, some your articles. --Boris Tsirelson 11:35, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * OK tomorrow I will have a look and form an opinion. --Paul Wormer 11:49, 18 December 2010 (EST)

← I agree broadly with you on the need for two different levels of "certification" or "approval":


 * 1) "This article is well-written, comprehensive, useful, and thoroughly supplemented."
 * 2) "This article is factually accurate and covers the full spectrum of expert and public opinion."

(Obviously, there's some overlap between the two types.) Here's my suggestion, then, for a featured article selection process:


 * 1) The article goes through intense public/community scrutiny. During this time, rigorous style-checking and copyediting is performed. Reviewers are encouraged, like everyone else, to suggest changes and improvements. Once a certain percentage of people have voted to "approve" the article, the process moves on to the next step.
 * 2) The article is reviewed and "vouched" for / "sponsored" by at least one expert reviewer. Once the article has received a sponsor, or sponsors, it is "featured"—marked as one of Knowino's best articles.

I agree that we can only inform the reader that a particular expert believes the article to be correct.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * My main idea is that "certification" does not made it "one of Knowino's best articles" (only approval does). The "2+2=4" example should make it absolutely clear: certified BUT very bad.
 * Let me explain, why. On CZ, typically, when I tried to approve a math article, some people showed their erudition by saying "this should be also included". For example, the Line article: someone told, something should be said about lines in projective geometry, too. It was not at all stupid or wrong. Rather, it was controversial. Peter Schmitt typically replied, let the article be reasonably short... The division of The Knowledge into articles is inevitably controversial: articles can be small or large.
 * The problem is that I was reluctant to approve because of this effect. Indeed, before approval I have read the article very carefully, checking all details. And, before approval, months (sometime even years) no one bothered to enlarge the article. Now on the days of approval nearly everyone wants to add something. It is frustrating to me the approving expert. It was my intention, to inform the reader that this version is free of errors. I believe, this fact itself was worth noting. In terms of the above, certification was my intention, not approval.
 * As an expert, I want to certify an article quietly and unilaterally. If someone will find an error after that, it will me a shame on me. If someone will complain that the article is incomplete, badly designed, hard to understand etc., it will be no shame on me. My certification was not an approval. In fact, approval is not my business; it is a business of non-expert readers. When approving, it is appropriate to suggest improvements. When certifying, it is not. Approval is collective; certification is individual.
 * I understand that for an article about a controversial topic (especially, political) a major omission can be even worse than error: it can be disinformation via bias. Maybe my idea does not fit this situation. Anyway, it is always hard (or even impossible) to establish uniform rules for very different matters, like sciences and politics. My idea of certification/approval is geared toward sciences, not politics.
 * In sciences, if you just state "2+2=4", there is no bias or disinformation. You just tell a small portion of The Knowledge; and this portion is free of errors. Everyone is invited to add more: "2+5=7" etc. Certification should not prevent further progress of the article. If a reader wants to know more, he/she can see the last, non-certified version. If he/she bothers about reliability, he/she can see the last certified version.
 * By the way, I am not sure that the last certified version should be the default. Maybe the opposite? "This is the recent version; click here for the last certified version"? For a registered user it could be an option: recent by default, or certified by default. Though I do not know whether our software can do so.
 * --Boris Tsirelson 02:09, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Okay, so I think you're recommending that "approval" and "certification" (we should probably come up with less confusable terms) be independent, or almost independent, processes from each another. Just to clarify, I believe you're proposing:


 * Certification—done by expert reviewers—"I vouch for the factual accuracy of this particular revision of this article, nothing more."
 * Approval—done by pretty much everyone—"This article is balanced, comprehensive, structured, and readable."


 * There are certainly merits to that approach. I think the key is to make sure reviewers' time isn't wasted certifying articles which are too incomplete.


 * It's definitely possible to make the software display either the approved revision or the most recent revision—although we might need to install the FlaggedRevs (Flagged Revisions) extension first, which would be comparatively trivial. FlaggedRevs would also let users rate articles, and that would be a useful feature. We might need to rethink the certification/approval process in light of FlaggedRevs' capabilities.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * "make sure reviewers' time isn't wasted certifying articles which are too incomplete" — Surely I shall not really certify a "2+2=4" article. :-) On the other hand, if someone will write a modest but correct math article, and I will certify it (instead of waiting indefinitely for further progress), then hopefully the author will be pleasured and encouraged, right?
 * "less confusable terms" — Yes, I hope native English speakers will do it better.
 * Let me emphasize further details of my proposal (see the example above): "Within my expertise, with the following exceptions..." This is also according to my experience on CZ. Encyclopedic articles tend to be broad, more broad than my expertise. :-) In particular, a math article often contains a "History" section... It should be rather typical that no expert can certify it all, but section-wise it becomes possible.
 * --Boris Tsirelson 04:19, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Boris' proposal is—as he writes—predominantly useful for math and sciences where truth and expertise are sharper defined than in other "Domains of Knowledge". So I would propose as an experiment to certify at first only science and math articles. We can see how it goes and learn whether the system can be transferred to other fields. Of course, it is essential that the certified version is well-flagged and easily accessible. The reason that I favor Boris' proposal is my experience at WP. I wrote some articles in my field of expertise (molecular quantum mechanics) that were flawless (that is, as far as I could tell). Now most of them are completely wrong, high school kids "simplified" their reasonings. It would be helpful for a WP reader if he could fall back on a version certified by me. I understand from Thomas that it is technically doable to flag a version as certified,  let's try it.--Paul Wormer 04:22, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Yes, mostly for sciences. Maybe not good for our new humanitarians, Ro Thorpe and Hayford Peirce :-) --Boris Tsirelson 05:02, 19 December 2010 (EST)

← Sounds reasonable to me, I'm just thinking through the technical implementation... Okay, here's what I propose. Tomorrow morning (Melbourne time), I'll install the Flagged Revisions extension on Knowino. I'll set it up like this:


 * All registered users (perhaps everyone, if it's possible to do that while minimising abuse) can rate an article's accuracy, balance, readability, and comprehensiveness—each of these on a scale of one (poor) to five (excellent), or even one to three.
 * Articles with consistently high rankings will automatically qualify as "featured"—in fact, we might do away with the whole concept of officially featuring articles, and leave it up to the dynamic rating process instead.
 * Reviewers (people with the "reviewer" user-right) can "certify" particular revisions of articles:
 * The most recent version will always be displayed by default to readers (is this a good idea?—perhaps we could allow reviewers, or administrators, to adjust this setting on a per-article basis); however, a prominent link to the last certified version will be provided at the top of articles.
 * There should be a way for reviewers to set notes—e.g., "I certify all of this article except section B". Or, alternatively, we might consider splitting articles to keep individual articles within one main "field"; for example, the "History" section in Mathematics could be moved to History of mathematics. However, this wouldn't always be practical for small articles.

Thoughts?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Worth trying! --Boris Tsirelson 07:03, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Done! The actual implementation is fairly close to what I described above; I'll probably install a separate extension to allow reader feedback.


 * At this stage, only reviewers can "certify" article revisions.
 * Possible ratings are:
 * "Sighted"—the article appears to be accurate.
 * "Accurate"—the article has been properly reviewed and is, in the reviewer's opinion, accurate. This essentially meets Boris' description of "certification".
 * "Featured"—the article is accurate, balanced, etc. and deserves to be marked as one of Knowino's best articles. Reviewers should not mark an article as "Featured" without community consensus.
 * The most recent revision of an article is always displayed by default.


 * Enjoy!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Thank you, I enjoy. However: I marked the current Countable set as "sighted"; then I did several changes in it; and it is still "sighted". Its new version is still "stable". Why? If someone will make a bad edit, readers will believe that the bad version is good! --Boris Tsirelson 04:47, 20 December 2010 (EST)
 * I see, it is "automatically checked". But I wonder, what does it mean, and when does it happen? --Boris Tsirelson 04:53, 20 December 2010 (EST)
 * Ah, I see: when an anon makes a change, it is not auto-checked. Well. Now I only wonder what happens to a change made by another registered user (especially, another reviewer). --Boris Tsirelson 05:07, 20 December 2010 (EST)


 * A change is only "auto-checked" if it is made by a reviewer, because it's assumed they know what they're talking about. There might be good reasons to disable this feature (if I make an article to a mathematics article that I know nothing about, it probably shouldn't be auto-reviewed unless it's very minor), but it does save time and effort most of the time.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2010 (EST)


 * Yes, I just tried it on Parallax and indeed, my change retains Paul's "Accurate" certification. This is a pity. I understand that the software is not written on my specification. And still, it breaks my idea of personal responsibility of each expert. Instead, the system implements the collective responsibility of all reviewers together. --Boris Tsirelson 09:43, 21 December 2010 (EST)


 * After another experiment I see that the situation is not bad. When I certify as "Accurate", I always attach an "Observation or note to display", and it becomes shown on the page, with my name added. Well. Now if someone (no matter, myself or anyone else) makes an edit, the "Accurate" status retains, BUT the attachment disappears. Nice! No more my name on the page, and no more my certificate. --Boris Tsirelson 14:45, 21 December 2010 (EST)

Polemic articles
I propose that we wait with polemic articles (such as homeopathy, cold fusion, WikiLeaks, memory of water, UFOs, Ormus, everything about politics and religion, etc.) until we have a good body (say > 10000) of non-polemic articles. I have seen the time-consuming quarrels at CZ that raged on (and are raging on) while there was yet so much non-polemic stuff to write. I made a start by sneakingly skipping the import of cold fusion and memory of water from CZ. --Paul Wormer 11:18, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * What do you mean by "we" - are you advocating restricting the types of articles that new contributors may start or import until this magic number of non-polemic articles is reached? What about contributors who are interested, or even expert, in religion or politics? Modek Ringburn 11:25, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * By "we" I mean contributors of Knowino and the number 10000 is not magic. If an author of one single article causes the sort of fights that we see at CZ, then I would rather have him or her wait with contributing until this project is firmly rooted. I have seen that one article can drain away more energy than a few hundred of non-polemic articles. Usually the end result of the fights is a lousy article that nobody is satisfied with. These quarrels cost CZ the loss of dozens of productive and potential contributors. --Paul Wormer 12:02, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * Interesting stuff - so what you are saying, basically, is that you want people who join Knowino to only contribute articles in subjects that you have approved of. That's quite a ways from being a general encyclopedia, and potentially excludes many potential contributors from adding content.Modek Ringburn 12:59, 18 December 2010 (EST)

((unindent))So far things are not going well. The site name sounds like Know-A-Wino followed up with censoring articles. My usual saw at CZ was allowing writers to write. I still stand by that. Of course if a writer chooses to write about something totally outlandish, without verified references, then the article should be deleted. To say do not write out about UFOs or other paranormal material is just plain wrong. Parapsychology is studied at the university level, perhaps not so much in the United States, but it is in other countries. Parapsychologists use the scientific method to document their work. Go check the Koesteler Parapsychology unit for a good example of paranormal scientific research.Mary Ash 14:03, 18 December 2010 (EST)

On Citizendium, we've observed that a number of articles—like Homeopathy, Cold fusion, Memory of water, and so on—have been the source of contentious debates. In many cases, these debates have consumed a disproportionate amount of time (and contributors, for that matter), having an overall negative effect on the project. In addition, just a few articles with a pseudoscientific bias have brought projects like Citizendium into disrepute.

Now, I think banning the creation of "polemic" articles until we've reached a certain number of "non-polemic" articles is a little draconian; it also opens up a whole new realm of contention about what makes an article count as "polemic" or "non-polemic". This is a young and fledgling project, and I think the culture we establish in the next few months will largely determine the culture here in ten years' time. I don't want to set a culture where all disagreement is crushed, or where articles that are even mildly controversial are deleted and salted for a year. But, on the other hand, I don't think any of us want to create an environment that invites endless argument and pointless filibustering.

So here's my perspective.


 * Anyone can create any article (that fits into the rest of the encyclopedia).
 * Constructive debate (with a focus on content, not personalities) is encouraged.
 * If an article is the subject of a great degree of legitimate controversy or disagreement on Knowino—and particularly if that controversy devolves into personality conflicts—, the article may be shortened ("stubbed"), as a temporary measure until the Community Council is set up, to state just the essential and incontrovertible facts.
 * (By "legitimate" I mean to exclude obvious disruption and trolling.)

What do you folks think?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (EST)


 * I'll tell you what I think - you have ignored a complaint made on your talkpage, have failed to address the concept of people on your site maliciously outing other members, and instead delivered some wishy-washy ideas about what articles can be written, meanwhile leaving personal details of a member in full view, despite that member requesting that, as per your own rules, they retain their anonymity. That is extremely unprofessional, and really sets a bad tone for the future. If you choose not to respond when questioned on your talkpage then it seems like you are ignoring specific problems that have been brought to your attention. Not too many folk will take you seriously if you continue down that road. Modek Ringburn 00:47, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Dear oh dear, I only made a proposition, and now we have already the quarrels that I was afraid of. Must I conclude that a project like this is impossible without fights?--Paul Wormer 01:13, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * My first statement in this thread was meant as an appeal to wait voluntarily before adding polemic contents. I assumed that everybody, who is able and willing to write for an encyclopedia, has enough common sense to judge for him/her self what topics are polemic. Evidently I proved myself wrong, I had not foreseen that my appeal for voluntary restraint was so polemic.--Paul Wormer 03:43, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * For me it is not a problem, to never add polemic content. The problem is that most people find all the non-polemic content boring, irrelevant and far from their interests. :-( --Boris Tsirelson 05:07, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * I do agree on voluntairly not writing polemic content for now, but there may be experts coming in those subjects. However, I believe they should eventually be written, as such subjects are of importance in a general encyclopedia.--Robert Smith 06:43, 19 December 2010 (EST)

(unindent) I am sorry if I sounded so hostile but after several months of surviving CZ I have become a tough talker :-) I think Thomas has offered a reasonable solution to the situation. I will continue to believe in free speech and the ability to freely write. And we also need to remember that we are all volunteers and need to be welcomed. We also need to be appreciated as this is a labor of love and not pay.Mary Ash 11:54, 19 December 2010 (EST)

E-mails...
I just discovered that there was a problem with the e-mail configuration of the server, meaning that user-to-user e-mails and address verification e-mails have not been sent since the move to Knowino. I think I've fixed this problem; please let me know if you experience any problems.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Hey
So, jumping right in. What's the scope of this wiki? I know most say "everything and anything in reasonable limits", but many tend to find a "path"/"niche" and stick to it, especially starting from other niche/one-path projects (like Citizendium, and I mean no offense about it, but that's what it is). I recommend policies about the more controversial stuff like Copyright and Living People Biography, which are a pain, but need to be sorted out, and the sooner the better for everyone.

My special concern is about user privacy (although this seems like a fair and friendly place, but I've been burnt before, so I have to say it), especially regarding at least partially hiding anonymous users' IPs like Wikipedia used to, and some guarantee to the logged in users that only few and competent people will have access to checkuser rights and what is there, stays there and is not thrown on the net as a result of some stupid dispute. You know, guarantees that some admin won't slash out in something like "You live in Bucharest Romania, on street x, number y" childish stuff.

Regarded the content issue, I was wondering if everything will be treated equal. What is "knowledge" regarding Knowino? Wikipedia at least I know has been on a purge of most "trivia" and non-real-world/non-considered-"important" articles, would Knowino allow these?

Disclaimer: All my suggestions are made in good faith and all that :-) (yeah, Wikipedia and some "extremist" wikis really spooked me in the past). --Anime Addict 12:06, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Welcome Anime Addict (this means addicted to the spirit?). You probably have read my appeal to start non-controversially? In addition to what I said above: it seems better that we get to know each other before we start to dissent.  I called for voluntary restraint in the beginning of this project. And yes, biographies of living people  can be another source of unpleasantness.
 * Personally, I'm an inclusionist and of the opinion that Knowino is not paper. The length of bookshelves needed to store this encyclopedia do not play any role. The proverbial Pokemon figures don't bother me at all. But this is my personal opinion, nobody said here something about it so far. Thomas, Boris and others may disagree.--Paul Wormer 12:37, 19 December 2010 (EST)
 * PS I read your user page and understand now what Anime Addict means. --Paul Wormer 13:04, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Thanks for the welcome. As for the spirit reference, I don't get it. It's just anime, something I consider an art form and what others consider Japanese cartoons. I made the nick "on the fly" to start anew on the net a few years ago.
 * Also, what's the idea on copying Wikipedia articles? I'm guessing it's recommended new articles should be made here, even if they'll have less content/information, as long as it's original. I'll put an article I've worked on a lot on another wiki with the subst'd templates to give an idea on what I mean. --Anime Addict 13:08, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Right, I found too what you meant: "The state of being lively, brisk, or full of spirit and vigor; vivacity; spiritedness" on Wiktionary. It's barely meaning #3, but I understand why it could be understood as that. --Anime Addict 13:15, 19 December 2010 (EST)


 * Regarding importation of Wikipedia articles, you might want to see my reply to another user on my discussion page: User talk:Thomas Larsen.


 * I understand your concerns about user privacy. We have a strict privacy policy which states, "If you are logged in with an account, only the information you volunteer about yourself, and your identity, will be made available." I intend to ensure that policy is adhered to, and there would obviously be severe consequences for anyone who abused it. (By the way, the CheckUser extension isn't currently installed, although I plan to do that in the near future.)


 * Welcome, and thanks for your contributions so far! :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Help... Anyone?
I was browsing Sites using InstantCommons and I happened to encounter this website. This site is nice, but can anyone enlighten me about what this site does? The Project:About page is, kinda, useless. I can't really make sense of what it is saying.

Hope to stay and contribute here! Hydra 00:13, 21 December 2010 (EST)


 * Well, have you heard of Citizendium? Basically, Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales, started Citizendium a few years ago as a project dedicated to developing a free encyclopedia. Citizendium has two main differences from Wikipedia: (1) all contributors must register and use their own real names, and (2) experts are supposed to "guide" contributors.


 * However, Citizendium suffers from several major flaws:


 * It's incredibly bureaucratic—I think it would be fair to say that there are more pages of rules at Citizendium than active contributors.
 * Citizendium's community is becoming increasingly insular, and genuine experts are being discouraged from editing. For example, the Secretary of Citizendium's Editorial Council recently declared that he thinks anyone who believes Citizendium's registration questions are too intrusive is an "imbecile"—and this was in relation to a well-known software developer.
 * Citizendium is infamous for some of its pro-pseudoscience/pro-fringe articles. Until recently, their article on Homeopathy was a disgrace. "Memory of water" is still outrageously biased.
 * Many decisions at Citizendium are made behind closed doors; the community often doesn't get a say. The newly-elected Management Council recently had to run an urgent fundraiser after the previous administration failed to reveal the dire financial situation of the project. (To avoid problems like this happening here, we're explicitly making our budget public: see Knowino:Budget.)


 * A little while ago this wiki was created as a partial "fork" of Citizendium to address its problems. The purpose of this site is to create a free encyclopedia—a bit like Wikipedia, but hopefully better. :-) Anyone can edit—they don't have to use their real names, or even register for that matter. Experts can become reviewers and "certify" articles. In the near future we plan to start supplementing articles with "guides"—pages that contain practical information (like worked examples for mathematical articles, for instance). And, as you can see, we strive for minimal bureaucracy.


 * I hope that clarifies a little. If you had difficulty making sense of Knowino:About, I should probably rewrite it to make it more understandable—do you have any suggestions? Cheers!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (EST)


 * (In fact, you're welcome to edit the page yourself if you feel inclined.)—Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (EST)
 * Okay. Great! Thanks! But I strongly suggest that you use the latest version of MediaWiki, so that you can install many more extensions. Also, lets try to make this site more multilingual. Hydra 07:01, 21 December 2010 (EST)
 * If you need a list of suggested extensions to install, try looking into Wikimedia's SVN. The extensions are already pre-included into that release. Hydra 07:09, 21 December 2010 (EST)

Getting people involved
How should we get people involved, and what should we do to prepare beforehand? I think those are two questions we need to answer in the near future. I've purposely held off making public announcements about Tendrl/Knowino, except on Citizendium's forums and in one or two places on RationalWiki, because a lot of people are away on holidays (or vacations) ;-) around this time of year. I suspect mid-January would probably be the best time for us to start "going public": that gives us plenty of time to get a reasonable base of content here, write (and rewrite) important project pages, and discuss various issues that are going to affect us in the future (how to handle biographies of living people, for instance). Are there any objections to that, or other suggestions? (By the way, if anyone here wants to invite specific people to the site, go for it. I'm only talking about general public announcements.)

Now, in terms of preparation, I think we need to:


 * Make the site unique and attractive. In other words, we should set things up so the differences between Knowino and projects like Wikipedia and Citizendium are clear. (I don't mean we should deliberately create differences for sake of being different: we just need to make sure people understand the existing differences.)
 * Have a clear purpose. I don't agree with everything in that post of John's, but he makes a good point, namely that people need to feel (and, in my opinion, deserve to feel) some security about the purpose and future of the project. (Personally, I think Tendrl's/Knowino's goal has been clear from the beginning: to develop a good encyclopedia. Things have changed, often very suddenly, since the start of this project; but we're still fledgling, and I think it's important that we adapt to line up well for the future.)
 * Practically speaking, that means we'll probably need to rewrite pages like Knowino:About, which have apparently haven't been as helpful as they should be.
 * Sort out how we're going to deal with difficult issues, like biographies of living people, challenges to expertise, dispute resolution, and so on. I really think we need to make sure a good dispute resolution system is established.

Once we're ready to start actively getting new people on board, we should:


 * Post (non-spam) ;-) messages on various mailing lists to announce the existence of Knowino.
 * Encourage contributors to talk about and link to Knowino—with the aim of "viral" growth.
 * Speak to people disillusioned with Citizendium and Wikipedia (for valid reasons).
 * Encourage collaboration and cooperation between projects.
 * ... Any other ideas? I'm too tired to think of more right now.

Hmm, yes. That's all for now; I may update this post later if I think of something else. Comments, questions, or suggestions, anyone?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (EST)

Interface improvements
I've enabled a couple of extensions to improve the interface:


 * the edit-box toolbar should look nicer and function better
 * if you type into the search box at the top-right of the page, a list of suggestions should come up
 * the sidebar should contain collapsible headers
 * there should be a star icon next to the search box—it puts a page on your watchlist.

Let me know if there are any problems.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2010 (EST)
 * Please also note that these extensions only work with the Vector skin. If you are using any other skins, these extensions will not apply much to you. --Hydra 10:10, 26 December 2010 (EST)

IRC channel
Thanks to User:Hydra, we now have an IRC channel for Knowino! See Knowino:IRC.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2010 (EST)


 * By the blessed head of "Bob" please say you're not really doing this. Some of the worst abuses on Wikipedia have come from backroom bullshit conducted over IRC. Keep everything transparent and in the open. Doctor Dark 23:07, 27 December 2010 (EST)
 * No, you are mistaken. We conduct unofficial discussions on IRC. Major discussions are on-wiki. Besides, the IRC channel is for help, not discussions.--Hydra (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (EST)
 * About Wikipedia I do not know, but on Citizendium I have a reason to dislike the forum, as well as email exchange. Thus I am also suspicious here toward all forms of non-wiki interactions. --Boris Tsirelson 00:55, 28 December 2010 (EST)
 * Then, join the IRC channel.--Hydra (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (EST)
 * Bzzt. Wrong answer. You should have said either (a) "yeah, we meant well but on further reflection it's not such a good idea" or (b) "don't worry, we'll publish the raw IRC logs in the interest of transparency." Instead you chose (c). Doctor Dark 13:42, 28 December 2010 (EST)
 * It is a rule against the channel policies that we log a channel... Hydra (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (EST)
 * CORRECTION: There is no hard rules against channel logging. But we need a bot to do this. Please inform us when you find one so that we can immediately run the bot and publish the logs.--Hydra (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2010 (EST)

I don't mind having an IRC channel, but I, too, would prefer that it be logged. I'll have a look later for a bot that I could run on the Knowino servers 24/7...—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to everyone here! Thanks for your contributions, and for giving Knowino a go. I wish you folks the very best for the year ahead. :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)


 * (By the way, it's 10:58 PM in Melbourne, hence why I'm posting this now.)—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (EST)


 * Thank you! The same to you! You were the first to create the wiki, and now you are the first to meet New Year :-) --Boris Tsirelson 08:52, 31 December 2010 (EST)


 * Thanks! :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Reader feedback
I just installed the ReaderFeedback extension. It lets all users rate articles' accuracy, balance, and readability. Article ratings can be accessed by clicking Toolbox→Page rating in the sidebar.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * I see: accuracy, balance, and readability. Nice. What about something like usefulness/educational value? I do not say "importance", since it is ambiguous: importance for science is far not the same as importance for readers. --Boris Tsirelson 01:49, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * That's a good idea; I've added a "Usefulness" rating. (If you've got a better suggestion, you can change the name of the rating by editing MediaWiki:Readerfeedback-usefulness.)


 * In a way, I would like to bring the number of possible ratings down from five (Excellent, High, Fair, Low, Poor) to three (Excellent, Fair, Poor). I can't see how to do that right now, however.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Oops... Usefulness (=importance for the reader) is still ambiguous. It would be nice to ask separately (a) usefulness of the existing text, and (b) potential usefulness of the topic. This way we could know that the reader needs this topic, but is not satisfied. --Boris Tsirelson 02:06, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * About balance: clear for a political article, but what does it mean for (say) a mathematical article? --Boris Tsirelson 02:12, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Well, I suppose that a person who bothers to read an article must think that it's at least potentially useful (otherwise they would be knowingly wasting their time). Perhaps the question we should ask is, "Did you find the information you were looking for?" Obviously, though, we need to condense that into one or two words.


 * And regarding "Balance", I suppose it has comparatively little meaning for a mathematical article or an article on physics compared to an article on politics or religion. Readers might choose to leave "Balance" set as "unsure"; I don't know. But, in my humble opinion, it's probably worthwhile keeping that rating across the board for the sake of controversial articles—what do you think?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Maybe "Helpfulness" would be better than "Usefulness"? It's still not perfect, though. Suggestions are welcome.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * About accuracy: it is already stipulated in expert assessment. Should it be assessed in parallel by the wide audience? At least, I'd make it the last item, not the first. --Boris Tsirelson 02:36, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * On the one hand, I think it's worth having "Accuracy" simply to make Knowino more publicly accountable. If a reviewer marks an article as "Accurate" but there are clear factual errors, the ratings will let us know that something needs to be fixed. (Out of interest, why do you think it would be better to put "Accuracy" as the last item?)
 * Just because I feel (felt) that it is not a question to the wide audience. --Boris Tsirelson 03:52, 3 January 2011 (EST)
 * On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to have just two ratings:


 * Presentation
 * Helpfulness


 * ... because there's not much really point in saying an article is inaccurate without pointing out the inaccuracies.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Yes, this was also my problem with accuracy. Indeed, anyone can edit (as well as write to the talk page). Thus, about accuracy, I'd prefer some templates (like Wikipedia's) indicating a doubt. --Boris Tsirelson 03:52, 3 January 2011 (EST)
 * Yes, presentation and helpfulness could be good. --Boris Tsirelson 03:56, 3 January 2011 (EST)
 * We could have also "Knowino:If you are satisfied" and "Knowino:If you are dissatisfied" (mostly for causal visitors). --Boris Tsirelson 12:19, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Okay, we'll try "Presentation" and "Helpfulness". We've got a lot of scope to experiment to see what gives us the best ratings, so we can play around with different configurations until we find one that is useful to us.


 * You gave me an idea. Because many people are not familiar with the concept of wikis, it might be helpful to readers to put a link somewhere (in the sidebar, in the header—I don't know, but somewhere reasonably prominent) along the lines of, "If you found a problem with this article..." That link would then take readers to a page that encouraged them to do one of two things:


 * fix the problem(s) in the article themselves
 * report the problem(s) on the discussion page for the article.


 * That would give people a way of gently coming to grips with the wiki. I suggest this because I think the vast majority of people don't understand (well, didn't understand—perhaps they are starting to realise now) that they can edit, say, Wikipedia.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)


 * Yes, this is in the direction of "If you are dissatisfied". And in the other direction we could recommend to use the feedback (in the positive) and maybe even to donate a little. --Boris Tsirelson 00:52, 4 January 2011 (EST)


 * Well, I suppose we could have a notice like, "If you found this article useful, you might want to consider donating to Knowino..." Before we can do that, though, I really need to set up an account for donations.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (EST)

Caching
I've enabled PHP acceleration and object caching, so there should be a small but significant increase in the site's performance.—Tom Larsen (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2011 (EST)