Dear all,

This is addressed to all citizendium-l and citizendium-policy listmembers
and future Citizendium members. Please read!

============ 
Introduction
============

I've got two big announcements.

First, I've set up a full-featured forum at:
http://smf.citizendium. org
(you'll have to remove the space in the URL--don't ask why)

I need a volunteer or two (mature, good judgment, in broad agreement with
the Citizendium FAQ, the usual drill) to serve as forum moderators. Any
takers? Please e-mail personnel at citizendium dot org, CV would be nice (if
I don't already have one from you), TIA. Anyway, you can use these forums
now, and please let's migrate probably most of the discussion on these lists
to those forums.

Second, I agree fully with what some have said recently, that we must slow
down and think many issues through properly. Indeed, that was always
precisely the plan for these lists. But the lists haven't been conducive to
slow and careful thought, as I explain below. Therefore, I have decided to
limit the number of posts on citizendium-l and citizendium-policy to eight
per day (on each list, 16 total).  This means everyone's going to go back to
being moderated. This is obviously a major change and needs explanation,
which I will turn to next.

Again, since the forums are now in place, you should be able to continue
existing lively conversations on the forums without skipping a beat. But
with these e-mail lists I'd like to focus on quality over quantity.

========================
Why we need to slow down
========================

Edward Buckner wrote:

"I have just concluded a trip through the 1,000 philosophy articles in WP
and I find that barely 20 articles are even readable. Why is anyone
proposing to copy this stuff over. What's the point?"

This makes an interesting point that gives me serious pause. I want to ask:
are WP's philosophy articles really that bad now? Are they similarly bad in
literature or history, say? If so, then I would want to reconsider the idea
of all-at-once forking. But never mind that specific point now. I want to
raise a more general issue: Edward's argument is the sort of reasoned
thinking I was hoping to foster by starting these lists.

I confess that, while I'm truly delighted with the activity on this list,
and while I don't mean to criticize anyone, I'm increasingly frustrated with
the way things are going on the list. The process is more to blame than any
specific person's abilities or carelessness. There have been many 100%
signal posts, of course, but overall the signal-to-noise ratio here has
never been very high.

I think everyone can agree that there has been just too much happening on
the list to be of the best possible use to anyone, myself included. It's
like trying to make a civilized assembly out of an enormous roomful of
extremely intelligent and opinionated people, who are constantly talking
over each other.

Most importantly, the reason I set up these lists in the first place is that
I felt there was an enormous need for the most thoughtful people to put
their minds together and carefully and at length come to well-reasoned,
deeply-reasoned recommendations for the project. I don't require that
everyone agree with me, by the way. For example, I am intrigued by the
possibility of piecemeal forking. Maybe we'll do that. I don't wish to
foreclose that possibility. But if we talk about it, let's have a deeply
thought-provoking debate about it. These lists are frankly not serving that
purpose as well as they could. For someone trying to "grok" the relevant
issues, the list is tantalizing but ultimately frustrating.

Back in 1994 I started an online community called the Association for
Systematic Philosophy, which had the best mailing list (called ASP-Disc)
I've ever been on. It even resulted in a graduate student-level journal.
Participants included me, Ben Kovitz (who introduced me to wikis), Mike
Huemer (now professor at UC Boulder), Bryan Caplan (now professor at George
Mason), occasionally Jimmy Wales, and many other very smart people. The
well-known ontologist Barry Smith was a sort of online faculty adviser. It
was a moderated list and we limited posts to eight per day. The result is
that the level of discussion tended to be quite high. Anyone could post to
the list, including people without degrees (such as Ben Kovitz, whom I chose
as moderator to succeed me, and who went on to publish an article in a major
philosophy journal with Mike Huemer--still with no degree), but low-quality
stuff just didn't make the cut. I still hear from old subscribers from that
list saying, "Larry, when are you going to start up ASP-Disc again?"

I think we easily have the brainpower on this list to create something even
more compelling.

In short, we should organize this rowdy assembly by setting up a microphone,
scheduling speeches, and requiring order in the house. And there's a pub,
with booths, down the road if you want a more informal (but still moderated)
venue for chat (I mean the new forums, silly).

 
================================
The list format change described 
================================

Therefore, starting tomorrow (we'll say midnight PDT, or 8 AM GMT), I am
going to change the format of citizendium-l and citizendium-policy. I'm
going to limit the number of posts per day, per list, to eight. These posts
should be substantial. They should waste no one's time. They should go
deeply into relevant topics in a helpful way. If (in the moderators'
opinion) they are daft, lightweight, or simply do not advance the discussion
of the particular opportunities that the Citizendium presents, they might be
rejected. Rejected posts might then be posted, if you like, on:

http://smf.citizendium. org
(remove space from URL)

Posters will be encouraged, but not required, to comment on the "official"
topics of discussion, found at:

http://www.citizendium. org/discussion_schedule.html  
(remove space from URL)

I personally will commit to posting something meaty to the list on the
scheduled topic. The topic this week for Citizendium-L is, I propose: "How
should the Citizendium launch? Among other things, should the Citizendium
fork Wikipedia piecemeal or all at once?" The topic this week for
Citizendium-policy this week is: "What criteria should we use to identify
editors and constables?" Feel free to discuss what should be on the mailing
list discussion schedule for upcoming weeks on the forums!

Moderator administrivia and news updates from me won't use up the list's
eight slots for the day.

Note that citizendium-policy posts should concern community
governance--that's what "policy" means here--and thus is the proper place
for the recent discussion of constables, editor roles, and other roles that
were posted on citizendium-l. Technical issues go on citizendium-tools
(format unchanged), and internationalization issues go on citizendium-world
(this list hasn't been kicked off yet). 

Citizendium-l concerns everything else, so includes the discussion of real
names, launch plans, how to fork, licensing, etc.

I (and/or associates) will do moderation two times a day, once at
approximately 7 PM GMT (that's 11 AM Pacific Daylight Time), and once at 7
AM GMT (11 PM PDT), four posts each. (Don't expect perfect consistency
here.)

No one will be permitted to post more often than once per day to a given
list. So please make your post count.

Again: I need a volunteer or two (mature, good judgment, in broad agreement
with the Citizendium FAQ, the usual drill) to set up and moderate the forum.
Any takers? Please e-mail personnel at citizendium dot org, CV would be
nice, TIA.

All the best,
Larry Sanger