Talk:Assignment Zero

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (AZ) was an experiment in crowd-sourced journalism, allowing collaboration between amateur and professional journalists. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Media and Journalism [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

Production

FYI--The Wired.com piece of Citizendium will run tomorrow via this announcement.--Robert W King 11:45, 2 May 2007 (CDT)


Inception

I can tackle this. --Robert W King 15:47, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Sounds great! (If you're not actually working on AZ yourself.) --Larry Sanger 15:51, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Whoops, nevermind then!--Robert W King 15:51, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
Wait, do you mean if I'm working for the Assignment Zero staff as in one of them who runs the project or if I'm a contributor?

Actually, I think there's a difference between staff and rank-and-file contributor. If you're the latter, I guess that's OK. After all, we want to have an article about CZ, but the Policy on Self-Promotion forbids me from working on it. Who could work on it, then? The rank-and-file, anyway. --Larry Sanger 16:02, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

My question is who could approve a CZ article. :-) ---Stephen Ewen 17:43, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
I suppose that as long as I'm documenting the project as it is, and not praising or criticizing it(keeping neutral) then it should be okay. I have no special interests in the way AZ is run as I'm not there to make it a success or not--I don't pull those strings. If you approve, then I'll create the article.--Robert W King 16:10, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

I approve! --Larry Sanger 17:30, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Then by Sanger's Grace it will begin tomorrow. --Robert W King 21:35, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

How does it work?

No explanation of that on the article--that's what I want to know. --Larry Sanger 14:04, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Still working on it.--Robert W King 14:43, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

US centric?

Is AZ just US centric or does it actively discourage participation by folks outwith the US of A?

I ask because of this parenthetical statement in the current article: "we're all scattered all over the U.S. and communicate electronically."

[Please don't be fooled by the datestamps after user signatures that may give the impression that the bulk of CZ contributors are located in the Central Time Zone - a decision was made to apply the time stamp of CZ's servers' location rather than use the more neutral UTC (approximates to GMT) timestamp favoured by most other international projects.] W. Frank 07:01, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I noticed about time stamps when I got home and noticed, "well that's not my time!". There is -some- coverage about crowdsourcing concepts in brazil, but it seems like most of the coverage has been related to US-centric material; however the site does not relegate itself to covering only material that exists in the US.--Robert W King 09:07, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for the clarification, Robert, which I will take to be that AZ is neither US centric nor actively discouraging participation by folks outwith the US of A and that you will ensure that the article does not give either impression. W. Frank 18:52, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
I thought I made sure to say that, under "Sphere of Influence" Changed to Locality.--Robert W King 00:19, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

"Editor's note"

What earthly reason could justify including the full text--or even caring about it--of the "Editor's note" added to one article, even if the first? I mean, really. Please, let's not follow Wikipedia's horrible practice of emphasizing the contentious, salacious, etc., at the expense of a coherent narrative. See CZ:Article Mechanics, please. --Larry Sanger 00:00, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Sincere apologies. Blanked out the editor's note. Should I also erase the controversy bit as well?--Robert W King 09:03, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Suggestion

As a casual reader, who's never heard of Assignment Zero, I find the article difficult to get into. Right off the bat, the frequent use of "crowd-sourced" in the opening paragraph is very off-putting, as it's a phrase I've never heard in common English and isn't immediately obvious in meaning. Even when you get to the section on the origins of crowdsourcing, there is no explanatin of what exactly it is. Perhaps this is information that just needs to be put on a separate page about crowdsourcing, but as it stands, this article is hard to follow for the uninitiated. James A. Flippin 22:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I moved the sections around so it flows better. Does it change anything?--Robert W King 11:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Yes, that definitely helps. I still have trouble understanding the opening sentence, however, particularly the part "to collectively produce a piece of work that describes correlations between crowd-sourced techniques and a popular movement." It sounds like the piece of work is itself about crowd-sourcing. James A. Flippin 13:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Status of this article

I'd like to point out that AZ has long since been over, so there's not that much to change in this article. Is there any input? --Robert W King 20:42, 7 November 2007 (CST)