[Citizendium-editors] Politics vs. Political Science

David Goodman dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Sat Nov 11 23:44:35 EST 2006


It looks like a good article, though I have not examined it closely--and it
is not my field. If it is your field, and you have examined it in detail and
are convinced it's good, make whatever minor improvements you think may be
necessary, and move it into the CZ. As well as writing good articles to
replace poor ones, and improving ones that need major improvement, it is an
appropriate use for expertise to say what   articles are  good as they
stand. Without doing this, how will readers know we've examined it? It's a
fast way to add important content.

On 11/11/06, Dmitri Glinski <dg2158 at columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I guess I have a related question: What are our plans with regard to
> the articles that look fairly well done on Wikipedia or require only
> minimal corrections? Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate the
> effort on identifying those parts of WP that are REALLY weak by our
> standards and writing up articles on these subjects, so that users
> can see the whole point and comparative advantage of CZ, and then
> build up the rest around these articles?
>
> Dmitri Glinski
> Columbia University
>
>
> Quoting "Dr. Peter Diem" <onlineforschung at eunet.at>:
>
> > Stephen,
> >
> > my point is very simple: CZ - as I understood it when I joined -
> > intends to
> > be better than Wikipedia.
> > Wikipedia looks at politics and political science like this:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
> >
> > This approach is systematical, global, comprehensive. It is not
> > focussed on
> > American politics.
> >
> > Considering the energy that has gone into establishing Wikipedia
> > - does it
> > really make sense to invent the wheel completely new? Or should
> > we not take
> > Wikipedia as a basis which to improve and develop further? E.g.
> > by leaving
> > out things we consider to be not so important and adding things
> > we think
> > worthwhile describing?
> >
> > How would/should a developed, competitive section "politics" look
> > in CZ?
> > Could you sketch it, if only roughly?
> >
> > I repeat my proposal to ask the advice of leading librarians for
> > a basic
> > roster of up to 100 main fields of interest and then either
> > - build our own system based on the respective Wikipedia index or
> > - proceed strictly alphabetically under the main fields of
> > interest
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Diem
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Long [mailto:prof.long at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:06 PM
> > To: Dr. Peter Diem
> > Subject: Re: [Citizendium-editors] Politics vs. Political Science
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> >    You certainly have a point, but it's not particularly helpful
> > simply
> > to note that we do things differently.  What alternative do you
> > propose
> > that you believe would make sense to more readers of the future,
> > public
> > CZ?  The end goal, of course, must be to help the average reader
> > find
> > topics and explore without getting lost.
> >
> > Stephen Long
> >
> > Dr. Peter Diem wrote:
> > > What would you think of this purely America-centered approach
> > if you were,
> > > like I, a European political scientist and CZ editor?
> > >
> > > Dr. Peter Diem, M.S. (Southern Illinois), Vienna, Austria
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: citizendium-editors-bounces at lists.purdue.edu
> > > [mailto:citizendium-editors-bounces at lists.purdue.edu]On Behalf
> > Of
> > > Stephen Long
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:50 PM
> > > To: citizendium-editors at lists.purdue.edu
> > > Subject: [Citizendium-editors] Politics vs. Political Science
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any other political scientists in the current editors
> > group?
> > > What should be done about the Politics/Political Science
> > distinction for
> > > the category?  What do others on the list think about this?
> > >
> > > I can see the value in leaving it as it is now (Politics), as
> > this is
> > > generally how those outside of academia think of the subject,
> > and two
> > > separate categories would overlap quite a bit.  This wouldn't
> > preclude
> > > us from setting up sub-categories that generally reflect the
> > approach of
> > > the Political Science discipline (dividing American Politics,
> > > Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Political
> > Theory).
> > >
> > > Clearly, the entry for Politics needs to be totally reworked,
> > but I
> > > would prefer to do this after some discussion with the relevant
> > > editorial group.
> > >
> > > Stephen Long
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Citizendium-editors mailing list
> > > Citizendium-editors at lists.purdue.edu
> > > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-editors
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Citizendium-editors mailing list
> > Citizendium-editors at lists.purdue.edu
> > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-editors
> >
>
>
> Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Block | Message
> Source | Save as | Print | Report as Spam (?)   Back to sent-mail
> Previous Message Next Message
> Move | Copy
> _______________________________________________
> Citizendium-editors mailing list
> Citizendium-editors at lists.purdue.edu
> https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-editors
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed


More information about the Citizendium-editors mailing list