User talk:Pashley/Citizendium

Citizendium

Citizendium have just announced a CC-by-SA license. The announcement is here [1] and the founder's essay on why they picked it is here [2]. I think this means we can now use all their stuff!

However, they are using 3.0 and I don't know if there are issues with that, so I'm commenting here rather than changing the actual Cooperating with Citizendium page. License experts, can you please update that? (WT-en) Pashley 03:57, 22 December 2007 (EST)

But it's CC-by-SA 3.0, and CC-by-SA 1.0 isn't "any later version" compliant - correct? ~ 203.144.143.4 06:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Answering my own question - creativecommons.org says: "version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only". ~ 203.144.143.4 06:43, 22 December 2007 (EST)

No comment yet, so I updated the page. (WT-en) Pashley 03:58, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Archive/Delete

Do we have any sort of relationship with Citizendium? My first inclination is that Citizendium is no different from any other external site in that we shouldn't include external links but may re-use content with proper attribution, and as such a separate policy page is not needed. Can we flag this as {{historical}} and move it out of Category:Wikivoyage policies? -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't do any harm and may reinforce our current WV:IL policy. Just correct anything that is outdated, would be my advice. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It suggests Wikivoyage has some special relationship with Citizendium, which is incorrect, and you cannot create internal links to Citizendium so I don't understand why it would reinforce that policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just correct anything that is outdated, remains my advice, Ryan. --118.93nzp (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Citizendium

Continued from Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Citizendium

VFD Discusiion

I agree with marking this page as historical or deleting it outright. Citizendium doesn't have any special relationship with Wikivoyage. It is neither a travel guide nor part of the same foundation. Just one of thousands of wikis. Gizza ^(roam) 22:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree and would vote delete. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Never even heard of it before. Delete, since there's nothing about Citizendium that's unique. If we ever need to copy and paste from another Wiki we use Wikipedia anyway. Selfie City (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What is our policy regarding historic stuff? I'd imagine the page could be useful for understanding some actions taken when the policy was new and well-known. --LPfi (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like that website, which I've never heard of, had any relationship with pre-fork Wikitravel, either. I would support deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. A dead project. Ground Zero (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: we've archived a couple other "cooperating with X" articles, but these had more connection with Wikivoyage, like Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikia Travel and Wikivoyage:Cooperating with OpenGuides. But these two were actually city/travel guides originally, while Citizendium is just an alternative to Wikipedia, an alternative that with time has not been nearly as successful as WP. Selfie City (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think more-or-less the only WV-CZ link is that several years back I was an active editor on both, so I added this page. At the time I was in China & WP was generally blocked, so I contributed on CZ instead.

w:Citizendium was an attempt to build a "better" WP with tighter controls on edits, in particular no anonymous edits allowed. Arguably a good idea in some ways, but it seems to have failed. The site is pretty much moribund with only a few editors still active. Most of the good stuff there has long since been copied to WP. See for example w:Cypherpunk#References. I copied the WP article to CZ & extensively rewrote, then WP copied my version back. Since then it has been improved & today's WP version is far better than CZ's.

I'd say CZ is effectively dead, so this should be either archived or deleted. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Pashley. I wouldn't say CZ is dead but at the same time it is not even comparable to WP as it currently stands. Having recently read some of CZ's policies, I like them but I think we may as well delete the article about them. Selfie City (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Archive No need to delete--just mark it as historical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, archive. It is not quite dead, but Recent Changes shows only about 20 edits by five people in the last week & that certainly looks moribund to me. Pashley (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see no reason for archiving; we may as well delete. If anyone wants to know our policy about copying from other articles, you can read Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia. Selfie City (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if it was active, we've never had a relationship with them. There are so many popular free online encyclopedias other than WP which are more popular than Citizendium (and many free online travel guides) for which we don't have a "cooperating" page. This page just states the obvious (don't copy large amounts of content, follow our usual external links policy) and it isn't really tailored to Citizendium. I now say delete. To be brutally honest, I don't think this page was ever useful. Gizza ^(roam) 01:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Selfie City (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

So currently, 4 say to delete and 2 say to archive, with no keep votes. But that is not a consensus yet. Selfie City (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

When there's no consensus to keep an article, unless someone wants to have it moved to their userspace, it is deleted per policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Archiving it would be ok if we had a proper archive, but tagging it as "currently inactive and ... retained for historical reference" seems a bit weak. The historical value is minor, so just delete. Nurg (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my previous remark; that was the old policy. A consensus is needed for deletion. Right now, it looks like the votes are 5-2 in favor of deletion, but I fail to understand the reasoning behind archiving this article. Can the opponents of deletion please show any time when there was active cooperation between Wikivoyage/Wikitravel and Citizendium? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

By my count there are 6 votes for delete. Gizza ^(roam) 11:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I said archive above & still think that is the best solution, but I'll go along with a consensus to delete. If it would make anyone feel better to put it on a user page, I'll take it since I was the original author, but don't expect me to do anything with it. Pashley (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So we've got 6 to 2, with one of the 2 OK with a deletion. I think we've got consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Pashley, if you would prefer to have this moved to your userspace rather than deleted, let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: Moved to User:Pashley/Citizendium without leaving a redirect. Pashley (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)