Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Citizendium list of missing articles

What does "Catalog" mean in a Citizendium context? Corvus cornix 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to mean nothing more than "list", having browsed five or six of the things. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Which is odd, because Citizendium also has a bunch of lists. I'm really finding, in looking at these links, that if Citizendium ever wanted to become a major force, it would have to get some standardized naming conventions. --Gpollock 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more articles, and some more contributors, would help. They're running at, say, 20 edits per day. When Wikipedia was 8.5 months old, it had somewhere between 6,900 and 11,000 articles. Citizendium, albeit having the capacity and in some cases actually having ported wikipedia content, has 2,600. It is difficult to see how it will survive for very long. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Their Catalog of global cuisine is laughable. Corvus cornix 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing! But, let's be fair to Citizendium, they do have quite extensive coverage of The history of Nepalese journalism and Nørgård's Symphony No. 3... and penguins... and more penguins... and a few more penguins... --Gpollock 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

License resolved?

This was recently posted at WT:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles:

By the way, Citizendium's licensing is now CC-BY-SA 3.0, except articles copied from Wikipedia, which are licensed under GFDL, so we can copy text from it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't verified that yet, but if true then the items on this list could just be copied over (passing over the SFNIs). That would of course make this easier. Nobody commented there so I thought I'd copy it here if anybody watches this page. Rigadoun (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand this to be their licence. I think we'd need to check that GFDL meets the "Share Alike" element of their licence, but otherwise, and assuming we meet the attribution requirements, yes, we can copy from them. It does need a little license wonkery before we start porting wholescale. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By my understanding, we have to wait until the planned migration of Wikipedia to CC-by-SA (or, at least, a CC-by-SA compatible version of GFDL) before we can use their stuff - I'm not sure how long that will be. --Tango (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the understanding I came away with from reading Larry Sander's extended essay on licensing, specifically this section. Citizendium's license announcement is here, for interest. And Mr.S acknowledges & links to this project page, which is nice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium#Content says that those two licenses are incompatible; so (if that article is correct) we can't currently copy from Citizendium those articles. But it should be pointed out in the main article. --Blaisorblade (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a year later and I am sure some of you have heard about Wikipedia updating their license (or in the process?). Do you know if there will be an update to this in terms of what people can do now re: this sub project?Calaka (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

Now that Wikipedia is licensed under cc-by-sa, we can begin copying texts from citizendium. (In fact, I have copied few articles already.) Could you someone update the list? Surely, cz has grown since the last compilation of the list. -- Taku (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just be careful that if you copy/paste that the citizendum article wasn't a copy/paste from another source (since we have a bot that can detect copy/paste now) and it will hence get deleted. Finish all the ones on the current list and hopefully someone will be able to update this list by then. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

When porting over Citizendium articles, be sure to note in the edit summary the exact revision that is being used. We might also consider making a template to note when articles include CZ content (as CZ does with Wikipedia-based articles).--ragesoss (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean like "copy of cz article as of June 21, 09?" Since every edit in wikipedia is time-stamped, I don't see much of need for being careful about revisions or dates. Besides, more paper works means less productivity. -- Taku (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean a link to the specific revision, like http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Ancient_Celtic_music&oldid=100511173 . Putting that in the edit summary when you add the CZ content isn't much work, and it makes it very easy to track down how the revision used.--ragesoss (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. This is a great idea: no much work but gives a useful information. At least I will do this in the future. Do you know of any instruction pages on data-dumping from CZ or other projects under cc-by-sa? Should we create one? -- Taku (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one, but I think it's a good idea.--ragesoss (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for another update? Citizendium has been adding content slowly but steadily since the last one. bd2412 T 17:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)