CZ Talk:Anthropology Workgroup

This is the Discussion Page for the CZ:Anthropology Workgroup

---

-Could the authors of the developed articles please place them in the appropriate categories? Also, why do not all articles that are developed and have the anthro workgroup tag appear inthe developed articles? Is this a glitch?

Lee R. Berger

Lee--to the former, I'm not sure what you're asking. Most articles (unlike most of yours, by the way) do not have single authors. To the latter, could be a glitch. Can you give an example? --Larry Sanger 12:56, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Larry - when I clicked on our header in our workgroup "developed articles" I get about eight or ten or so. However, when I'm adding subpages9 (subpages gives one a funny look still (see Talk on our workgroup) to my articles (even ones that several authors have now worked on), they do not automatically appear as "developed articles" in that very same workgroup list - (I presumed it was automatic). So, I was asking authors - like the authors of Kilt to add those in to the "priority list" manually under appropriate headings.

Lee R. Berger 13:05, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Just noticed this myself. Articles disappear from the developed, developing, etc. categories when one deletes the article checklist from the talk page. They do not reappear when the Metadata page is created. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Question

Now that several people have been at work on the Anthropology Workgroup page, I have a question: what are the main functions of this page? And can we perhaps get people working on other workgroup pages, bearing those functions in mind? --Larry Sanger 13:02, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Please clarify "functions" - do you mean - what is the goal of a page like this? I would suggest - if that is the case - that it is -

• 1 - to identify priority areas of work needed so that we develop a core content.
• 2 - to identify the entire "common" knowledge of the area that needs to be worked on so that the encyclopedia appears "complete", and,
• 3 - to stimulate - by example - the development of new articles, areas of redress and the search for unknown information (e.g. adding five sites to North American archeological sites even though the editor knows there are hundreds if not thousands - someone will add one or two more...)

Lee R. Berger

I would add one:

• to provide a sense of "community".

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:19, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

truly more clearly stated than my "waffle" in point 3 (which said the same thing in sinister tones!)

Lee R. Berger 13:25, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if it would help, for purposes of community-building, to have a Citizendium Anthropology Advisory Board--actually, A Boards for all workgroups, eventually--to demonstrate that some well-known anthropologists are behind the project, even if they aren't actually involved themselves? To be clear, I'm not saying y'all aren't serious anthropologists--but you get the point, I hope. I'm thinking of putting this into the policy expansion I'll be proposing before too much longer. --Larry Sanger 13:48, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

One thing that would enormously help is to convey that editors and authors are working shoulder-to-shoulder, although the latter to the former, which I think this fails to adequately recognize and will result in author contributions not being added in the first place. We have to remind ourselves that without authors who are energized, appreciated, motivated, happy, and appropriately credited, this whole bird just ain't gonna fly.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:07, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I found that edit humorous because I had just finished reworking the welcome statement. It really should say "The Anthropology Workgroup Lead" but we don't have those yet. Steve's point about working shoulder-to-shoulder is important I think - my name is all over the recent changes page in large part because Lee has been so appreciative of my edits. So... what else can we do to get everyone involved in building the community?--Joe Quick (Talk) 15:21, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I stand by that edit, and it is an important point to make. The point is that CZ was established precisely so that content could be guided, or led, by experts. As we all know very well, from experience, it is possible for editors and authors to work shoulder-to-shoulder on the wiki, as they do, and yet the editors have real authority and to be our main representatives on content and editorial issues.

I suspect that there are two points of interest here, and we needn't really get all dramatic and disagree on either one. One is, as I said, that editors actually have authority over content and editorial issues. They are the experts about such issues. The other is, of course, that authors are extremely important as well--the project simply cannot succeed without them--and we ought to recognize and be grateful for their input, and they do need and deserve some authority as well.

If we can't embrace both of those principles, this project probably won't survive. --Larry Sanger 15:32, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry, I didn't mean to criticize the edit. I just thought the coincidence was funny. I think we all agree with your points above. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:33, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Larry, too, except that I don't see any contradiction to it by allowing a Workgroup to speak as a workgroup to help facilitate esprit de corps.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:24, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi all, one of my thoughts was to get this workgroup page up and running - I think - at the pace it is going (thanks Joe) - it would be pretty good in a week. I was (am) going to then email a select group of colleagues and ask them to sign up as editors - each in the fields that are listed. I have very specific people in mind. Yes - the danger of this is that it is growing from "my" circle, but academic integrity and the normal referee process I trust enormously. I had written to Stephen that I thought we could go forward as early as late next week or the week after, but I think we are moving much faster. Please don't worry about the sense of community and authors - they really will come naturally - AS LONG AS THEY KNOW CZ EXISTS - that is both Larry's job and - as academics - ours. If we can get a "fill in the blanks" page that looks good - I know of plenty of academics and students who will "bite". On just a simple note - lets not (again my opinion) in the early stages, where there are no "real" problems - separate the "Editors" from the "Authors" - the latter - as has been said will "make this bird fly".

Lee R. Berger 15:30, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

P.S. after re-reading this I would like to point out that the whole community is "pretty small" so the "Deliverance syndrome" probability is pretty low!

Lee R. Berger 15:31, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Couple things: I think I'll modify the Welcome statement to say, "on behalf of all of us contributing here, authors and editors alike, we welcome you," or some such. I'll also try to drum up some interest in the professional circles I move in as well. —Richard J. Senghas 19:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Critical mass

With community in mind it is important to have enough authors to make it a happening place. I wonder if well thought eduzendium projects, that could make workgroups a happening place, might be the way to get some of these groups kickstarted. Not only will the students be generating their own good articles, they will serve as honey to other editors and authors that want to see more activity before jumping in. Chris Day (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm all for that and after my student meeting on monday will be posting on the forums my "experiment" - authors are the key.

Lee R. Berger 13:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, one thing I'm contemplating, now that I'm back in the saddle again, is possibly assigning work on CZ pages as special projects or extra credit assignments for my students. But that would probably wait until the end of this semester or the beginning of the next.... —Richard J. Senghas 13:42, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I think if we can set up a good system here to help academics run such classes, then it will help the recruitment a lot. Especially if the students like this environemt, it could be our best recruiting tool from the academic sector for both authors and editors. Chris Day (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

It's a good idea. See CZ:Eduzendium. As I've told Lee, and as Eduzendium director Sorin Matei has privately confirmed, it's all right if we do not use the full apparatus of Eduzendium as described there. --Larry Sanger 13:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

"Re Wikipedia, that's not apt to be good PR; if we come across as "poaching" good authors, this will not look good. And believe me, active Wikipedians know that we're here already. Besides all that, the way to jump-start workgroups in terms of participation is by doing a systematic recruitment campaign, involving first and foremost listserves, but other venues as well. "

Thought you would say that - just thought I'd ask it out in the open... (I also think you are right...)

Lee R. Berger 13:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Format for the Priority List

Okay, so I realize that my new system looks stupid and clumsy, but I think you'll see the benefit in the near future. Each section of the list lives on a separate template, which is editable from the link next to the section heading. They're split up be cause we are eventually (probably not very soon, admittedly) going to need to split this workgroup into smaller units anyway - we simply cover too much territory to try to hold it all together on one page. We'll have sub-workgroup pages where the same templates will be used to keep track of progress. AND (here's the payoff) the master list will always be the same as the sublists, which are editable from either location.

It will be a minor pain in the neck to keep track of this at first, but people should catch on pretty quickly. I hereby volunteer to maintain it unless (or until) we come up with something better. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:30, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking along the same lines. I think this will work well. It looks great. Go Blue? I thought badgers were red and white? Chris Day (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

As an Ohio State fan, I must take offense at "go Blue." --Larry Sanger 20:03, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I have to say that I'm glad you guys think we're supporting the wrong sports team. When I first read "Add RED, but help us go BLUE!," I thought, " Oh no. Is that a political statement?" :-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 20:30, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I really have been away from the states too long - sports? POLITICS? you have to be kidding!

Lee R. Berger 23:35, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm with Lee. I've returned and still feel that way.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:06, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Joe,

Thanks for all the work - this is really starting to look like a front page! The pics really work for me and once we have enough categories, I think this will be a role-model workgroup outline. I will be adding subcategories soon and will try and source some more interesting pics on monday. I have begun to invite a select group of anthropologists to start contributing as you have taken this further - faster than I expected (one wants to have ones house in order so to speak before guests arrive!). You will also note that I have added a revised author/editor note in the welcome text. Take a look at my note on Chris Days talk page about red amber and green lettering for page links - how do you think that would look and how hard would it be to do? Is it worth an experiment here as a demo concept (we could just add a note in the welcome text like - below red means no information, amber means developed or developing and green means approved)?

Lee R. Berger 12:33, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

There was some discussion on the forums (can't find it now) about changing the colors of the links within the articles. I think the idea was that red is distracting or some such. Of course, people are used to seeing links in blue, so it might be a challenge to convince the community to change. BUT there are obviously many sites that choose another color scheme and do just fine. An experimental example might be in order.

As to whether we can make the links change according to article status is completely beyond my understanding of Mediawiki, but probably requires some work on the Mediawiki code itself. That sort of thing generally seems to take a looong time to happen. I'll see if I can put together an example that we can manually update as article statuses change to see whether it's worth asking for the tech guys to work on something automated.

I'll run some tests at User:Joe_Quick/workgroup_homepage_2 before I go and screw up the workgroup page. --Joe Quick (Talk) 13:09, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Also notice how nicely the templates I created work with popups activated. --Joe Quick (Talk) 12:19, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok - how do I add another section - I keep messing up when I copy your template? - I wanted to add a new section "Terms"

Also, why am I now getting a "re-direct" message when I try and edit archeology and remove my "methods" heading - you were way ahead of me! P.S. - excavation will be done by this evening.

Lee R. Berger 13:16, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I think this message was from before the major reformat yesterday and I see that there is now a section titled "Terms" so I'll assume I can ignore that part. The re-direct at archeology is something that I've been wondering about. I doubt that it really matters whether the article lives at archeology or archaeology as long as one of them redirects to the other. Since it has already been started at archaeology, maybe we can just let it grow there? You can see that I have no strong feelings on this. --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:37, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Homes for subsections

i just made the following edits:

I moved Template:Anthro subsection-Archeology to CZ:Anthropology Workgroup/Archeology since this seems to be more intuitive. i made the following edits on the home page to reflect this move. Chris Day (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Great!

What happened!

Why did these section get nominated for "speedy" delete? Is that a bug or what? I can't see in the history where this is done?

Lee R. Berger 14:37, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Yet another reformat by Joe

Sorry for any confusion I caused earlier this afternoon. I wiped out much of Chris's work and nearly all of my own work from yesterday in favor of a much simpler system. The priority list is now a single subpage of the workgroup home (CZ:Anthropology_Workgroup/Priority list). It can still be included elsewhere, just as my many templates could and can be edited from links on the workgroup home page. --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:48, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I like the format very much - but can we move the right hand column up and in line with the left?

Thanks for all the hard work!

Lee

I've been trying to figure this out and haven't come up with anything yet. I don't know how to make the two columns stay equal lengths as things are added or removed. I'm sure someone can help with this... --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:40, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Why are some of the links appearing orange?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:57, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

It started with a comment here. The links that are still blue need Metadata templates. The colors are still not final but the scheme I worked out is here. Most of the relevant conversation is scattered between my talk page and Lee's. --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:40, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I thought it was something like that. I like it! We just need a key on the main page.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:38, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I'll adda key based on Joe's newest version and he can just change it as colors change (which they may - see below).

Lee R. Berger 00:48, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

If I had my way, I'd like to see this color and teeny-tiny graphic scheme be system-wide. Why not?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

It would be good to at least have a priority list for each workgroup, I think. The icons would be annoying in the middle of an article though.--Joe Quick (Talk) 13:52, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Lists

In order to keep this page to a manageable size - what do people think of creating overarching "List" articles which will be here with a note like "for an indidividual list of languages and articles on individual languages please go to e.g. List of extant languages. Otherwise, my fear is that this page will be overwhelming and thus counterproductive. Lists might also encourage people to add as they might say "Hey, my cultural group, language, country, fossil site isn't in that list!" - Opinions?

Lee R. Berger 09:42, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. The list is already getting pretty long. Do we want to create such lists in the main article space or as subpages of the workgroup home? In other words, do we want to write articles about these subjects or just have a place to keep track of progress? --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:43, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I think - unfortunatly, that we will have to write the articles ourselves as otherwise there will be no enticement for people to add to them. The good part is that in a large number of the critical categories we have laready started this concept. They don't have to be complete - thats the point - others will fill in with their expertise.

Lee R. Berger 10:50, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Adding lists

I have converted biographies of paleoanthropologists to List of notable paleoanthropologists, East African fossil sites to List of East African fossil sites and South African fossil sites to List of South African fossil sites - before I go charging around deleting names - will all look at this and tell me whether you are happy with this or should be revert?

04:36, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Bug?

Has anyone else had the priority list shrink horizontally when you try to click on a link? I can't figure out what's going on. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:07, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I havn't seen that yet I don't think, but I'll watch for it.

Lee R. Berger 07:17, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Colors

The yellow is a lot easier to see now! I don't see any green ones... what's up with that?? :-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:28, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Well now - I wonder - could that be a distinct lack of editors????????????????

Lee R. Berger 13:30, 19 September 2007 (CDT) P.S. - there are TWO green ones!-) Lee R. Berger 13:31, 19 September 2007 (CDT) P.S.S.

Oops! missed those! I'm sure they will multiply now that there are two ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Matt - could you also give me an opinion on Adding Lists above?

Lee R. Berger 13:32, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Lists look fine. Just to make sure, have you noticed the stuff about CZ:Catalogs (follow the forum link, too). --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Yep. You can't go wrong with "goldenrod." We have a few more articles that would be green if they were in the list, but I've been hesitant to add too many links because the list is already so long.

Lists could be good for organizational purposes, but they also have the effect of moving some priority topics off the priority list and probably makes the links less likely to be seen by visitors to the workgroup homepage. Perhaps we should duplicate to some degree: reserve the priority list for articles that we deem actual priorities but also include those articles in lists along with non-priority topics. --Joe Quick (Talk) 13:51, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

You could do the ole' list of lists. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I've been thinking that we ought to try Larry's method for creating a hierarchy of knowledge via the related articles pages. I think that could work really well, but we'd need to train people to use it. For priority topics (core topics and those that will be often searched for), the priority list is a must. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:07, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

CZ:Core_Articles

Shall we start sorting out which articles belong at CZ:Core Articles? Obviously, many of the articles from our priority list will be included, but we can't just copy the list over since we need to pick out uncreated, external, and microstub articles for that initiative. It might be easiest to have everyone add to the list under the Anthropology heading there and then a few of the editors can sort out which articles to keep in the list.

We also need to think about multi-workgroup articles since we don't want to duplicate. The Archaeology, Linguistics, Sociology, Classics, and Biology Workgroups will probably cover many of the subjects in our priority list, and a few other topics will appear elsewhere as well.--Joe Quick (Talk) 12:00, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure Joe,

I think that we need to just whittle at our present page - turning larger group into "lists" but retaining core articles as "present" in the system. I think we are ahead of the gang here so we should just build on what we have. For example - lets create a list of paleoanthropologists, but in our workgroup, keep "Louis Leakey, Raymond Dart, Robert Broom" visible - What do you think?

Lee R. Berger 12:43, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah. That should help us keep the priority list relevant without actually cutting things out. I would suggest that the "list of paleoanthropologists," for example, should be a catalog subpage of "Paleoanthropology" (many of those names should also appear in the "Related Articles" subpage of that article). Similarly, our list of Mesoamerican cultures should live at Mesoamerica/Catalogs with the most notable examples appearing in the Related Articles subpage. --Joe Quick (Talk) 13:26, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

That sounds good - lets hammer away at that and see how it looks after a while.

Lee R. Berger 23:58, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok all, I have started with biographies - creating lists, moving the majority of individuals there and then bringing back some "very high priority" ones - I'm just guessing at most of these so feel free to move them backwards or forwards as is relevant. We are very poor on well known linguists - please add! Also, I know that we need lists for forensics, genetics, biological, physical and cultural but could only take creating so many subpages templates in one go! Please feel free to weigh in!

Lee R. Berger 05:06, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Advent of shoes

According to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/25/shoe-wearing-toe.html -

"Jan. 25, 2008 -- People started wearing shoes around 40,000 years ago, according to a study on recently excavated small toe bones that belonged to an individual from China who apparently loved shoes.

Most footwear erodes over time. The earliest known shoes, rope sandals that attached to the feet with string, date to only around 10,000 B.C. For the new study, the clues were in middle toe bones that change during an individual's lifetime if the person wears shoes a lot."

The findings have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

--Robert W King 10:29, 25 January 2008 (CST)

Don't give up, yet?

Fossilization. D. Matt Innis 07:22, 23 February 2008 (CST)

A specific question about a tribal name

I am copying this question to the Linguistics, Anthropology and History Workgroups' discussion pages in the hopes of finding a definitive answer to a specific question.

My question is this: there was a tribe known as Dal Riata which existed in various extents in north-eastern Ireland and western Scotland. I have seen the name rendered also as Dalriata, Dalriada, Dal Riada and Dál Riata. Which is the correct version of the name? Are the 'riada' versions a simple confusion with another tribe called Dal nariadi? Which form should the name take in an English language forum? --Mal McKee 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)