User:Matt Lewis

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Matt Lewis was an author here in late March of 2008, and is now editing from early Dec 2008..

Having retired from Wikipedia I'm interested in doing some more work here, for a period at least. I'm finally done with WIkipedia (it just isn't interested in solving its problems), so will give this place another go. I quite like the quiet (I'm a decent editor - or author), but I would like to see this place better promoted, so I can be assured that working here will not be for nothing. I'd probably take an interest in its format, rather than just complain about it, like I did in March.

• I very much liked the Children’s encyclopedia idea I came across here:

Other ideas:

• Core subjects - The articles any encyclopedia would be expected to have. A quarterly core competition with nice award graphics (no barnstars though!) is an idea. I'm not sure about those days where everyone edits. Having a 'strong suite' would be beneficial in some repects, but would fight against the core approach, which is better I think (especially with so few editors).

• Key subjects - ones which will search rank highly and/or Wikipedia is weak on. There are a few areas where Wikipedia either has few editors, or progress is prevented by the editors in control. People need a page to dump their findings here.

• Market subjects - Going after authors! Citizendium simply needs authors, and we must assume that editors will come when there is stuff to edit. We need to be a cool home for some cults/ fan bases/ sports etc. We can't be afraid of youth. The editors that Citizendium needs here, need only be professional editors to start with (or people like myself with copy-editing experience perhaps?). Low tolerance for disruption can easily be highlighted if needed.

• homepage overhaul (in my view a priority - I am a graphic designer with copy editing/writing experience)

• Some colour into the grey theme! A new logo is needed - those buildings remind me of victorian chimneys! Green goes well with grey, as a philosophy as well as a colour. A toch of black and yellow or orange and your there. When you have a decent logo, things like t-shirts/mugs and caps are a doddle to market and sell - profits to bandwidth of course, although merely breaking even is a benefit here.

• An 'all you need to jump in' page - despite being concise in one sense, this place also feels a bit inaccessible and over-written.

• The difference between authors and editors - especially what it takes to become an editor - needs to be much clearer. People are used to Wikipedia 'editors', and are often suspicious of Wikipedia admin - so will instinctively want to know the how easy/hard it is to become an editor (in their eyes).

• Top tables - I always felt that Wikipedia needed more related articles at the top - CZ could sort out a table-based system here. Instead of infoboxes, a kind of wide Categories/related-articles table. I would make it distinct, and fits the format of the input box being in the top middle too.

• font size is too small - I use Firefox and the default font size is smaller than on Wikipedia, which I find more readable. The reason is the modern resolution I use (1400 on a widescreen laptop). The design/readability principle of not spreading too widely is broken - on WP it's just on the right side for readability, in CZ it's like watching a game of tennis (on my laptop at least!). Just a slight increase in font size should help this. When I 'zoom in' from the Firefox menu it becomes a lot more readable, but the text becomes very black and hence a bit 'bouncy' (the jump will be a few points), which doesn't suite everyones eyes. It may be to do with the actual font CZ uses. When you jump from Medium to Larger on Internet Explorer, the jump is far too dramatic and it becomes quite large - which suggests to me that it the text size is actually coded into being a slightly smaller than normal. I think presentation/usability issues like this really matter - CZ needs to draw people in, not given them reason to back off.

I think if only some of these are seriously addressed, Citizendium is surely guaranteed to grow. I think it has awareness that hugely surpasses its polularity. Wikipedia casts off good editors like dead skin - Citizendium should be getting them in at very least. At this stage trolls are unlikely to be interested - but Constables combining with editors (regarding neutrality of content) are a strong way to deal with them. A long term plan is obviously to partner with suitable mutually-benefiting concerns, I'm not sure what Citizendiums goals are re that and outside commercial (or commercially connected) outfits.