Why did Citizendium fail? Options Rating

[A User]

Give it a new look and re-market it as "The Wikipedia without all the Porn" ... "The Wikipedia as it was meant".

Don't be proud, just rip off all the Wikipedia's content, and then set about cutting out all the filth, stupidity, most of the admin stuff and talk page content ... add flagged revisions ... and then set about copy editing the rest of it into good shape. You may well attract the people you need.

Then go into Google's offices and demand equality, in essence call upon your rights/credibility as co-founder.

Lay it on them ... what do their shareholders want to deliver at the top of the results, an encyclopedia with filth or without it?

It needs a new name though ... both will need more soon to attract people soon and Mediawiki software ain't it.

As an aside, would it not be possible to create one of those "online worlds" around the idea of "the sum of all human knowledge"? You know, where you actually go into rooms, sit with people to work on topics, see viewer looking in etc? (Adding a dating element to it).

There probably are a whole heap of people who want to spend their time on something more than shoot'em ups and Facebook. Something more 3D.

Not sure that will succeed. The way Google works, is that if you copy content from a site you get penalised in the rankings. Simply copying all of Wikipedias content will penalise your site. This is why Citizendium has never been able to overtake wikipedia - the majority of citizendiums content had been thieved from wikipedia, and most of the original content they did create is not very good.

[Casliber]

furthermore, many experts are not overly enthusiastic to write on their work topic in their free time...too much like...work really.

Hammer, meet nail. This is the gist of it.

I do write articles from time to time in my area of expertise... as advertising material, posted on my blog, my company website, or on topical discussion forums. Such articles are, of course, deliberately incomplete, because I want to leave the reader with the impression that I know what I'm talking about, but at the same time not give away so much information that people who read them and who have a need for the rest of the information will actually pay me to get it. If I write a full and complete article, the reader won't need my services, and I don't get anything for the exchange.

Wikipedia wants experts to give away for free what they already know is worth money, in some cases a great deal of money, and that's not a good deal for the expert. Citizendium offered the same bargain, and thus also got few takers. And Citizendium is not even remotely comparable to Wikipedia as a self-publication venue. It doesn't have anywhere near the reach.

Naaaah, maybe in your field, but not in mine. We tried to keep the schizophrenia article as trimmed down as possible to basic/broad stuff.......and it's still huge. The same can/could be done of most medical diagnoses and therapies. Nothing mystical about them really, knowing more about how psychotherapy works doesn't make it any less effective. The more folks know about alot of medical stuff the better

This post has been edited by Casliber: Thu 14th April 2011, 1:21pm

[Milton Roe]

The same can/could be done of most medical diagnoses and therapies. Nothing mystical about them really, knowing more about how psychotherapy works doesn't make it any less effective.

Knowing more about how homeopathy works doesn't make it any less effective, either.

The more folks know about alot of medical stuff the better

Sometimes it's a wash. Doctors are just as scared to be patients in a hospital as anybody else, but for different reasons. Do you know too little, or do you know too much? It's a general question in life.

Still, in this day and age, I suppose it's better to have somebody who has the time to watch over every complicated case, as a backup. Otherwise some stupid detail-ish snafu will happen that changes a routine or really well-done complex thing, into a small disaster. Some suture that was supposed to be buried ends up above the skin, and a perfect microdiscectomy becomes a suppurative post op wound requiring a second hospitalization and now heroic antibiotics. Somebody gets an amazing patch to their ventricular septal defect, but the doofus radiologists looking at their head in the aftermath of the small embolic stroke they had from it, remove the safety interlocks from the CT to increase throughput, and he ends up geting so much radiation to the head that his hair falls out. The gastric bypass goes fine, but some dietetic tech with no education or sense leaves the patient a protein drink they weren't supposed to get, which they of course suck down while horizontal, aspirate, get pneumonia, and wind up on a ventilator in the ICU in septic shock. Whee. You may guess that I'm not making these up. These things happen not occasionally but routinely. So often that there was a mention in Obama's budget speech the other night.

Not that Obama has a clue as to how to fix it. His idea is more regulation, when unfortunately the increasing amount of paperwork is half the problem, and the other half is legal. A third half is the destruction of our education system under the gentle guidelines of no-more-meritocracy. Yo, add it up, bro.

[Jon Awbrey]

Remember when Rush was just a band?

Jon

[powercorrupts]

furthermore, many experts are not overly enthusiastic to write on their work topic in their free time...too much like...work really.

Hammer, meet nail. This is the gist of it.

I do write articles from time to time in my area of expertise... as advertising material, posted on my blog, my company website, or on topical discussion forums. Such articles are, of course, deliberately incomplete, because I want to leave the reader with the impression that I know what I'm talking about, but at the same time not give away so much information that people who read them and who have a need for the rest of the information will actually pay me to get it. If I write a full and complete article, the reader won't need my services, and I don't get anything for the exchange.

Wikipedia wants experts to give away for free what they already know is worth money, in some cases a great deal of money, and that's not a good deal for the expert. Citizendium offered the same bargain, and thus also got few takers. And Citizendium is not even remotely comparable to Wikipedia as a self-publication venue. It doesn't have anywhere near the reach.

Naaaah, maybe in your field, but not in mine. We tried to keep the schizophrenia article as trimmed down as possible to basic/broad stuff.......and it's still huge. The same can/could be done of most medical diagnoses and therapies. Nothing mystical about them really, knowing more about how psychotherapy works doesn't make it any less effective. The more folks know about alot of medical stuff the better

The article on schizophrenia is bound to be close to 'We'kipedia's heart! Perfecting coverage to the point of not favouring any particular aspects/angles (whether the coverage broad and basic or not) is the only way to handle these articles - but is that really what you mean I wonder? I expect not. Something stated in some context gets clumsily rewritten as a plain fact, and then is rubber-stamped by some internal 'cabal' along the route to Featured Status. It's the Wikipedia way.

Every WP medical article should have a serious disclaimer - and it would have to be at gun point for most of the idiotic WP elite to allow it. Depth of research is anathema to the WP ethos, but the twin evils (when at their extremes) of the pharmo's and the 'CAM' pedlars make many if not most of the medical subjects a nightmare. Ignorant machismo is so rife on WP that the untouchable henchmen like (guess who's back? If he ever left..) the COI-undisclosed Orangemarlin tend to get their "fuck balance.. get real!" extremist way, and the WP totally breaks down under the weight of anything that is inherently important to humankind.

The scary thing is the amount of people who defend making Featured Articles on all kinds of potentially misleading (but, fuck weight, 'verified' in some passingly 'med cabal' approved way) articles. Only pure stupidity can really explain this, other human frailties are incidental. WP is a magnet to stupidity, and those who think they are in 'control' of it all really are the stupidest of the lot, as they are not even in control of their own egos. As for medical reactions, when I think of schoolyard bullies like OM and witless bilge-farmers Sandy Georgia and Eubilides, I really do feel queasy to the point of feeling properly sick.

[powercorrupts]

Remember when Rush was just a band?

Jon

Sadly yes. Are you talking amyl nitrate? I prefer logging in and blocking some fucker.

Damn my secret's out!

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Thu 14th April 2011, 7:55pm

[Casliber]

furthermore, many experts are not overly enthusiastic to write on their work topic in their free time...too much like...work really.

Hammer, meet nail. This is the gist of it.

I do write articles from time to time in my area of expertise... as advertising material, posted on my blog, my company website, or on topical discussion forums. Such articles are, of course, deliberately incomplete, because I want to leave the reader with the impression that I know what I'm talking about, but at the same time not give away so much information that people who read them and who have a need for the rest of the information will actually pay me to get it. If I write a full and complete article, the reader won't need my services, and I don't get anything for the exchange.

Wikipedia wants experts to give away for free what they already know is worth money, in some cases a great deal of money, and that's not a good deal for the expert. Citizendium offered the same bargain, and thus also got few takers. And Citizendium is not even remotely comparable to Wikipedia as a self-publication venue. It doesn't have anywhere near the reach.

Naaaah, maybe in your field, but not in mine. We tried to keep the schizophrenia article as trimmed down as possible to basic/broad stuff.......and it's still huge. The same can/could be done of most medical diagnoses and therapies. Nothing mystical about them really, knowing more about how psychotherapy works doesn't make it any less effective. The more folks know about alot of medical stuff the better

The article on schizophrenia is bound to be close to 'We'kipedia's heart! Perfecting coverage to the point of not favouring any particular aspects/angles (whether the coverage broad and basic or not) is the only way to handle these articles - but is that really what you mean I wonder? I expect not. Something stated in some context gets clumsily rewritten as a plain fact, and then is rubber-stamped by some internal 'cabal' along the route to Featured Status. It's the Wikipedia way.

Every WP medical article should have a serious disclaimer - and it would have to be at gun point for most of the idiotic WP elite to allow it. Depth of research is anathema to the WP ethos, but the twin evils (when at their extremes) of the pharmo's and the 'CAM' pedlars make many if not most of the medical subjects a nightmare. Ignorant machismo is so rife on WP that the untouchable henchmen like (guess who's back? If he ever left..) the COI-undisclosed Orangemarlin tend to get their "fuck balance.. get real!" extremist way, and the WP totally breaks down under the weight of anything that is inherently important to humankind.

The scary thing is the amount of people who defend making Featured Articles on all kinds of potentially misleading (but, fuck weight, 'verified' in some passingly 'med cabal' approved way) articles. Only pure stupidity can really explain this, other human frailties are incidental. WP is a magnet to stupidity, and those who think they are in 'control' of it all really are the stupidest of the lot, as they are not even in control of their own egos. As for medical reactions, when I think of schoolyard bullies like OM and witless bilge-farmers Sandy Georgia and Eubilides, I really do feel queasy to the point of feeling properly sick.

All I meant was limiting to lowest-common-denominator-free-broadly-written material WRT fee vis paid-subscriber-only content. You've taken an interesting spin on it, now can you desist with generalised hot air and narrow down to focus on some specific complaints? Feeling queasy? We can help you with some evidence-based effective antinausea medication....

Remember when Rush was just a band?

Jon

Sadly yes. Are you talking amyl nitrate? I prefer logging in and blocking some fucker.

Damn my secret's out!

Oh right. Very funny with seeekirt admin account. Prove it then.

[chrisoff]

All I meant was limiting to lowest-common-denominator-free-broadly-written material ...

Oh, you mean like FAs? The most boringly written, pseudo-academic stuff on wikipedia. And that is supposed to be wikipedia's "best".

Appeal to most readers? Most readers don't read FAs.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Which they would do what with?

Being seen to do something: 99%
Something actually happening: 1%

... what does it all mean!?! Something to put on the end of the year report. Come on, they are desperately trying to plug holes in a sieve.

[Casliber]

All I meant was limiting to lowest-common-denominator-free-broadly-written material ...

Oh, you mean like FAs? The most boringly written, pseudo-academic stuff on wikipedia. And that is supposed to be wikipedia's "best".

Appeal to most readers? Most readers don't read FAs.

I think most readers just read what they read. Probability indicates that most articles that they read will not be FA. Your first sentence is subjective and my reality I think differs to yours...

[Milton Roe]

Which they would do what with?

Being seen to do something: 99%
Something actually happening: 1%

... what does it all mean!?! Something to put on the end of the year report. Come on, they are desperately trying to plug holes in a sieve.

Probably Imagine bearded bespectacled balding profs in tweed jackets with elbow patches. As WMF-arm-candy for the world's PR party.

It's sort of like The Whore of Mensa. Except of course WMF doesn't actually pay. So Academia is presently holding out on any favors. It's shaping up to be very gothic.

[powercorrupts]

furthermore, many experts are not overly enthusiastic to write on their work topic in their free time...too much like...work really.

Hammer, meet nail. This is the gist of it.

I do write articles from time to time in my area of expertise... as advertising material, posted on my blog, my company website, or on topical discussion forums. Such articles are, of course, deliberately incomplete, because I want to leave the reader with the impression that I know what I'm talking about, but at the same time not give away so much information that people who read them and who have a need for the rest of the information will actually pay me to get it. If I write a full and complete article, the reader won't need my services, and I don't get anything for the exchange.

Wikipedia wants experts to give away for free what they already know is worth money, in some cases a great deal of money, and that's not a good deal for the expert. Citizendium offered the same bargain, and thus also got few takers. And Citizendium is not even remotely comparable to Wikipedia as a self-publication venue. It doesn't have anywhere near the reach.

Naaaah, maybe in your field, but not in mine. We tried to keep the schizophrenia article as trimmed down as possible to basic/broad stuff.......and it's still huge. The same can/could be done of most medical diagnoses and therapies. Nothing mystical about them really, knowing more about how psychotherapy works doesn't make it any less effective. The more folks know about alot of medical stuff the better

The article on schizophrenia is bound to be close to 'We'kipedia's heart! Perfecting coverage to the point of not favouring any particular aspects/angles (whether the coverage broad and basic or not) is the only way to handle these articles - but is that really what you mean I wonder? I expect not. Something stated in some context gets clumsily rewritten as a plain fact, and then is rubber-stamped by some internal 'cabal' along the route to Featured Status. It's the Wikipedia way.

Every WP medical article should have a serious disclaimer - and it would have to be at gun point for most of the idiotic WP elite to allow it. Depth of research is anathema to the WP ethos, but the twin evils (when at their extremes) of the pharmo's and the 'CAM' pedlars make many if not most of the medical subjects a nightmare. Ignorant machismo is so rife on WP that the untouchable henchmen like (guess who's back? If he ever left..) the COI-undisclosed Orangemarlin tend to get their "fuck balance.. get real!" extremist way, and the WP totally breaks down under the weight of anything that is inherently important to humankind.

The scary thing is the amount of people who defend making Featured Articles on all kinds of potentially misleading (but, fuck weight, 'verified' in some passingly 'med cabal' approved way) articles. Only pure stupidity can really explain this, other human frailties are incidental. WP is a magnet to stupidity, and those who think they are in 'control' of it all really are the stupidest of the lot, as they are not even in control of their own egos. As for medical reactions, when I think of schoolyard bullies like OM and witless bilge-farmers Sandy Georgia and Eubilides, I really do feel queasy to the point of feeling properly sick.

All I meant was limiting to lowest-common-denominator-free-broadly-written material WRT fee vis paid-subscriber-only content. You've taken an interesting spin on it, now can you desist with generalised hot air and narrow down to focus on some specific complaints? Feeling queasy? We can help you with some evidence-based effective antinausea medication....

Remember when Rush was just a band?

Jon

Sadly yes. Are you talking amyl nitrate? I prefer logging in and blocking some fucker.

Damn my secret's out!

Oh right. Very funny with seeekirt admin account. Prove it then.

Master Casslibre, why would you cum here? Your Orgy of thieves is a frightening thing, feeding off the spent and the crushed.

[timbo]

Wikipedia is like a bumblebee. You draw it up on paper and look at the aerodynamics and the mass of the big fat body compared to the whispy little wings, and there's no way in hell that anybody would ever expect it to fly. But it does. Many people like to bitch about it, some people make a hobby of bitching about it, but it does fly.

Citizendium, based upon a Very Prudent Model drawn up by the self-proclaimed Master of the Universe "How I Invented Wikipedia" Guy would seem like a can't miss. Learning from the mistakes of the Lord of the Flies model, importing Nobel Experts, being Very Serious About Our Scholarship, and all the hoopty hoopty.

That model of encyclopedia-building, it turns out, does NOT fly.

Bottom line: serious content writers need to get out of the failed Citizendium model and to get integrated with the Wikipedia bumblebee.

That's the model that works, whispy wings and all...

This post has been edited by timbo: Mon 18th April 2011, 4:24am

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It is not working. It is doing something, I grant you that, but it is not working.

How does one judge "work"?

The "bigur numbaz is betur" approach so beloved of the IT world of which it is a subset? Or positive good minus negative bad divided by waste x damage = type of equation?

I think it sort of appeals to that primal part of us that likes to frenzy and what you have is frenzying. It is only "good" if you enjoy it particular type of mental war gaming. I think it is not working because the other 3 part of the equation overwhelm the "good" bit.

Citizendium, as the fully resolved collaborative encyclopedia model, failed because it lacked better, ballsier marketing, including better software.

The Britannica.com is another example of how not to do it, in particular how not to do ads. It is lie trying to read an encyclopedia with the commercial TV on loud.

I think the biggest disincentives for any serious folk to get involved in Wikipedia is that there is no migration route for professional quality individuals to enter the game at a higher level, and a lack of flagged "finished" versions to articles where good work can be assured to be left alone by the jerk off factor.

And I thought constables was a pretty silly title. Larry was always a good boy who no doubt spent his all his time in the library, and probably didn't not know that constable were always called cuntstable from the playground to the street.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 18th April 2011, 8:00am