Is Citizendium worth it? Options Rating

[thekohser]

Larry hasn't even bought his own name, either... (snip)

Hey, if I actually paid for the word "Wikiphrenia," do you think they'd finally put wikiphrenia.com above "The Reluctant Cyberprof" in the Google rankings? I'm beginning to develop a serious dislike for that guy... It isn't a real word, so it couldn't be too expensive, right?

I just bought "Larry Sanger" and "wikiphrenia". It usually takes Google some time to get them into the mix, and my ads don't run 24/7.

Somey, some names and words are more expensive than others. The most I've ever seen for any wiki-related person or word was $10 a click. I think the minimum is 40 cents. Most of my active words are in the $1.00 to $1.25 range. I refuse to pay more than $2.00, and sure enough, Google upped about 65% of my library of words to the $5.00 level. Bastards.

If you're really interested in getting wikiphrenia.com to the top spot on Google, maybe a Centiare page with backlinks would be just the ticket?

Greg

[The Joy]

I have a Bachelors degree in History and I'm going for a Masters in Library Science, but I'm not really quite an expert in any one area. I'm more of a generalist historian and not really fixated on any one historical topic.

Would Dr. Sanger want me there?

I don't know. He keeps sending mixed signals. I saw one comment where he says he isn't pro-expert and welcomes generalists and yet it seems you have to be an expert with some specialized interest in order to get in. I guess I'd be in the American and European history work group or even the military history group, but my interests come and go.

For now, I'm not really interested in using my name and likely getting into hot water with the specialist experts (I'm not against experts by any means. I just don't want to make a fool of myself pushing something I've learned either in college or elsewhere and being potentially ridiculed by someone).

Surely there is a way experts and non-experts can edit in harmony on a single project? Wikipedia and Citizendium may not have the answers to that question. Not yet, anyway.

[blissyu2]

I think its a great idea, and there's way too many people that are being banned for being experts. People like Jack Sarfatti were banned for writing about topics that they were expert at, including writing about their own biography...

Looch was banned for being an expert on that one book about professional wrestling. Whereas, Chip Berlet, who is an expert in the same kind of way, is allowed to fill his own wikipedia biography full of his expertise and gets no ban and SlimVirgin bans anyone who stands in his way.

That's right. Generally they ban people for being experts, but there are exceptions like Chip Berlet, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and a handful of others, who in those cases get to make articles that they are expert in, lay claim to expertise in areas which they know nothing about, and bully people out of their way if they don't get their own way.

CZ might end up in the same way, but like everything I give it a try.

[Somey]

I just bought "Larry Sanger" and "wikiphrenia". It usually takes Google some time to get them into the mix, and my ads don't run 24/7.

Just as well - I was thinking wikiphrenia.com could save money by only running 12 hours a day anyway, and I'm pretty sure Larry sleeps at least 8 hours a night.

Somey, some names and words are more expensive than others. The most I've ever seen for any wiki-related person or word was $10 a click. I think the minimum is 40 cents...

You're saying that every time someone clicks on the paid link to Wikiphrenia.com, you have to pay Google 40 cents? Don't you realize that you could end up out-of-pocket for as much as $1.20 over the next 12 months alone?

If you're really interested in getting wikiphrenia.com to the top spot on Google, maybe a Centiare page with backlinks would be just the ticket?

I've been meaning to do that, actually... but shouldn't I try to add some actual content to wikiphrenia.com first...?

[guy]

So, what if I present my credentials as an expert on the history of British Methodism, they let me in and then I write an article on rotifers. Would they wipe the article and throw me out?

[LamontStormstar]

Would Larry ever let Lir in?

[blissyu2]

Would Larry ever let Lir in?

Let's have a guess here.

I wrote to Larry Sanger inviting him to this site soon after we had our own domain name, in February 2006, and he said that he had looked at it and loved this site, and was going to post, except, except - LIR IS AN ADMINISTRATOR?????? OMG! OMG! I CANNOT CONDONE A SITE THAT ALLOWS LIR AS AN ADMINISTRATOR!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE'S DONE???? HOW CAN YOU PUT UP WITH HIM? CLEARLY YOU DON'T KNOW HOW BAD HE IS, SO I'LL FORGIVE YOU, BUT NOT LIR!!!! HE IS THE EPITOMY OF EVIL!!!!

Or words to that effect...

Lir is no longer an administrator and as far as I know it is banned from WR now (I am not sure about that), but suffice to say that he doesn't come here anymore. So maybe Larry would come here. Except that we are forever "Tainted by the presence of Lir!" We were once touched by him, once liked him so much he was an administrator!

So yeah, suffice to say that Lir is permabanned before he even thought of the site. In the planning stage, it would have said "Ban Lir's IP address, or anything like it, forever, no questions asked"

Oh dear that got a laugh out of me.

[thekohser]

You're saying that every time someone clicks on the paid link to Wikiphrenia.com, you have to pay Google 40 cents? Don't you realize that you could end up out-of-pocket for as much as $1.20 over the next 12 months alone?

(snip) ...but shouldn't I try to add some actual content to wikiphrenia.com first...?

You can put caps on how much you're willing to pay for clicks per day, so you could theoretically limit your annual accounts payable to something more manageable than $1.20. Say, $0.80, perhaps.

As for actual content on wikiphrenia, I say "Content, Schmontent".

Greg

[blissyu2]

Yeah well I got a "warning" for my sandbox. It is nice and all that they have lengths to protect vandals, but they are really a bit over the top, and it is quite trying. It'll take me weeks to make an article up to a level that they would accept as good enough for an encyclopaedia, and as far as I can tell I am only really capable of writing 6 articles to a level that is good enough in a real encyclopaedia. I listed them there:

- Port Arthur massacre
- Talkers
- ICQ
- Backpacker murders
- Peter Falconio (disappearance)
- Azaria Chamberlain (disappearance)

4 of these are Australia's 4 most controversial murder mysteries in Australian history. I do not include the Snowtown murders, as that is not a mystery, as we know for sure who did it and what happened. Whilst Backpacker, Peter Falconio and Port Arthur have someone in prison for them, they are what could be described as cause celibre. The Azaria Chamberlain disappearance led to the movie Evil Angels, and actually had the conviction for murder against Lindy Chamberlain overturned. The other 3 haven't, but realistically only because the government refused to go through the embarassment a second time.

They are examples where what happened put mud on the faces of the police, law enforcement bodies, and ultimately the government, and they needed to have someone in prison for it. Backpacker murders was the worst ever example of this actually, as they imprisoned someone who was the most helpful. They all warrant movies being made out of them. Wolf Creek is sort of related to the Backpacker murders, but not really.

Anyway, I am as of right now, not too impressed with CZ.

[BobbyBombastic]

After a lengthy process, they finally let me join (I had to show them my drivers license lol).

oh my god that is ridiculous. i had no idea that is what they were doing.

[Somey]

Lir is no longer an administrator and as far as I know it is banned from WR now (I am not sure about that), but suffice to say that he doesn't come here anymore.

The ban was lifted quite a while back, actually, and he's posted here occasionally since then. We prefer to view the whole episode as "an unfortunate misunderstanding" these days.

So maybe Larry would come here. Except that we are forever "Tainted by the presence of Lir!" We were once touched by him, once liked him so much he was an administrator!

I'm not sure we'd want Larry here anyway. He tends to be a bit disruptive, what with all that crazy "co-founder" talk. After all, everyone knows that Wikipedia was founded by Lir, and Lir alone, right?

Obviously things have moved in a slightly different direction since then...

[blissyu2]

I don't think I was using WR when Lir stopped being admin.

I actually had major personal disagreements with Lir, but that's beside the point. He is really good at making me pissed off.

[The Joy]

So, what if I present my credentials as an expert on the history of British Methodism, they let me in and then I write an article on rotifers. Would they wipe the article and throw me out?

That's what I fear will happen to me (though I'm no expert on British Methodism, but you know what I mean)!

[blissyu2]

After countless hours of work (and I really hope that they don't wipe it), perhaps 10 or 15 all up, and wading through really irritatingly bad Wikipedia versions and correcting all of their errors, I have finally presented my first article on Citizendium:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

You can compare it to the Wikipedia version if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_m...%28Australia%29

I will wait to see if it stays up and what happens to it. It is not complete yet (way too long, etc) but I think its already about 20 times better than what Wikipedia has got.

[Nathan]

Great work.

[Krimpet]

CZ will fail solely due to their shunning of the kinds of contributors Wikipedia thrives on: bored college and high school students. Many people with degrees in their fields don't have the time to write detailed, authoritative articles for free, as Nupedia learned. So while CZ may be more credible then Wikipedia, it will never reach the critical mass WP has.

[blissyu2]

If you had a choice between a popular encyclopaedia and a good encyclopaedia, which would you pick?

If Wikipedia could be established as a great place to fiddle, while an alternative, such as Citizendium, could be established as a great place to actually use as a reference source, then we have 2 projects.

I actually don't see why Nupedia did fail. What was wrong with it? Its greatest problem seems to be that most of the people who started off working with Nupedia ended up tempted by "the dark side", Wikipedia. If Citizendium is nothing more than a resurrection of Nupedia, then perhaps that is a good thing.

[Stephen Ewen]

Hi all.

Just dropping in here to say that there are many egregious misconceptions about Citizendium in this thread, and that there have been false statements made here by the CZ contributor very actively posting in this thread.

--

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Ewen

This post has been edited by Stephen Ewen: Sun 22nd July 2007, 11:23am

[Stephen Ewen]

After a lengthy process, they finally let me join (I had to show them my drivers license lol).

oh my god that is ridiculous. i had no idea that is what they were doing.

Has been asked of < 1% of all applicants.

So, what if I present my credentials as an expert on the history of British Methodism, they let me in and then I write an article on rotifers. Would they wipe the article and throw me out?

Wipe the article and throw you out? Where have you gotten this stuff? Anyone in CZ can write whatever encyclopedia articles they want!

CZ will fail solely due to their shunning of the kinds of contributors Wikipedia thrives on: bored college and high school students.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm was written almost entirely by a high school student, see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Shirl...&action=history

it seems you have to be an expert with some specialized interest in order to get in.

Again, where are you folks getting this stuff? As it says at http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html

To get on board the wiki, please send a mail to constables@citizendium.org providing three things:

1. Your real name. This is a strict policy that we take seriously. See below if you require a pseudonym
2. Your endorsement of the Citizendium Statement of Fundamental Policies. A statement that says not only that you've read and understood it, but that you support and endorse it.
3. A biography of 100-500 words, 50 words absolute minimum. This must, of course, be accurate. It should include information about your educational background and interests. This will be posted on your user page, and so should be written for public consumption. Can be written in either first or third person.
Also helpful, if at all possible:

4. A Web link or two that tends to establish your identity. E.g., a link to your CV online.
5. Send your request through a non-free email address that bears your name or a portion thereof.
6. (Optional) Tell us how you heard about the Citizendium.

Note the complete absence among the above about having "to be an expert with some specialized interest in order to get in."

This post has been edited by Stephen Ewen: Sun 22nd July 2007, 11:26am

[Kato]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm was written almost entirely by a high school student, see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Shirl...&action=history

Note the complete absence among the above about having "to be an expert with some specialized interest in order to get in."

Hello Stephen. You're not really selling it to me, I'm afraid. I want to collaborate with people who are experts with specialized interests in subjects, without the infernal know-nothing crowd reducing the contributions. I don't want to read articles written entirely by high school students. Good encyclopedias are not generally written by high school students.

Better to have a small but accurate "collection of human knowledge" than a large but unreliable collection.