Is Citizendium worth it? Options Rating

[blissyu2]

I went to Citizendium for the first time today, and thought I'd write something, and then it says no IPs allowed, and you have to not only register, but to e-mail to register, including saying your real full name and a biography which will end up in your public profile!

http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html

It seemed a bit severe, but I've written my biography. I am not sure if I'm really qualified enough. I don't have a PhD. My highest official qualification is a Diploma, although I did get 2 subjects short of a university degree, and halfway through another. I wouldn't employ me to write in an encyclopaedia. But I don't know what their standards are.

So what does everyone think of this? Is this fair enough? Or is it a bit too severe? Is anyone here a member of Citizendium?

And do you think that Wikipedia should have rules that severe?

[Nathan]

I think that's a bit much.

[LamontStormstar]

How do they verify that your credentials are real or even your real name is real?

[guy]

Wikipedia should have some sort of standards. But you have to be careful - I have no qualifications relevant to most of my edits.

[blissyu2]

Apparently you're meant to link to your resume online or something. I suppose that's fine if you're famous but I don't have a resume online. I change it all the time. Anyway I'll see if I hear back from them.

Joel Leyden got in, but didn't make any edits.

[BobbyBombastic]

they really don't check it in the case of normal, boring qualifications. If you claim a phd and claim to be a published writer, they are supposed to make an attempt to verify that. i followed all this on CZ in March and Larry or someone suggested they maybe do a few cursory google searches in such cases (of normal, boring qualifications), but that's really it.

This post has been edited by BobbyBombastic: Sun 15th July 2007, 3:28pm

[blissyu2]

They didn't accept me (but didn't refuse me either). They wanted me to prove that I was the owner of Wikipedia Review, and that my real name was really what I said. The only place on the web that verifies my real name is a cyber stalking web site. http://www.toxicpink.net/ that lists me as one of the first victims.

I also pointed them to this post. And the fact that I'd talked to Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales.

Nobody disputes that I paid the hosting money last year, and this year by accident, do they? Well anyway I guess I'm not really the owner in any power sense, but hey technically. Next year hopefully someone else will officially be the owner.

I think it'd be interesting to contribute to it too, because, even though registering is a pain in the butt, you'd know that once you're in, you're not going to be putting up with the nonsense from Wikipedia, right? Well, you'd hope not at least.

[JohnA]

No, Citizendium is not worth it.

For a start, their business model is strictly begging-bowl only. The only way to survive is to hope the poor schmucks who have written articles for Citizendium pay for the bandwidth to keep their babies alive on teh Interwebs.

What CZ needs is a) sponsorship and b) Wikipedia to implode.

Both are fairly unlikely to happen.

This post has been edited by JohnA: Sun 15th July 2007, 4:54pm

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Wikipedia should have some sort of standards. But you have to be careful - I have no qualifications relevant to most of my edits.

Me either. Probably very few editors do. The WikiProjects that have bona fide scientists (with links to their university pages and stuff) and other professionals are quite nice to work in, though.

[blissyu2]

It is a bit like having a little voice saying "Surely Wikipedia could work if we just change this".

I tried Wikinfo before, hoping that would work, and all was fine until Fred Bauder decided in one fell swoop to delete all of the articles I'd ever created, after they'd existed for 3 months.

At least it is good to give it a chance, and see if it can work. Perhaps there is no hope, but perhaps there is some chance if we'd just change it.

I am not sure where I stand with regards to Larry Sanger either. My first thought is that if he opposes Wikipedia then I support him! The idea that he was ripped off by them makes me automatically feel sympathetic towards him. I mean he co-founded Wikipedia, but was thrown out on to the street. Its a bit like how Microsoft stole the windows idea from Apple, and ultimately it is that theft that primarily makes Microsoft wealthy.

How different would it be if Larry Sanger hadn't been kicked out of Wikipedia? Or if after he left he was treated with respect?

But on the other hand, Larry Sanger did refuse to participate in WR, stating that he hated Lir and wouldn't join while he was here. Well, Lir is gone now, so will he join now? Also, while I generally liked Lir, I didn't buy his criticism of Larry Sanger. What did Sanger do that was so wrong?

Anyway I guess its a bit of an experiment. When I first used Wikipedia, it was an experiment, and I got banned before I was able to conclude anything either way. So I guess if the same thing happens on Citizendium, then I can conclude the same kind of thing. But if I am still going relatively happily after a month then perhaps it warrants some kind of a chance.

And as for Wikipedia's demise, well, with the kinds of bills that they are getting, and the lack of sponsorship, they may well implode rather shortly even.

Wikipedia should have some sort of standards. But you have to be careful - I have no qualifications relevant to most of my edits.

Me either. Probably very few editors do. The WikiProjects that have bona fide scientists (with links to their university pages and stuff) and other professionals are quite nice to work in, though.

I don't have a lot of qualifications, but most of the articles I edited I had qualifications relevant to.

Port Arthur massacre - I am probably the most qualified person in the world to comment on that.
Talkers - I ran my own for years.
Maths and computer technical talk - I have relevant qualifications to that.
Conspiracy theories generally - again, being involved in one of the most controversial topics ever makes you fairly qualified. The ones that I commented on I also had direct knowledge of. (note that I didn't comment on JFK)
Porn - all the porn articles I wrote were places that I had at one point subscribed to. And no, I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of.

Of course, there may be people more qualified than me for those topics, but I didn't tend to write all that much in areas that I didn't know anything about. I mean there were such things as Fortune Lounge Group that I set up for another user, but that was just a beginning article. I wouldn't be bothered doing it much more than that for something that I'm not really interested in. A stub is good enough.

But then here comes the problem - Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge experts, and indeed told me that as someone who was centrally involved in the massacre I was not allowed to comment because it was "original research" and I was personally biased. Of course I was biased, for heaven's sakes. But that doesn't mean that what I said was wrong or inaccurate. This is one of Wikipedia's most serious problems. Any other item of research has inherent bias, but a reader can account for this bias when using it as a source. Wikipedia has hidden bias, and you aren't really sure what the bias is, or it may have mixed bias (part of the article biased one way, part biased another) so it just becomes really confusing. There is no such thing as true neutrality.

I mean for an example, when I wrote User:Zordrac/Poetlister, I was pretty darn neutral with regards to the ban. On one hand, I thought that SlimVirgin was a pretty nice person, who, after all, had helped out Daniel Brandt and risked de-sysopping to get his page deleted. On the other hand was someone who was supposedly a sock puppet, and while she talked to me, none of the others ever did. But then there were a lot of suspicious things going on there. I never made absolute conclusions with regards to that, and still to this day consider myself to be pretty neutral with regards to it. I did however feel very angry at the levels of corruption in relation to that incident, by such people as SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin.

But the amusing thing was that in spite of my pretty close to neutrality on that issue, I was considered by some in Wikipedia as being so biased that they thought that I was a sock puppet! Of course compared to their bias going the other way I probably was.

And this is precisely why there is no such thing as neutrality. You learn this in high school. You can take the most neutral view you think that you can have, but there is always some level of bias.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

I don't have a lot of qualifications, but most of the articles I edited I had qualifications relevant to.

Port Arthur massacre - I am probably the most qualified person in the world to comment on that.
Talkers - I ran my own for years.
Maths and computer technical talk - I have relevant qualifications to that.
Conspiracy theories generally - again, being involved in one of the most controversial topics ever makes you fairly qualified. The ones that I commented on I also had direct knowledge of. (note that I didn't comment on JFK)
Porn - all the porn articles I wrote were places that I had at one point subscribed to. And no, I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of.

No, of course it isn't. I always feel weird even correcting the spelling and grammar in porn/fetish-type articles in AutoWikiBrowser searches for spelling errors, though. :/

So, since you don't appear to be banned anymore, Bliss, what's stopping you from editing? Is it just the worry that as soon as you start editing, you'll get blocked? Or is it because you don't want to edit from your original account? Or because it's just not worth the hassle?

But then here comes the problem - Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge experts, and indeed told me that as someone who was centrally involved in the massacre I was not allowed to comment because it was "original research" and I was personally biased. Of course I was biased, for heaven's sakes. But that doesn't mean that what I said was wrong or inaccurate. This is one of Wikipedia's most serious problems. Any other item of research has inherent bias, but a reader can account for this bias when using it as a source. Wikipedia has hidden bias, and you aren't really sure what the bias is, or it may have mixed bias (part of the article biased one way, part biased another) so it just becomes really confusing. There is no such thing as true neutrality.

Yeah, there's always going to be inherent bias, no matter what. Choosing reliable sourcing can help, but I've seen perfectly reputable sources shrugged off as not meeting [[WP:RS]]. It is a big problem.

[blissyu2]

So, since you don't appear to be banned anymore, Bliss, what's stopping you from editing? Is it just the worry that as soon as you start editing, you'll get blocked? Or is it because you don't want to edit from your original account? Or because it's just not worth the hassle?

I am still banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zordrac

They have forgotten to ban Internodeuser, but know that they don't need to bother since I forgot the password.

I would never sneak in to anywhere anyway. I would wait until they apologise, or forgive me, or at least undo the ban.

[The Joy]

So, since you don't appear to be banned anymore, Bliss, what's stopping you from editing? Is it just the worry that as soon as you start editing, you'll get blocked? Or is it because you don't want to edit from your original account? Or because it's just not worth the hassle?

I am still banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zordrac

They have forgotten to ban Internodeuser, but know that they don't need to bother since I forgot the password.

I would never sneak in to anywhere anyway. I would wait until they apologise, or forgive me, or at least undo the ban.

Firsfron and I were talking about that on another thread. So Internodeuser is a sock of the main account Zordrac and as long as no one is willing to unblock the Zordrac account, you are effectively banned? We were getting confused as to which was the main account.

[blissyu2]

So, since you don't appear to be banned anymore, Bliss, what's stopping you from editing? Is it just the worry that as soon as you start editing, you'll get blocked? Or is it because you don't want to edit from your original account? Or because it's just not worth the hassle?

I am still banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zordrac

They have forgotten to ban Internodeuser, but know that they don't need to bother since I forgot the password.

I would never sneak in to anywhere anyway. I would wait until they apologise, or forgive me, or at least undo the ban.

Firsfron and I were talking about that on another thread. So Internodeuser is a sock of the main account Zordrac and as long as no one is willing to unblock the Zordrac account, you are effectively banned? We were getting confused as to which was the main account.

LOL. Well, Internodeuser I used for 1 week, and had about 100 edits, while Zordrac was used for 2 months and had about 4,000 edits. Which do you think is the main account? And they weren't meant to be sock puppets of each other anyway. I was forgiven for my previous "sins", and allowed to create a 2nd account. I quit Wikipedia in December, and was banned in January. If I hadn't gone around and protested Poetlister's ban, they wouldn't have banned me, and I would have had a new account in July 2006, after the ban on Internodeuser had expired, never to use either Zordrac or Internodeuser ever again.

Not that I totally regret protesting that ban, because it was quite unfair. Sometimes you have to make a stand. I intended to create "Blissyu2" in July 2006, or alternatively to use my real name, and then to make real edits.

[thekohser]

So what does everyone think of this? Is this fair enough? Or is it a bit too severe? Is anyone here a member of Citizendium?

And do you think that Wikipedia should have rules that severe?

I like the fact that Citizendium attempts to associate a real person with each contributing account.

I am a registered contributor to Citizendium.

I was interested most in helping that project compile articles about business and businesses, but two observations led to my account going virtually dormant:

1. Larry Sanger personally expressed anxiety about having me (the "Wikipedia Review lightning rod") be a major part of the project
2. Simple questions that I posted to the "Economics" portion of the project went largely unanswered, sometimes for weeks.

About the same time, Centiare.com became a more interesting prospect for me, since it incorporates Semantic Web architecture, and it was getting just as much traffic as Citizendium.

(You may be amused to note what Google AdWords site link appears when you type in the word "Citizendium" on Google. If Sanger can't even take ownership of his Google AdWords namesake, what does that tell you about the financial savvy of the project?)

Greg

[Somey]

(You may be amused to note what Google AdWords site link appears when you type in the word "Citizendium" on Google. If Sanger can't even take ownership of his Google AdWords namesake, what does that tell you about the financial savvy of the project?)

Y'know, I was wondering when all that was happening! Apparently it's happening right now. I'd better get cracking!

Larry hasn't even bought his own name, either... What's more, nobody has even bought the word "happening." Then again, I guess there hasn't really been a Happening since the Andy Warhol Factory days, or at least not one worth attending.

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?

[blissyu2]

After a lengthy process, they finally let me join (I had to show them my drivers license lol). So this is me: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Adrian_Meredith

It says quite clearly that you must be an expert on your topic, so I decided to start on the topic which I have the greatest expertise, the Port Arthur massacre. Wikipedia calls that bias, and says that what I know is original research. Its still true though, while their article isn't. Anyway, I am slowly but surely writing an article on it, and hopefully it can supercede the lies that Wikipedia tells. Here is my starting article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Adrian_Meredith/sandbox

I'll aim to finish it in about 1 or 2 weeks.

Other topics that I am semi-expert in, are:

- Backpacker murders (my step father was a suspect and was tried for them)
- Peter Falconio disappearance (I was living there at the time)
- Azaria Chamberlain disappearance (I was living there at the time)
- Talkers (I used to run one)
- ICQ (I saw the source code when it was in development)

And that's about it. Other than that, I'll just write articles related to that, and maybe do some minor edits. I don't feel comfortable editing articles about stuff that I don't know much about. It feels wrong somehow.

I'll see if this time I am allowed to keep my work.

[LamontStormstar]

Citizendium may have the problem in that it wants only experts, but doesn't pay them so it will be slow to grow.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Thu 19th July 2007, 2:49am

[blissyu2]

Again, it depends on what they view as an expert.

I mean I am not the world's greatest authority on ICQ, but I'd probably know more about it than 95% of people. That isn't really an expert, but its better than average knowledge.

While if I wrote about say the history of China, I don't know any more than I was taught in grade 8 history class.

Yet on Wikipedia, you get people writing about things that they haven't even studied in depth. I mean most people end up writing about things that they are fairly knowledgeable about, except when sometimes they feel sort of forced to write about something else, like its a favour to someone or something.

I remember the worst one I wrote was for Fortune Lounge Group, to try to save an AFD. It was a horribly written article, and I have no expertise in gambling or online casinos or anything like that. But I kind of had to do it. I bet that other people have had to write articles too.

I mean say Everyking would probably be an expert on Jessica and Ashlee Simpson, so he should be able to write on those topics. He might not be their number 1 fan, but he is a solid fan of them. While most likely most of the people that opposed him weren't experts on the topic.

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...

[LamontStormstar]

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.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Thu 19th July 2007, 3:18am