What will kill Citizendium? Options Rating

[Nicholas Carr]

Wikipedia is nothing if not a forum for interminable pissing matches, ... Wikipedia today has more layers of bureaucracy than the average Fortune 500 company and ... What "will kill Citizendium," he writes, is that, unlike Wikipedia, ...

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/09/...xpertfocuse.php

[emesee]

why be haten on Citizendium?

[EricBarbour]

Because Sanger blew it--he made the requirement for "expert" status too severe.
There are quite a few real-world experts who have never been "published". And besides,
his definition of "published" is damn narrow. Meaning, academic journals and the like.
And they don't even say that anywhere onsite....

[Eva Destruction]

why be haten on Citizendium?

Because Larry was one of the few people with the clout to get a genuine improvement-on-Wikipedia-while-still-retaining-the-positives off the ground, and screwed up spectacularly. The combination of an insanely complicated registration process*, the fact that anyone managing to navigate the registration process was (and still is) greeted by ramblings like "Citizens, consider Recent Changes your home page!", and the sheer poor quality of their articles, gave the impression of a site run by a pack of cranks.

Consequently, in that period in late 2006-early 2007 when Wikipedia was in serious danger of collapsing under its own contradictions, those most opposed to change could point to Citizendium, say "this is what will happen if we try to make these changes you're proposing", and people would take it seriously. Thus, not only did it cement the "there is no alternative" mentality in place regarding potential alternatives to Wikipedia, it slowed down the necessary changes to Wikipedia's governance, some of which still haven't been implemented three years on.

*("If you have a non-free email address that bears your name, please use it; e.g., university or work address. (You can change it to your personal email address later). Your email address will be sent a confirmation message once this request is submitted. You must respond by clicking on the confirmation link provided by the the email. Also, your password will be emailed to you when your account is created, along with login information. If you use a free e-mail address (e.g., gmail or yahoo), you must include some other information that helps us to confirm your identity. This could include a link to your (optional) BeenVerified™ page; credible webpages listing your (free) e-mail address, names of persons that we can look up online to aid in confirming your identity, current members you know, etc. You could even scan and upload a copy of an ID card (but we might still need to connect your ID to your e-mail address). Authors are required to provide only a statement about their personal interests and education, preferably a few hundred words, and not fewer than 50. Rough clues as to age and location might be helpful to other users but are optional. Please note: your biography must demonstrate that you possess high proficiency in English. Provide the name on your driver's license or other identification card. First name (given name) and last name (family name). Use normal capitalization, punctuation, and spaces, e.g., John A. Doe. You may use middle names and initials if you wish. No pseudonyms.")

[Kelly Martin]

I think it's obvious that Citizendium will be killed by brain-sucking zombie threads.

[Milton Roe]

I think it's obvious that Citizendium will be killed by brain-sucking zombie threads.

Citizendium had every opportunity to learn from WP, and to simply copy the things that WP does right, and which make it grow. Contrary to popular belief, not all of these are the very things that make WP bad, resulting in inescapable Catch 22's.

For example: you don't need to be a Ph.D. to fix grammer, syntax, and spelling errors. Or do a lot of the other stuff that an encyclopedia needs. Unidentified people can do gnome work. And will. And you should LET them.

And many a Subject Matter Expert is a horrible writer who needs to have his sentences and paragraphs broken up to something readable. Even somebody who knows nothing about the subject can see that.

So now the irony: Sanger ORIGINALLY in 2001 proposed having the Great Unidentified Unwashed create feeder articles, for Subject Matter Expert review and final touchup. And I think that model, which combines good features of both Wp and Citizendium, will eventually succeed in making the best collaborative encyclopedia possible. (Flagged revisions...!)

But then, Sanger forgot his own original proposal, and went off to re-invent every aspect of the wheel, including those which Wales' default program had already shown (by then) to be ahead of anything out there.

And that was not smart.

[Nerd]

and the sheer poor quality of their articles, gave the impression of a site run by a pack of cranks.

No better than Wikipedia's random page feature.

[Milton Roe]

and the sheer poor quality of their articles, gave the impression of a site run by a pack of cranks.

No better than Wikipedia's random page feature.

Which is scary, and not widely known.

Everybody: go to the search box and paste in special:random, then hit return. Prepare to be

[Cla68]

Because Sanger blew it--he made the requirement for "expert" status too severe.
There are quite a few real-world experts who have never been "published". And besides,
his definition of "published" is damn narrow. Meaning, academic journals and the like.
And they don't even say that anywhere onsite....

I rushed over and started a Citizendium account soon after it launched and copied over a few articles (like Guadalcanal Campaign) from Wikipedia. For all the reasons mentioned here and a few others I didn't stay active with it.

[Lar]

*("If you have a non-free email address that bears your name, please use it; e.g., university or work address. (You can change it to your personal email address later). Your email address will be sent a confirmation message once this request is submitted. You must respond by clicking on the confirmation link provided by the the email. Also, your password will be emailed to you when your account is created, along with login information. If you use a free e-mail address (e.g., gmail or yahoo), you must include some other information that helps us to confirm your identity. This could include a link to your (optional) BeenVerified™ page; credible webpages listing your (free) e-mail address, names of persons that we can look up online to aid in confirming your identity, current members you know, etc. You could even scan and upload a copy of an ID card (but we might still need to connect your ID to your e-mail address). Authors are required to provide only a statement about their personal interests and education, preferably a few hundred words, and not fewer than 50. Rough clues as to age and location might be helpful to other users but are optional. Please note: your biography must demonstrate that you possess high proficiency in English. Provide the name on your driver's license or other identification card. First name (given name) and last name (family name). Use normal capitalization, punctuation, and spaces, e.g., John A. Doe. You may use middle names and initials if you wish. No pseudonyms.")

This may be an unpopular view but I do not consider that verification process to be onerous. I had no trouble completing it. I don't think that's the major reason Citizendium hasn't taken off.

[Kelly Martin]

Everybody: go to the search box and paste in special:random, then hit return. Prepare to be

Don't do this at work or at a public workstation; there is a noninfinitesimal chance that you'll be presented with porn.

[Grep]

Is there any legal/licence reason why Citizendium experts should not simply transfer articles from Wikipedia that actually happen to be well-written and accurate?

This post has been edited by Grep: Thu 30th July 2009, 6:14am

[A User]

From what I've seen, the name registration process is the least of their problems. See:

"Site founder Larry Sanger denies academic's claims of slow development and infighting"

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...§ioncode=26

[michael]

This may be an unpopular view but I do not consider that verification process to be onerous. I had no trouble completing it. I don't think that's the major reason Citizendium hasn't taken off.

It's a serious turn-off. I've been making photo books for a year now and have had to cut my paragraphs down pretty strongly to make it readable. Even with the barest, simplest statements, people still refuse to answer my emails. If they were paragraphs of text such as this one to register for Citizendium, they'd see the wall of text and close the browser window.

[A User]

Sanger has come up with great ideas but he is not a leader. From what I've seen on their forums, Citizendium is essentially directionless with Sanger being absent when most of the major decisions have to be made. I've also seen him both on Wikipedia and Citizendium vacillating on issues and disputes, and also back-peddling on stated positions. He is not a leader. I also believe their "constables" turn away many potential editors. The word constable around the world is associated with police forces. Do you need a police force to maintain an encyclopaedia run by academic?

Because Sanger blew it--he made the requirement for "expert" status too severe.
There are quite a few real-world experts who have never been "published". And besides,
his definition of "published" is damn narrow. Meaning, academic journals and the like.
And they don't even say that anywhere onsite....

[EricBarbour]

Is there any legal/licence reason why Citizendium experts should not simply transfer articles from Wikipedia that actually happen to be well-written and accurate?

Not a damn thing, as long as they conform to the GPL or CC license for a given article and any images associated. (You also notice the near-total lack of images on Citizendium. They could go to Flickr or somewhere else and find CC licensed or PD images.)

In fact, that would be the smart thing to do.

I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger is discouraging WP reuse, despite it being an easy way to get material for review and eventual publication. Perhaps because he hates being reminded of WP's greater success? Embarrassing?

[A User]

They've already banned a user for mass importing articles into the project.

Is there any legal/licence reason why Citizendium experts should not simply transfer articles from Wikipedia that actually happen to be well-written and accurate?

Not a damn thing, as long as they conform to the GPL or CC license for a given article and any images associated. (You also notice the near-total lack of images on Citizendium. They could go to Flickr or somewhere else and find CC licensed or PD images.)

In fact, that would be the smart thing to do.

I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger is discouraging WP reuse, despite it being an easy way to get material for review and eventual publication. Perhaps because he hates being reminded of WP's greater success? Embarrassing?

[Milton Roe]

Is there any legal/licence reason why Citizendium experts should not simply transfer articles from Wikipedia that actually happen to be well-written and accurate?

Not a damn thing, as long as they conform to the GPL or CC license for a given article and any images associated. (You also notice the near-total lack of images on Citizendium. They could go to Flickr or somewhere else and find CC licensed or PD images.)

In fact, that would be the smart thing to do.

I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger is discouraging WP reuse, despite it being an easy way to get material for review and eventual publication. Perhaps because he hates being reminded of WP's greater success? Embarrassing?

Yes. As well as being totally against Sanger's NIH (Not Invented Here) mentality.

Citizendium vs. WP is a test case where "Does not work and play well with others" actually is being trumped by "Works well with, and uses, others."

Go figure. But it should not surprise. If you ever wondered why "charming users" are more common than "scrupulously honest sourpusses"--- it's because the former tend to breed early and often, on strength of promise.

[Cla68]

Is there any legal/licence reason why Citizendium experts should not simply transfer articles from Wikipedia that actually happen to be well-written and accurate?

Not a damn thing, as long as they conform to the GPL or CC license for a given article and any images associated. (You also notice the near-total lack of images on Citizendium. They could go to Flickr or somewhere else and find CC licensed or PD images.)

In fact, that would be the smart thing to do.

I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger is discouraging WP reuse, despite it being an easy way to get material for review and eventual publication. Perhaps because he hates being reminded of WP's greater success? Embarrassing?

Some time ago the Citizendium regulars had a vote and decided not to allow copies of Wikipedia articles. I'm still on the Citizendium mailing list so I remember reading about it.