Tweet
Wikipedia and the Citizendium
How does the project differ from Wikipedia?
In several significant ways: expert involvement, the requirement of logging in and real names, and more. What will not change is that the project will still be an open/free content wiki. This is covered in detail in this section of "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge."
Do you want to try to "steal" people from Wikipedia and divide the community?
That is not the aim. Wikipedia has already driven off no doubt thousands of would-be contributors, and there are thousands, if not millions, of people who never would think about contributing to Wikipedia in the first place, but who might be willing to give the Citizendium a go. We want to set up, not a replacement, but an alternative to Wikipedia, a responsible constitutional republic that makes a special place for experts and invites the general public to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them.
Are you attempting to shut Wikipedia down?
No. That makes up no part of our aim. We wish instead to leverage the fantastic resource that is Wikipedia and use it to create something better.
Aha! So you are trying to outdo Wikipedia, aren't you?
Well, of course. Why else would we be proposing a fork?
If you're not trying to shut Wikipedia down, then what relationship do you want with Wikipedia?
A mutually complementary one, in which we occupy different social niches, as it were. Those who want to work in a system committed to the maximum empowerment of amateurs should always be able to do so on Wikipedia. Those who, by contrast, want to work shoulder-to-shoulder in a bottom-up system with experts, in which the experts are able to settle content disputes, will soon have the option of doing so on the Citizendium. Furthermore, those who want the option of working anonymously and in a wild-and-woolly atmosphere in which rules are not necessarily enforced should always be able to do so on Wikipedia. Those who, by contrast, want to take personal, real-world responsibility for their efforts, and to work in a dynamic but rule-governed environment, will soon have the option of doing so on the Citizendium.
You could have done this a long time ago. Why now?
The full and frank story is very complex, and not ready to be told. Perhaps we should have done this a long time ago. But perhaps we were not fully justified in doing it until fairly recently. In particular, many of us think that Wikipedia's attempts to paper over its very public mini-scandals with minor changes have been weak. It is pretty clear to us that Wikipedia will probably never seriously attempt to solve what we, at least, regard as the central problems of the project. For further explanation, see "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge."
How does the project differ from Wikipedia?
In several significant ways: expert involvement, the requirement of logging in and real names, and more. What will not change is that the project will still be an open/free content wiki. This is covered in detail in this section of "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge."
Do you want to try to "steal" people from Wikipedia and divide the community?
That is not the aim. Wikipedia has already driven off no doubt thousands of would-be contributors, and there are thousands, if not millions, of people who never would think about contributing to Wikipedia in the first place, but who might be willing to give the Citizendium a go. We want to set up, not a replacement, but an alternative to Wikipedia, a responsible constitutional republic that makes a special place for experts and invites the general public to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them.
Are you attempting to shut Wikipedia down?
No. That makes up no part of our aim. We wish instead to leverage the fantastic resource that is Wikipedia and use it to create something better.
Aha! So you are trying to outdo Wikipedia, aren't you?
Well, of course. Why else would we be proposing a fork?
If you're not trying to shut Wikipedia down, then what relationship do you want with Wikipedia?
A mutually complementary one, in which we occupy different social niches, as it were. Those who want to work in a system committed to the maximum empowerment of amateurs should always be able to do so on Wikipedia. Those who, by contrast, want to work shoulder-to-shoulder in a bottom-up system with experts, in which the experts are able to settle content disputes, will soon have the option of doing so on the Citizendium. Furthermore, those who want the option of working anonymously and in a wild-and-woolly atmosphere in which rules are not necessarily enforced should always be able to do so on Wikipedia. Those who, by contrast, want to take personal, real-world responsibility for their efforts, and to work in a dynamic but rule-governed environment, will soon have the option of doing so on the Citizendium.
You could have done this a long time ago. Why now?
The full and frank story is very complex, and not ready to be told. Perhaps we should have done this a long time ago. But perhaps we were not fully justified in doing it until fairly recently. In particular, many of us think that Wikipedia's attempts to paper over its very public mini-scandals with minor changes have been weak. It is pretty clear to us that Wikipedia will probably never seriously attempt to solve what we, at least, regard as the central problems of the project. For further explanation, see "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge."
I've heard lots of critism of Wiki and it's interesting to see an alternative. I've always found wiki fun to look at but never really swore by it's authentisity.
Comment