This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
-- Larry Sanger 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion moved to talk:Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the mailing list "Citizendium-l", the project is currently pretty much dead:
-- 217.51.4.143 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-- nyenyec ☎ 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, a fork of the Wikipedia article on Citizendium.
My proposed re-write of the current overgrown article is posted on the Citizendium sub-page of my user page.
Some of the reasons for the re-write have been discussed in depth above (excessive detail section). In addition, the current article exhibits a number of instances of redundancies resulting, in my opinion, from poor organization. Just one example: the new self-registration policy is mentioned in three different places in the current version of the article.
Another major flaw is that the current article has very little discussion of the background motivation for the creation of the Citizendium project, and what there is is buried amidst other material. I suspect that the reason for this is due to the fact that many of the folks most interested in this article have imbibed this material so thoroughly that it is simply (for them) part of the general background and hence not in need of explicit presentation. But the article needs to be writen for those for whom knowledge of such material cannot be taken for granted.
Since this is a major re-write I am proposing, I have chosen to carry it on my user page rather than just plunge in and start hacking away. I understand that in such cases the proposed re-write, even though it is on a user page (actually, a sub-page), is editable both technically and ethically, though I would expect that discussion of same would take place here.
JFPerry 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
General agreement with others: Background good (though some points of style I'd love to copyedit), but it certainly needs refs and detail. -- Malyctenar 12:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
We use, if I'm correct, only one third-party source (The Register, hmm), and the rest are a bunch of web forum posts. As a result, the current article sails very close to the wind with regard to WP:RS and WP:OR. Whether we rewrite or not, we should think about moving to better sources. — Matt Crypto 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just deleted the two (redundant) references to the first vandalism on Citizendium. While the issue of vandalism and CZ's policies designed to minimize or otherwise deal with same are important, I find this focus on careful detailing of this first instance to be objectionable. It is almost as if you are awarding barnstars for the first such act!
It is also interesting that the people who first posted the "information" (more like needless trivia) saw fit to mention only the vandal and not the person (myself, to tell the truth) who first reverted the vandalism.
The result (almost certainly not intended, but nevertheless resultant) is to glorify such vandal behavior.
Eventually, once CZ has a more extensive track record on the matter, a more careful examination of the issue of vandalism in light of CZ policies will be in order. Citizendium certainly does need to be subject to honest and meaningful scrutiny and will benefit from same. But the article's almost voyeuristic interest in the "first vandal" doesn't promote this.
JFPerry 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that phrasing still accurate? The project is going pretty good. 74.38.35.171 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's accurate (I worked for some months on Citizendium). Especially since all the WP content was dumped, what CZ has right now amounts only to a few thousand articles revised in some degree (from a few words to being entirely rewritten) on a limited array of subjects -- not an Encyclopedia yet, at any rate.
Rapotter 13:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may very well be quite good -- the quality of the 3-4 approved articles is excellent -- we'll have to see. Rome wasn't built in a day, and if CZ eschews WP content, it will take an extra few days. I am glad to see that the WP article, so far, has been remarkably accurate and regularly updated.
Rapotter 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who "owns" Citizendium? Is there a board of trustees or something? Or does Sanger have all authority?
What are the major criticisms that have been made of CZ, other than the fact that it doesn't amount to much yet, and the controversy over the role of experts?
Thanks! Dawud
Rapotter 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the new Biology article on Citizendium - it's actually really crazy (as in good). I think that Wikipedia may have a very legit rival in this website - especially since our Biology article pails in comparison. Well hey - hopefully Wikipedia's strong sense of equality continues to make it stand out.Daniel()Folsom |\ T/|\ C/|\ U/|( Can you help me with my signature?) 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium now requires that people log in to view articles. At the same time they have deleted the vast majority of the articles they were hoping to fork from Wikipedia - even more that they did when they "unforked". Now you have to email them with your real name to even look at the articles. If you don't provide your credentials on your user page they bwill delete your account. Not only is this a gross disregard for people's online privacy it also seriously diminishes the notability of Citizendium. I'm not calling Wikipedia perfect but seriously... Citizendium is an ill-concieved non-notable project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.215.200.145 ( talk) 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Anyone know what license they're using? Last I heard, it was going to be Creative Commons-NonCommercial. Seems kind of silly they waited this long to decide this longstanding issue. Mahanga Talk to me 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much longer it'll take until they decide on a license. Btw, for those interested, here are the arguments. Mahanga Talk 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the fact they have not yet decided should be mentioned in the main text of the page! Do you agree?-- Popopp 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I have an issue with how this is sourced - the article says that the vandalism that caused Citizendium to shut down self-registration came from Slashdot, and although the source only makes a passing mention at Slashdot, I know there are better sources out there, having read them. My issue is with the source itself: is Larry Sanger really qualified to judge where the vandalism is originating from? Are there any third-party sources to back this up, ones that don't come from the people running the project? THe pattern of vandalism observed makes this especially dubious to me, but that may just be my opinion - however, I think the problem with first-party, unqualified sources is one everyone can relate to. Milto LOL pia 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I started an essay Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, please edit it heavily and boldly. I will have to leave my computer and won't be here to discuss anything, so really, just be brutally bold, or even delete it. But please don't turn it into a polemical piece, I hope that when I look at it, it will still be focused on the interesting ideas and on what we can learn from Citizendium, not an attempt to refute the more irrelevant criticism. -- Merzul 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fork of Wikipedia"
Is this a pun? :-) Axl 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The citation mentions a business model that will pay for the foundation but does not mention the non-profit paperwork to change the license has been filed. In addition, the citation, while coming from Sanger, is in a forum which is blog-like. It could be here today (the reference); changed tomorrow. Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources does not allow this citation as it has not been published in a reliable third publication or source. Morenooso 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, regarding "our standing article makes no claim that citizendium is legally a non-profit because it is not currently, although it claims to intend to become one" you should do a little research before declaring error. http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/24/second-press-release-is-out-2/#more-111 http://citizendium.org/faq.html#funding http://www2.tidescenter.org/directory/project_detail_new.cfm?id=60306 http://www.tidescenter.org/news-events/news-room/single-news-item/index.html?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=88&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=535&cHash=68a497f377 http://www.mail-archive.com/citizendium-l@lists.purdue.edu/msg00369.html - C.m.jones 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, shouldn't the "Commercial?" question in the infobox state whether the website is commercial right now, instead of stating what might come in the future? Then it should be a clear "no", maybe with a footnote that it is planned to change in the future. -- Conti| ✉ 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand the difference between it and WIkipedia. Can we have a section that debates the pros and cons of both? Or how they diverge or are different in some aspects?-- Sonjaaa 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Do these guys plan to limit their scope to subjects that have actual experts? I'm not sure what their idea of an expert of, say, [Computer Game X] or [Movie Y] is. Does this mean they will just ban those subjects? 217.136.130.104 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
For some reason this is deemed unworthy of inclusion, [1] [2] so I'm placing it here:
Many of the changes are attempts to correct perceived flaws in the original design and present public image of Wikipedia, that have led to problems with Wikipedia's acceptance as a valid and trustworthy resource. A number of academics have criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source. Many Wikipedia editors do not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia. [1] The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper. Some educational institutions have blocked Wikipedia in the past while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [2] University of Maryland professor of physics Robert L. Park has characterized Wikipedia as a target for "purveyors of pseudoscience." [3]
This perception is backed up by Wikipedia's own admission:
- Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. [4]
Regarding Wikipedia's oft-cited problems, Sanger wrote that "this arguably dysfunctional community is extremely off-putting to … academics" and as such appears "committed to amateurism." [5]
I think the point about becoming a reliable source is a very (most?) significant difference and should be included. -- Fyslee/ talk 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be going in circles here, with the heading making clear my main point, while you continually object to a duplication (you should feel complimented that your good work is worthy copying!) of some material.
Here is my proposed barbered version that concentrates on the point of this thread:
Many of the changes are attempts to correct perceived flaws in the original design and present public image of Wikipedia, that have led to problems with Wikipedia's acceptance as a valid and trustworthy reliable source. This perception is backed up by Wikipedia's own admission:
- Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. [6]
How's that? -- Fyslee/ talk 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is some code so we can see the references:
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Wikipedia - both its genius and its Achilles heel - is that anyone can create or modify an entry. Anyone means your 10-year-old neighbor or a Nobel Prize winner - or an editor like me, who is itching to correct a grammar error in that Wikipedia entry that I just quoted. Entries can be edited by numerous people and be in constant flux. What you read now might change in five minutes. Five seconds, even.— Susan Youngwood.
It's number four that's the relevant one, and you're right! I wasn't even conscious it was from there. I thought it was a Wikipedia FAQ. Whatever the case, it's still the long-standing position of Wikipedia. Only closed wikis are considered possibly reliable sources, and they do exist. -- Fyslee/ talk 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I added refs and a tidbit. This is a central issue and highly relevant. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/ contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fork of Wikipedia
According to statements and essays on Citizendium.org, the project was initially intended to ....fork of Wikipedia, However, after initiating the idea of not forking, and then soliciting comments on the matter from Citizendium members, Sanger said that a complete fork at launch was not a "foregone conclusion." As to abandoning 'fork of Wikipedia CyberAnth has commented -The non-forking is experimental. It is not final.- Of course forking can be resumed at a later stage, and much concern has been raised of the volume of articles that can otherwise be produced.
About the Citizendium: http://www.citizendium.org/about.htm
Why necessary
In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.
What's our goal?
As to quality, our goal is to capture humanity's multivarious understanding of reality, and thereby to paint a maximally broad and detailed portrait of our universe as accurately as we understand it. An indispensible means to this end is the involvement of many experts ..... the potential of participation by ultimately millions of people, means that we can capture humanity's understanding of reality....
Historically, many states limited citizenship to only a proportion of their population, thereby creating a citizen class with political rights superior to other sections of the population. Citizendium, as noted in the article differentiates itself from wikipedia through editing policy and by the requirments for initiation as a constable.
Sanger has stated that Citizendium administrators, or sysops, will be called "constables," and will need a bachelor's degree to qualify. Sanger has also suggested a minimum "maturity" requirement — 25 years of age — for constables.[11] The "head" constable will be the Chief Constable (Ruth Ifcher), and the head editor will be the Managing Editor. The stated aim of the project is to create a "new compendium of knowledge" based on the contributions of "intellectuals," defined as "educated, thinking people who read about science or ideas regularly." Citizendium hopes to foster an expert culture and a community that encourages subject specialists (presently named as "editors") to contribute, and "citizens" (to be called "authors") to "respect" the expert contributions (by what he referred to as a "gentle process of guidance").
it doesn't matter what percentage of material, published or unpublished, is secret; if there are indeed important organizational activities and documents that are held in secret, to that extent it at least resembles a secret society.... --Larry Sanger 09:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Sanger said in an October 17, 2006 press release that Citizendium "will soon attempt to unseat Wikipedia as the go-to destination for general information online."
Recently in his role as Editor-in-Chief, Sanger has also questioned some of the new members of Citizendium, who , though without bachelor's degrees are advanced experts in the field of scientology...
Scientology is quite secretive about information available at the higher levels. Terry, as it appears you are a Scientologist, let me ask you this: do Scientologists actually deny that they are secretive? Also, can I purchase all the Scientology material and descriptions of Scientology practices without being a high-level Scientologist? Isn't there quite a bit of higher-level stuff that is members-only? --Larry Sanger 19:51, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Some also draw attention to the seemingly sinister sound of citizendium as -cities end (EE - um)- however such associations are not recognised by prominent universities and are consequently disregarded.
""Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to believe that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination."" --Larry Sanger 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Surely not, but then Citizendium would not want the average reader to contribute, or beleive writing without some gentle guidance
I do not claim any sort of editorship other than being Editor-in-Chief, I'm afraid, not even in philosophy or the Internet. -Larry Sanger
As to the suggestion that Larry introduces himself as Al Gore does: My name is Larry Sanger, and I used to be the co-founder of Wikipedia He plans to re-invent and possibly found the next internet all in good time.
If there is some big sweeping change or project or idea
that probably ain't gonna happen if I don't get behind it,
please let me know at Suggestion Box.
- Sanger auto-biopage at citizendium ==
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
--- Amreading 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium#Citizendium_goes_live reports 500 edits a day. Seems more like much less than that... Recent changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit, which I have removed twice, very clearly violates WP:SYN. The two reference cited do not even mention Citizendium! It is clearly editor synthesis and thus original research. C.m.jones 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to make a big case out of an essentially marginal comment. However, someone on Citizendium asserted here that he always hated a certain WP article. It is unfair that he stated this, and it is unfair that no one on Citizendium asked for the deletion of this statement. Notice that he said hate, not just dislike, or the presentation is not appropriate etc..
I repeat: this is marginal. But I believe that it is not a good start! -- Popopp 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope they don't delete Wikipedia, I much prefer Wikipedia. I also think that many people will prefer Wikipedia as well. -- zzo38(<font color=#7799FF face=Wingdings>[[User_talk:Zzo38|*]]</font>)[[User:Zzo38/sand|?]] 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Both projects have a different way of reaching their goal which is very much the same, just the path is different. I recomend you to go to the CZ website and have a look at its Rules and Regulations and decide then. It cant hurt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.26.127 ( talk) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Is not Tides Center. We have a legal relationship with them, but that doesn't make them our owner.
Similarly, this sentence is false: "The Citizendium Foundation is currently run by Tides Center, a non-profit organization." It is run by me and a bunch of volunteers. The Tides Center has our money, approves the very rare checks we write. But it doesn't "run" much of anything. -- Larry Sanger 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm really surprised to see no mention here of the whole censorship/"family friendly" issue with CZ. After reading through the 20 page forum thread over at the CZ forums, and Larry Sanger's very strong opinions on the issue, I expected to at least find mention of it here. The whole thing was enough to put me off of even applying for an account over there, and from the information in that thread, seems to have been enough to cause the resignation of a few "high ranking" individuals from the CZ project. Fehrgo 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
At what point is Citizendium's constantly decreasing traffic notable? I agree with Casey that a drop from the initial web ranking is to be expected, but its fallen out of the top 100,000 websites according to Alexa and it seems to be tracking a steady decline. I realize this is a very tender subject, but its existence as a website naturally means its popularity or lack thereof is an important bit of related information, isn't it? Elijahmeeks 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics for a full array of Citizendium statistics. Stephen Ewen 06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following citizendium and don't know much about it, I came to the wikipedia article to learn more. I was disappointed by the lack of a section on critiques so I created one. It would be great if others who are more knowledgeable on published critiques could rewrite this section, what I put there is more of a placeholder. However, please don't delete it entirely if you're not going to rewrite it, I think it's important that there be a short, careful, concise summary of the major criticisms that have come up. Thanks. S.chock 09:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the entire section is way, way too premature, and every "criticism" I have seen is based upon either pure conjecture (crystal ballism) or blatant misunderstandings (criticisms of a straw man Citizendium and not the actual thing). C.m.jones 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The very reasonable criticisms of CZ from IWR and Ars Technica are hardly crystal-ball predictions. They are simply observations about two key features of the project: the incentive (or lack thereof) for experts to participate, and the difference between the two classes of CZ contributors – those deemed "experts" and those deemed "non-experts." It's obvious that any criticism of CZ in this article will set off dispute, and I'm not inclined to edit war on the issue, or any other issue. I'm no "zealot" on Citizendium, but it's amusing that even the briefest and most reasonable criticism section meets with such, well, zealous opposition. At any rate, the criticism is now in the article's history for the interested reader.
As for the general question of CZ's notability, it's true that the project has sunk steadily in the Alexa rankings, and the rate of approved article production is not awe-inspiring. However, the project has received a great deal of media attention and continues to function as a competitor to Wikipedia. Sanger's status as WP "co-founder" – which of course is disputed, even if some apparently think Jimbo's view doesn't count – also adds to the project's visibility and notability. Casey Abell 18:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that CZ is much more interesting to Wikipedia editors than to the world at large. However, the project has received a lot of publicity in the outside media, even if we're not allowed to put some of that commentary in the article (rueful smile). So I think CZ meets reasonable notability guidelines. Casey Abell 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Or did that read of the future come from some channeled other worldly entity? "It will be carried out under the auspices of the Citizendium Foundation."
Now somebody salve the bruise by insulting me for seeing the problem but not fixing it. Clue: I wouldn't apply pressure if Wikipedia were bleeding to death, but I probably would step over the body and take a picture with my cell phone to post on the Web site of my choice. Bubblegum wrap 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose putting something like: {{ Future Product}} up to show that this isn't a done deal. Because it's not. Hires an editor 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put a request at m:Talk:Interwiki map for an interwiki to Citizendium; if you've any thoughts or comments on the advisability or practicality of this - and especially if you know what they're going to be doing with language subdomains - please leave a comment there. Shimgray | talk | 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but the fiddling with the (already irrelevant) material on Wikipedia's faults should stop now. QuackGuru added a phrase to the material [8], then fact-tagged his own addition. [9] He had previously fact-tagged an item already covered in a footnote cited in the following sentence [10]. When I pointed this out, he added a footnote to the same article, so there were two separate footnotes to the same article in successive sentences. [11]
I have no idea what all this is supposed to prove, if anything. The material on Wikipedia's faults doesn't even belong in this article, so maybe an effort is being made to attract attention to this stuff. But let's stop playing these kinds of useless games, please. Casey Abell 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikipedia's comprehensiveness and breadth of knowledge. Experts with cirriculum vitae and professors are fewer in number than the general population, and they often have work to do themselves. Moreover, Wikipedia already has two million articles, in spite of the rampant deletionism that goes on all the time. Since many more people are invited to edit Wikipedia, many more people are involved with Wikipedia than with Citizendium, and thus Citizendium might wind up a flop. Besides, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is already expert written and it's out there. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Intros should stand alone and sum up the whole article. I made it so. 74.233.157.219 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To join Citizendium you have to submit information of at least 50 words, and up to 500, about yourself. I imagine that this is to deter the ill-educated and/or semi-literate people who have indeed made Wikipedia "an arguably dysfunctional community....committed to amateurism". In addition they insist on real names only.
In the case of Wikipedia, it is simply not scholarly to come forward with phrases such as "fucking list" (IamLondon on Irish American Presidents) "anglo-saxton heretics" (see Bobby Sands discussion), or, in the context of St Patrick's Day, "the British invaded Wales". Yes, it could well be that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikpedia's comprehensiveness and breath of knowledge, but since these are flawed, an attempt needs to be made. Millbanks 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
We started inviting people generally to the pilot project on Oct. 28, but because of immediate server problems, it really didn't get started rolling until Oct. 31 or Nov. 1--which, as far as I'm concerned, is the real pilot project launch date, because that's when things finally settled down so that people could get to work. See http://blog.citizendium.org/category/project-growth/page/6/ Oct. 23 wasn't the start of much of anything important. -- Larry Sanger 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has been placed On hold. When the point explained below is corrected, the article will be passed.
There was only one point I could come up with from the prose
The article is well referenced and uses reliable sources.
The article covers most of the aspects of the topic.
The article is neutral.
I noticed a small edit war, but it appeared to be an editor who wanted to remove the images in the infobox.
It is relatively hard to come up with good pictures for an article like this, but all the images are licensed correctly. An extra picture would improve the article, but it would not be essential.
Please leave a note on my talk page when this point is corrected, and I will change the status to pass.
Thanks, themcman1 talk 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
--- It's actually pretty bad. The article simply screams that it was written from the POV of Wikipedians, and first for Wikipedians, both within their stance. 74.233.86.110 ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am not sure whether it is good idea to nominate Citizendium - a quickly changing website - as a Good Article. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to a question about Citizendium's status as a legal non-profit, we currently hold non-profit status via association with the Tides Foundation, which is sort of a non-profit incubator. (As is, I believe, briefly noted in the article.) Once we have project governance firmed up (we're planning out the assembly of a board of directors, a prerequisite for 501c(3) status) we'll most likely form a Foundation of our own.
This is my understanding of the situation, and it may not be set in stone.
I was going to update some of the activity graphs and throw in a few more graphs from our statistics page ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics), but doing so may skirt rather close to the conflict of interest line.
-- Johnsonmx ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Bramlet, why isn't this a more neutral description? I'm not trying to take a stance on it here (I have no stance), but it's a disputed issue so it shouldn't really be stated as a matter of fact in the lead. My wording avoids the need to strike up a position. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. [14]
I'm not interested in involving in the debate. But I want to point out that this talk page is not a place for this kind of debate. Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia should settle the matter, and this article should follow the two when defining Larry Sanger. -- Taku ( talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone other than me notice that stating Larray Sanger anyone but the co-founder of Wikipedia would not be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, such as the article Wikipedia? I'm not against the having the debate at all, but this talkpage is not clearly for the place because the issue isn't specific to Citizendium. Can we move the discussion to the places like Village Pumps, where we can get more feedbacks. -- Taku ( talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) For the reference, here are some quotes from reliable sources.
Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has grown rapidly.
After Mr Wales and the project's co-ordinator, Larry Sanger, heard about so-called "wiki" software—which makes it easy for people jointly to compose and edit web pages—they changed course.
Even one of its own founders, Larry Sanger, described it as "broken beyond repair" before leaving the site last year.
But Larry Sanger, who helped to found Wikipedia in 2001, said
or else follow the footsteps of Citizendium (the brainchild of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger), which "forks" the Wikipedia content towards confirmed expert-written articles.
Therein lies the rub. Larry Sanger, Wikipedia's former editor in chief (and now a lecturer at Ohio State) still loves the site but thinks his fellow professionals have a point.
said Larry Sanger, a founder of the online encyclopedia who split with that project over its failure to apply stricter editing policies.
-- Taku ( talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[15] [16] Here are two articles that can be used to improve this article. A section or text about the community may be a good idea to improve this article. Thoughts. Quack Guru 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
69.120.118.244 ( talk · contribs) keeps adding the following paragraph:
One of the major shortcomings of Citizendium is its failure to maintain its initial policy of "expert" oversight. Although contributors are required to use their real names, those "real" folks are often college students or people contributing to topics outside of their area of professional expertise, and moreso within their areas of "interest". This seriously compromises the integrity of the project, as it is contrary to its stated policy.
Not only does this read like an op ed and fail the original research bar, I'm not sure it is even true. As far as I'm aware, (my own original research) the CZ web site claims to be "gentley guided by experts". This is not the same as having experts only. If it was college students approving the articles then that would be different, but isn't it only the experts that approve the articles? David D. (Talk) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys should update the screenshot. We no longer use the default (monobook) css-skin. Also I write the monthly newsletter, The Citizen @
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:CZ if it's worth noting. --
RWilliamKing (
talk)
15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming from your diction you are a member of Citizendium, why not add a current screenshot of your own? That would be helpful to the article.
VolushGod (
talk)
10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding unreliable refs anywhere to this article is a joke. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly do that. But what do you think? This isn't a terribly important matter. We are just talking about whether or not to link a blog. What bothers me is that I'm not hearing your argument. -- Taku ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you are listening to what I said. I'm interested in "what you think". As Jitse Niesen pointed out, the issue is "if we think linking to this blog post enhances this article or not". You haven't made any argument on this. By the way, since Clay Shirky is a recognized author. Additionally, if you like doing wikilawying (right word?), I would point out to you that since Wikipedia:External links is just a "style guideline", we editors may choose to ignore it. Like said above, no policy or guideline is applicable to this issue. All maters is what we think. -- Taku ( talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should, because we are required to do. Maybe you want to make it a policy so that you can enforce everyone else to follow it. But that's not an issue here. What it is is for us to determine whether linking to this blog post enhances the article or is detrimental to it. I think I have made my case. You haven't. Until you have, we can't go anywhere. -- Taku ( talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about what to discuss. But I don't think the piece is boring at all. Shirky tries to attack the very heart of the premise behind the cz; that is, giving experts more controls can solve the perceived problem of the reliability of wikipedia. Shirky's thesis is, basically, that the notion of expertise is hard to define and the cost for incorporating expertise into an encyclopedia outweights . From this follows this the strongest charge again the cz; that is, theoretically speaking, the cz would not work. This is different from other arguments against the cz, and I found it to be quite interesting.
Now, I don't agree with his argument at all. I said he doesn't quite understand how the cz works because as far as I know the cz operates more like wikipedia than he or others think. Non-experts can still contribute to the project, and the editorial process there is more or less like one here. Sanger wants to create a mechanism to ensure the quality of the content; in particular, reliability. Shirky's argument is based on the premise that the cz is "expert-driven wikipedia" but that's simply untrue, and his argument is thus severely flawed. Please excuse me for ranting. -- Taku ( talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not "owner" of Citizendium. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This list was trivia, and I have removed it. Citizendium maintains its own list, and this is referenced in the article.- gadfium 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Given articles such as the one found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dinosaurs I'm surprised there isn't more discussion/criticism about the success or quality of the project... (The full text reads "Dinosaurs were a widely distributed and diverse group of large reptiles that were once quite dominant on Earth. Many believe that they were wiped out by a meteor's collision with the planet around 65 million years ago, while others believe they are simply the name given by modern science to dragons, whose co-existence with human beings is attested to by the Bible[1].") highlunder ( talk) 12:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about Citizendium, what criticisms have been leveled against it in the past, or how exactly things are done there. In fact, I first learned of its existence today, through the discussion here. This discussion, regarding the objectivity of articles about Japanese activist Debito Arudou on both Wikipedia and Citizendium, includes allegations that Citizendium, by allowing Mr Arudou pre-approval or approval or "gentle expert oversight" of the article about him, allows a distinctly pro-Arudou (i.e. non-critical, not reflective of criticisms which have been leveled against him, and thus non-objective) POV to dominate.
I realize this is an obscure topic, and only one single example, but I am nevertheless surprised to see no Criticism section on this here Wikipedia article about Citizendium. Has this sort of thing been a problem in the past? Have reliable sources ever discussed this criticism? If so, I think some Criticism section needs to be added to this article. Thank you. LordAmeth ( talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish to pose a question to everyone here. Who here is loyal to Wikipedia? Who would leave this for Citizendium. Despite their public words, it's obvious Mr. Sanger wants Citizendium to destroy Wikipedia. So I ask all who read this to tell me, who here is loyal to this project? I know I am. AdirondackMan ( talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia vs Citizendium is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Chillum 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
-- Larry Sanger 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion moved to talk:Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the mailing list "Citizendium-l", the project is currently pretty much dead:
-- 217.51.4.143 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-- nyenyec ☎ 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, a fork of the Wikipedia article on Citizendium.
My proposed re-write of the current overgrown article is posted on the Citizendium sub-page of my user page.
Some of the reasons for the re-write have been discussed in depth above (excessive detail section). In addition, the current article exhibits a number of instances of redundancies resulting, in my opinion, from poor organization. Just one example: the new self-registration policy is mentioned in three different places in the current version of the article.
Another major flaw is that the current article has very little discussion of the background motivation for the creation of the Citizendium project, and what there is is buried amidst other material. I suspect that the reason for this is due to the fact that many of the folks most interested in this article have imbibed this material so thoroughly that it is simply (for them) part of the general background and hence not in need of explicit presentation. But the article needs to be writen for those for whom knowledge of such material cannot be taken for granted.
Since this is a major re-write I am proposing, I have chosen to carry it on my user page rather than just plunge in and start hacking away. I understand that in such cases the proposed re-write, even though it is on a user page (actually, a sub-page), is editable both technically and ethically, though I would expect that discussion of same would take place here.
JFPerry 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
General agreement with others: Background good (though some points of style I'd love to copyedit), but it certainly needs refs and detail. -- Malyctenar 12:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
We use, if I'm correct, only one third-party source (The Register, hmm), and the rest are a bunch of web forum posts. As a result, the current article sails very close to the wind with regard to WP:RS and WP:OR. Whether we rewrite or not, we should think about moving to better sources. — Matt Crypto 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just deleted the two (redundant) references to the first vandalism on Citizendium. While the issue of vandalism and CZ's policies designed to minimize or otherwise deal with same are important, I find this focus on careful detailing of this first instance to be objectionable. It is almost as if you are awarding barnstars for the first such act!
It is also interesting that the people who first posted the "information" (more like needless trivia) saw fit to mention only the vandal and not the person (myself, to tell the truth) who first reverted the vandalism.
The result (almost certainly not intended, but nevertheless resultant) is to glorify such vandal behavior.
Eventually, once CZ has a more extensive track record on the matter, a more careful examination of the issue of vandalism in light of CZ policies will be in order. Citizendium certainly does need to be subject to honest and meaningful scrutiny and will benefit from same. But the article's almost voyeuristic interest in the "first vandal" doesn't promote this.
JFPerry 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that phrasing still accurate? The project is going pretty good. 74.38.35.171 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's accurate (I worked for some months on Citizendium). Especially since all the WP content was dumped, what CZ has right now amounts only to a few thousand articles revised in some degree (from a few words to being entirely rewritten) on a limited array of subjects -- not an Encyclopedia yet, at any rate.
Rapotter 13:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may very well be quite good -- the quality of the 3-4 approved articles is excellent -- we'll have to see. Rome wasn't built in a day, and if CZ eschews WP content, it will take an extra few days. I am glad to see that the WP article, so far, has been remarkably accurate and regularly updated.
Rapotter 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who "owns" Citizendium? Is there a board of trustees or something? Or does Sanger have all authority?
What are the major criticisms that have been made of CZ, other than the fact that it doesn't amount to much yet, and the controversy over the role of experts?
Thanks! Dawud
Rapotter 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the new Biology article on Citizendium - it's actually really crazy (as in good). I think that Wikipedia may have a very legit rival in this website - especially since our Biology article pails in comparison. Well hey - hopefully Wikipedia's strong sense of equality continues to make it stand out.Daniel()Folsom |\ T/|\ C/|\ U/|( Can you help me with my signature?) 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium now requires that people log in to view articles. At the same time they have deleted the vast majority of the articles they were hoping to fork from Wikipedia - even more that they did when they "unforked". Now you have to email them with your real name to even look at the articles. If you don't provide your credentials on your user page they bwill delete your account. Not only is this a gross disregard for people's online privacy it also seriously diminishes the notability of Citizendium. I'm not calling Wikipedia perfect but seriously... Citizendium is an ill-concieved non-notable project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.215.200.145 ( talk) 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Anyone know what license they're using? Last I heard, it was going to be Creative Commons-NonCommercial. Seems kind of silly they waited this long to decide this longstanding issue. Mahanga Talk to me 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much longer it'll take until they decide on a license. Btw, for those interested, here are the arguments. Mahanga Talk 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the fact they have not yet decided should be mentioned in the main text of the page! Do you agree?-- Popopp 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I have an issue with how this is sourced - the article says that the vandalism that caused Citizendium to shut down self-registration came from Slashdot, and although the source only makes a passing mention at Slashdot, I know there are better sources out there, having read them. My issue is with the source itself: is Larry Sanger really qualified to judge where the vandalism is originating from? Are there any third-party sources to back this up, ones that don't come from the people running the project? THe pattern of vandalism observed makes this especially dubious to me, but that may just be my opinion - however, I think the problem with first-party, unqualified sources is one everyone can relate to. Milto LOL pia 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I started an essay Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, please edit it heavily and boldly. I will have to leave my computer and won't be here to discuss anything, so really, just be brutally bold, or even delete it. But please don't turn it into a polemical piece, I hope that when I look at it, it will still be focused on the interesting ideas and on what we can learn from Citizendium, not an attempt to refute the more irrelevant criticism. -- Merzul 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fork of Wikipedia"
Is this a pun? :-) Axl 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The citation mentions a business model that will pay for the foundation but does not mention the non-profit paperwork to change the license has been filed. In addition, the citation, while coming from Sanger, is in a forum which is blog-like. It could be here today (the reference); changed tomorrow. Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources does not allow this citation as it has not been published in a reliable third publication or source. Morenooso 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, regarding "our standing article makes no claim that citizendium is legally a non-profit because it is not currently, although it claims to intend to become one" you should do a little research before declaring error. http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/01/24/second-press-release-is-out-2/#more-111 http://citizendium.org/faq.html#funding http://www2.tidescenter.org/directory/project_detail_new.cfm?id=60306 http://www.tidescenter.org/news-events/news-room/single-news-item/index.html?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=88&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=535&cHash=68a497f377 http://www.mail-archive.com/citizendium-l@lists.purdue.edu/msg00369.html - C.m.jones 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, shouldn't the "Commercial?" question in the infobox state whether the website is commercial right now, instead of stating what might come in the future? Then it should be a clear "no", maybe with a footnote that it is planned to change in the future. -- Conti| ✉ 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand the difference between it and WIkipedia. Can we have a section that debates the pros and cons of both? Or how they diverge or are different in some aspects?-- Sonjaaa 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Do these guys plan to limit their scope to subjects that have actual experts? I'm not sure what their idea of an expert of, say, [Computer Game X] or [Movie Y] is. Does this mean they will just ban those subjects? 217.136.130.104 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
For some reason this is deemed unworthy of inclusion, [1] [2] so I'm placing it here:
Many of the changes are attempts to correct perceived flaws in the original design and present public image of Wikipedia, that have led to problems with Wikipedia's acceptance as a valid and trustworthy resource. A number of academics have criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source. Many Wikipedia editors do not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia. [1] The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper. Some educational institutions have blocked Wikipedia in the past while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [2] University of Maryland professor of physics Robert L. Park has characterized Wikipedia as a target for "purveyors of pseudoscience." [3]
This perception is backed up by Wikipedia's own admission:
- Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. [4]
Regarding Wikipedia's oft-cited problems, Sanger wrote that "this arguably dysfunctional community is extremely off-putting to … academics" and as such appears "committed to amateurism." [5]
I think the point about becoming a reliable source is a very (most?) significant difference and should be included. -- Fyslee/ talk 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be going in circles here, with the heading making clear my main point, while you continually object to a duplication (you should feel complimented that your good work is worthy copying!) of some material.
Here is my proposed barbered version that concentrates on the point of this thread:
Many of the changes are attempts to correct perceived flaws in the original design and present public image of Wikipedia, that have led to problems with Wikipedia's acceptance as a valid and trustworthy reliable source. This perception is backed up by Wikipedia's own admission:
- Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. [6]
How's that? -- Fyslee/ talk 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is some code so we can see the references:
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Wikipedia - both its genius and its Achilles heel - is that anyone can create or modify an entry. Anyone means your 10-year-old neighbor or a Nobel Prize winner - or an editor like me, who is itching to correct a grammar error in that Wikipedia entry that I just quoted. Entries can be edited by numerous people and be in constant flux. What you read now might change in five minutes. Five seconds, even.— Susan Youngwood.
It's number four that's the relevant one, and you're right! I wasn't even conscious it was from there. I thought it was a Wikipedia FAQ. Whatever the case, it's still the long-standing position of Wikipedia. Only closed wikis are considered possibly reliable sources, and they do exist. -- Fyslee/ talk 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I added refs and a tidbit. This is a central issue and highly relevant. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/ contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fork of Wikipedia
According to statements and essays on Citizendium.org, the project was initially intended to ....fork of Wikipedia, However, after initiating the idea of not forking, and then soliciting comments on the matter from Citizendium members, Sanger said that a complete fork at launch was not a "foregone conclusion." As to abandoning 'fork of Wikipedia CyberAnth has commented -The non-forking is experimental. It is not final.- Of course forking can be resumed at a later stage, and much concern has been raised of the volume of articles that can otherwise be produced.
About the Citizendium: http://www.citizendium.org/about.htm
Why necessary
In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.
What's our goal?
As to quality, our goal is to capture humanity's multivarious understanding of reality, and thereby to paint a maximally broad and detailed portrait of our universe as accurately as we understand it. An indispensible means to this end is the involvement of many experts ..... the potential of participation by ultimately millions of people, means that we can capture humanity's understanding of reality....
Historically, many states limited citizenship to only a proportion of their population, thereby creating a citizen class with political rights superior to other sections of the population. Citizendium, as noted in the article differentiates itself from wikipedia through editing policy and by the requirments for initiation as a constable.
Sanger has stated that Citizendium administrators, or sysops, will be called "constables," and will need a bachelor's degree to qualify. Sanger has also suggested a minimum "maturity" requirement — 25 years of age — for constables.[11] The "head" constable will be the Chief Constable (Ruth Ifcher), and the head editor will be the Managing Editor. The stated aim of the project is to create a "new compendium of knowledge" based on the contributions of "intellectuals," defined as "educated, thinking people who read about science or ideas regularly." Citizendium hopes to foster an expert culture and a community that encourages subject specialists (presently named as "editors") to contribute, and "citizens" (to be called "authors") to "respect" the expert contributions (by what he referred to as a "gentle process of guidance").
it doesn't matter what percentage of material, published or unpublished, is secret; if there are indeed important organizational activities and documents that are held in secret, to that extent it at least resembles a secret society.... --Larry Sanger 09:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Sanger said in an October 17, 2006 press release that Citizendium "will soon attempt to unseat Wikipedia as the go-to destination for general information online."
Recently in his role as Editor-in-Chief, Sanger has also questioned some of the new members of Citizendium, who , though without bachelor's degrees are advanced experts in the field of scientology...
Scientology is quite secretive about information available at the higher levels. Terry, as it appears you are a Scientologist, let me ask you this: do Scientologists actually deny that they are secretive? Also, can I purchase all the Scientology material and descriptions of Scientology practices without being a high-level Scientologist? Isn't there quite a bit of higher-level stuff that is members-only? --Larry Sanger 19:51, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Some also draw attention to the seemingly sinister sound of citizendium as -cities end (EE - um)- however such associations are not recognised by prominent universities and are consequently disregarded.
""Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to believe that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination."" --Larry Sanger 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Surely not, but then Citizendium would not want the average reader to contribute, or beleive writing without some gentle guidance
I do not claim any sort of editorship other than being Editor-in-Chief, I'm afraid, not even in philosophy or the Internet. -Larry Sanger
As to the suggestion that Larry introduces himself as Al Gore does: My name is Larry Sanger, and I used to be the co-founder of Wikipedia He plans to re-invent and possibly found the next internet all in good time.
If there is some big sweeping change or project or idea
that probably ain't gonna happen if I don't get behind it,
please let me know at Suggestion Box.
- Sanger auto-biopage at citizendium ==
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
--- Amreading 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium#Citizendium_goes_live reports 500 edits a day. Seems more like much less than that... Recent changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit, which I have removed twice, very clearly violates WP:SYN. The two reference cited do not even mention Citizendium! It is clearly editor synthesis and thus original research. C.m.jones 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to make a big case out of an essentially marginal comment. However, someone on Citizendium asserted here that he always hated a certain WP article. It is unfair that he stated this, and it is unfair that no one on Citizendium asked for the deletion of this statement. Notice that he said hate, not just dislike, or the presentation is not appropriate etc..
I repeat: this is marginal. But I believe that it is not a good start! -- Popopp 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope they don't delete Wikipedia, I much prefer Wikipedia. I also think that many people will prefer Wikipedia as well. -- zzo38(<font color=#7799FF face=Wingdings>[[User_talk:Zzo38|*]]</font>)[[User:Zzo38/sand|?]] 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Both projects have a different way of reaching their goal which is very much the same, just the path is different. I recomend you to go to the CZ website and have a look at its Rules and Regulations and decide then. It cant hurt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.26.127 ( talk) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Is not Tides Center. We have a legal relationship with them, but that doesn't make them our owner.
Similarly, this sentence is false: "The Citizendium Foundation is currently run by Tides Center, a non-profit organization." It is run by me and a bunch of volunteers. The Tides Center has our money, approves the very rare checks we write. But it doesn't "run" much of anything. -- Larry Sanger 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm really surprised to see no mention here of the whole censorship/"family friendly" issue with CZ. After reading through the 20 page forum thread over at the CZ forums, and Larry Sanger's very strong opinions on the issue, I expected to at least find mention of it here. The whole thing was enough to put me off of even applying for an account over there, and from the information in that thread, seems to have been enough to cause the resignation of a few "high ranking" individuals from the CZ project. Fehrgo 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
At what point is Citizendium's constantly decreasing traffic notable? I agree with Casey that a drop from the initial web ranking is to be expected, but its fallen out of the top 100,000 websites according to Alexa and it seems to be tracking a steady decline. I realize this is a very tender subject, but its existence as a website naturally means its popularity or lack thereof is an important bit of related information, isn't it? Elijahmeeks 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics for a full array of Citizendium statistics. Stephen Ewen 06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following citizendium and don't know much about it, I came to the wikipedia article to learn more. I was disappointed by the lack of a section on critiques so I created one. It would be great if others who are more knowledgeable on published critiques could rewrite this section, what I put there is more of a placeholder. However, please don't delete it entirely if you're not going to rewrite it, I think it's important that there be a short, careful, concise summary of the major criticisms that have come up. Thanks. S.chock 09:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the entire section is way, way too premature, and every "criticism" I have seen is based upon either pure conjecture (crystal ballism) or blatant misunderstandings (criticisms of a straw man Citizendium and not the actual thing). C.m.jones 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The very reasonable criticisms of CZ from IWR and Ars Technica are hardly crystal-ball predictions. They are simply observations about two key features of the project: the incentive (or lack thereof) for experts to participate, and the difference between the two classes of CZ contributors – those deemed "experts" and those deemed "non-experts." It's obvious that any criticism of CZ in this article will set off dispute, and I'm not inclined to edit war on the issue, or any other issue. I'm no "zealot" on Citizendium, but it's amusing that even the briefest and most reasonable criticism section meets with such, well, zealous opposition. At any rate, the criticism is now in the article's history for the interested reader.
As for the general question of CZ's notability, it's true that the project has sunk steadily in the Alexa rankings, and the rate of approved article production is not awe-inspiring. However, the project has received a great deal of media attention and continues to function as a competitor to Wikipedia. Sanger's status as WP "co-founder" – which of course is disputed, even if some apparently think Jimbo's view doesn't count – also adds to the project's visibility and notability. Casey Abell 18:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that CZ is much more interesting to Wikipedia editors than to the world at large. However, the project has received a lot of publicity in the outside media, even if we're not allowed to put some of that commentary in the article (rueful smile). So I think CZ meets reasonable notability guidelines. Casey Abell 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Or did that read of the future come from some channeled other worldly entity? "It will be carried out under the auspices of the Citizendium Foundation."
Now somebody salve the bruise by insulting me for seeing the problem but not fixing it. Clue: I wouldn't apply pressure if Wikipedia were bleeding to death, but I probably would step over the body and take a picture with my cell phone to post on the Web site of my choice. Bubblegum wrap 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose putting something like: {{ Future Product}} up to show that this isn't a done deal. Because it's not. Hires an editor 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put a request at m:Talk:Interwiki map for an interwiki to Citizendium; if you've any thoughts or comments on the advisability or practicality of this - and especially if you know what they're going to be doing with language subdomains - please leave a comment there. Shimgray | talk | 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but the fiddling with the (already irrelevant) material on Wikipedia's faults should stop now. QuackGuru added a phrase to the material [8], then fact-tagged his own addition. [9] He had previously fact-tagged an item already covered in a footnote cited in the following sentence [10]. When I pointed this out, he added a footnote to the same article, so there were two separate footnotes to the same article in successive sentences. [11]
I have no idea what all this is supposed to prove, if anything. The material on Wikipedia's faults doesn't even belong in this article, so maybe an effort is being made to attract attention to this stuff. But let's stop playing these kinds of useless games, please. Casey Abell 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikipedia's comprehensiveness and breadth of knowledge. Experts with cirriculum vitae and professors are fewer in number than the general population, and they often have work to do themselves. Moreover, Wikipedia already has two million articles, in spite of the rampant deletionism that goes on all the time. Since many more people are invited to edit Wikipedia, many more people are involved with Wikipedia than with Citizendium, and thus Citizendium might wind up a flop. Besides, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is already expert written and it's out there. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Intros should stand alone and sum up the whole article. I made it so. 74.233.157.219 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To join Citizendium you have to submit information of at least 50 words, and up to 500, about yourself. I imagine that this is to deter the ill-educated and/or semi-literate people who have indeed made Wikipedia "an arguably dysfunctional community....committed to amateurism". In addition they insist on real names only.
In the case of Wikipedia, it is simply not scholarly to come forward with phrases such as "fucking list" (IamLondon on Irish American Presidents) "anglo-saxton heretics" (see Bobby Sands discussion), or, in the context of St Patrick's Day, "the British invaded Wales". Yes, it could well be that Citizendium will find it tough to meet up with Wikpedia's comprehensiveness and breath of knowledge, but since these are flawed, an attempt needs to be made. Millbanks 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
We started inviting people generally to the pilot project on Oct. 28, but because of immediate server problems, it really didn't get started rolling until Oct. 31 or Nov. 1--which, as far as I'm concerned, is the real pilot project launch date, because that's when things finally settled down so that people could get to work. See http://blog.citizendium.org/category/project-growth/page/6/ Oct. 23 wasn't the start of much of anything important. -- Larry Sanger 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has been placed On hold. When the point explained below is corrected, the article will be passed.
There was only one point I could come up with from the prose
The article is well referenced and uses reliable sources.
The article covers most of the aspects of the topic.
The article is neutral.
I noticed a small edit war, but it appeared to be an editor who wanted to remove the images in the infobox.
It is relatively hard to come up with good pictures for an article like this, but all the images are licensed correctly. An extra picture would improve the article, but it would not be essential.
Please leave a note on my talk page when this point is corrected, and I will change the status to pass.
Thanks, themcman1 talk 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
--- It's actually pretty bad. The article simply screams that it was written from the POV of Wikipedians, and first for Wikipedians, both within their stance. 74.233.86.110 ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am not sure whether it is good idea to nominate Citizendium - a quickly changing website - as a Good Article. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to a question about Citizendium's status as a legal non-profit, we currently hold non-profit status via association with the Tides Foundation, which is sort of a non-profit incubator. (As is, I believe, briefly noted in the article.) Once we have project governance firmed up (we're planning out the assembly of a board of directors, a prerequisite for 501c(3) status) we'll most likely form a Foundation of our own.
This is my understanding of the situation, and it may not be set in stone.
I was going to update some of the activity graphs and throw in a few more graphs from our statistics page ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics), but doing so may skirt rather close to the conflict of interest line.
-- Johnsonmx ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Bramlet, why isn't this a more neutral description? I'm not trying to take a stance on it here (I have no stance), but it's a disputed issue so it shouldn't really be stated as a matter of fact in the lead. My wording avoids the need to strike up a position. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. [14]
I'm not interested in involving in the debate. But I want to point out that this talk page is not a place for this kind of debate. Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia should settle the matter, and this article should follow the two when defining Larry Sanger. -- Taku ( talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone other than me notice that stating Larray Sanger anyone but the co-founder of Wikipedia would not be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, such as the article Wikipedia? I'm not against the having the debate at all, but this talkpage is not clearly for the place because the issue isn't specific to Citizendium. Can we move the discussion to the places like Village Pumps, where we can get more feedbacks. -- Taku ( talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) For the reference, here are some quotes from reliable sources.
Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has grown rapidly.
After Mr Wales and the project's co-ordinator, Larry Sanger, heard about so-called "wiki" software—which makes it easy for people jointly to compose and edit web pages—they changed course.
Even one of its own founders, Larry Sanger, described it as "broken beyond repair" before leaving the site last year.
But Larry Sanger, who helped to found Wikipedia in 2001, said
or else follow the footsteps of Citizendium (the brainchild of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger), which "forks" the Wikipedia content towards confirmed expert-written articles.
Therein lies the rub. Larry Sanger, Wikipedia's former editor in chief (and now a lecturer at Ohio State) still loves the site but thinks his fellow professionals have a point.
said Larry Sanger, a founder of the online encyclopedia who split with that project over its failure to apply stricter editing policies.
-- Taku ( talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[15] [16] Here are two articles that can be used to improve this article. A section or text about the community may be a good idea to improve this article. Thoughts. Quack Guru 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
69.120.118.244 ( talk · contribs) keeps adding the following paragraph:
One of the major shortcomings of Citizendium is its failure to maintain its initial policy of "expert" oversight. Although contributors are required to use their real names, those "real" folks are often college students or people contributing to topics outside of their area of professional expertise, and moreso within their areas of "interest". This seriously compromises the integrity of the project, as it is contrary to its stated policy.
Not only does this read like an op ed and fail the original research bar, I'm not sure it is even true. As far as I'm aware, (my own original research) the CZ web site claims to be "gentley guided by experts". This is not the same as having experts only. If it was college students approving the articles then that would be different, but isn't it only the experts that approve the articles? David D. (Talk) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys should update the screenshot. We no longer use the default (monobook) css-skin. Also I write the monthly newsletter, The Citizen @
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:CZ if it's worth noting. --
RWilliamKing (
talk)
15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming from your diction you are a member of Citizendium, why not add a current screenshot of your own? That would be helpful to the article.
VolushGod (
talk)
10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding unreliable refs anywhere to this article is a joke. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly do that. But what do you think? This isn't a terribly important matter. We are just talking about whether or not to link a blog. What bothers me is that I'm not hearing your argument. -- Taku ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you are listening to what I said. I'm interested in "what you think". As Jitse Niesen pointed out, the issue is "if we think linking to this blog post enhances this article or not". You haven't made any argument on this. By the way, since Clay Shirky is a recognized author. Additionally, if you like doing wikilawying (right word?), I would point out to you that since Wikipedia:External links is just a "style guideline", we editors may choose to ignore it. Like said above, no policy or guideline is applicable to this issue. All maters is what we think. -- Taku ( talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should, because we are required to do. Maybe you want to make it a policy so that you can enforce everyone else to follow it. But that's not an issue here. What it is is for us to determine whether linking to this blog post enhances the article or is detrimental to it. I think I have made my case. You haven't. Until you have, we can't go anywhere. -- Taku ( talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about what to discuss. But I don't think the piece is boring at all. Shirky tries to attack the very heart of the premise behind the cz; that is, giving experts more controls can solve the perceived problem of the reliability of wikipedia. Shirky's thesis is, basically, that the notion of expertise is hard to define and the cost for incorporating expertise into an encyclopedia outweights . From this follows this the strongest charge again the cz; that is, theoretically speaking, the cz would not work. This is different from other arguments against the cz, and I found it to be quite interesting.
Now, I don't agree with his argument at all. I said he doesn't quite understand how the cz works because as far as I know the cz operates more like wikipedia than he or others think. Non-experts can still contribute to the project, and the editorial process there is more or less like one here. Sanger wants to create a mechanism to ensure the quality of the content; in particular, reliability. Shirky's argument is based on the premise that the cz is "expert-driven wikipedia" but that's simply untrue, and his argument is thus severely flawed. Please excuse me for ranting. -- Taku ( talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not "owner" of Citizendium. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This list was trivia, and I have removed it. Citizendium maintains its own list, and this is referenced in the article.- gadfium 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Given articles such as the one found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dinosaurs I'm surprised there isn't more discussion/criticism about the success or quality of the project... (The full text reads "Dinosaurs were a widely distributed and diverse group of large reptiles that were once quite dominant on Earth. Many believe that they were wiped out by a meteor's collision with the planet around 65 million years ago, while others believe they are simply the name given by modern science to dragons, whose co-existence with human beings is attested to by the Bible[1].") highlunder ( talk) 12:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about Citizendium, what criticisms have been leveled against it in the past, or how exactly things are done there. In fact, I first learned of its existence today, through the discussion here. This discussion, regarding the objectivity of articles about Japanese activist Debito Arudou on both Wikipedia and Citizendium, includes allegations that Citizendium, by allowing Mr Arudou pre-approval or approval or "gentle expert oversight" of the article about him, allows a distinctly pro-Arudou (i.e. non-critical, not reflective of criticisms which have been leveled against him, and thus non-objective) POV to dominate.
I realize this is an obscure topic, and only one single example, but I am nevertheless surprised to see no Criticism section on this here Wikipedia article about Citizendium. Has this sort of thing been a problem in the past? Have reliable sources ever discussed this criticism? If so, I think some Criticism section needs to be added to this article. Thank you. LordAmeth ( talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish to pose a question to everyone here. Who here is loyal to Wikipedia? Who would leave this for Citizendium. Despite their public words, it's obvious Mr. Sanger wants Citizendium to destroy Wikipedia. So I ask all who read this to tell me, who here is loyal to this project? I know I am. AdirondackMan ( talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia vs Citizendium is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Chillum 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)