Talk:Citizendium

Does Nature of the Project need updating in light of some recent discussion by Larry?

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)

Five hundred edits a day?

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)

That's related changes for the Main Page, not recent changes for the whole wiki. I count 1152 edits from yesterday. Fredrik Johansson 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There were 589 edits in the main space in the last 24 hours ending at 5:05 GMT. So 500 is more like the right value. Tintin

• The correct link for last 500 changes (including minor) in CZ namespace is [1]. The link for major changes is [2]. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not true at all. The site is receiving far more than a few dozen edits per day. [3] CZ's Alexa rating has fallen since launch, but that was only to be expected. [4] Casey Abell 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN

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)

The Wiki rules is that if position A is favored over B we do NOT erase A, we add more on B. Blanking a well-cited relevent statement is not called for. Rjensen 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to carefully read WP:SYN. This is not the place for you or anyone else to "make connections" between published sources that do not themselves make the connections. Re-add the material and I will bring it up as an incident at the WP noticeboard, although I'd rather not waste either your or my time. ---C.m.jones 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair statement

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)

It reads to me that all he really is saying is that he thinks the WP-sourced article there is not a good start. C.m.jones 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that your comment is a way of messing the whole thing up! When I say I love you to some woman, and she replies I hate you, she usually does not mean this is not a good start. I am not talking about the intended meaning of hating some WP article, I am talking about what he actually said, and about politeness.--Popopp 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Replace entirely, or not?

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)

Noone is planning to delete the Wikipedia. CZ is simply an alternative project having an alternative approach. Instead of seeing the Citizendium as a competitor the two projects should see themselves as partners. Many people contributing at CZ feel more welcome as they do at the WP. The WP has a very distinctive community and some users prefer to have guidelines and not "anarchy". Personally I think the CZ is a great idea and I also think that WPedians should at least have a look at their policy before stating that the WP will be deleted, which is thankfully impossible.

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).

Owner

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)

Censorship and "Family Friendly"?

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)

I added it. I think something about this should most definitely be added to Encyclopedia Britannica, too. They too avoid words, phrases, and articles like shit, fuck, cum shot, blowjob, and rimming. C.m.jones 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. Though, it is not censorship. Just a different type of encyclopedia. Citizendium is "children friendly" too. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond this. The part that prevented me from getting involved was the apparent veto power of a central individual over article content and policy, despite the claim being made that the site is peer reviewed articles by academics who are specialists in the associated fields. I wasn't necessarily referring to shock content articles on assorted curse words, sexual positions, etc, but the problem I have is that CZ is representing its self as "a better free encyclopedia", however the definition of "better" is left entirely up to Mr. Sanger and his views of what, as a Middle American white male with English as a first language, constitutes the best interests of the majority (with the interests of the majority being how he feels on a subject on that day). He has no problem telling people that if they don't agree with his view of how things should, no, will be run, they can just leave and should not have signed up in the first place. There is very little room for negotiation, even on the subject of getting the rules into a policy document that states anything more than "family friendly". The CZ tag line should really be "Building Sanger's Encyclopedia". Fehrgo 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia everything is very relaxed. There are policies here but there is way too many thunderstorms. Wikipedia is a never ending wheel war. Larry's project runs on a known path. They will not deviate from that path. Thats right. No negotiations or compromises. No wasting time talking about edit after edit. CZ editors add their work and experts review it. Simply and easy. Established consensus means nothing. I say, it is the experts who will create a better encyclopedia. End of discussion. Or will Wikipedia prevail in the end. Hmmm. It is yet to be determined. _-Mr. ^o G-_ 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The experts write other pedias. Wikipedia is not based on a few experts, but on the knowledge and good will of million of users. Both these type of pedias can and will coexist. As for which one is more popular and most accessed, well that there is no dispute about that, is it? Does Wikipedia works? sure it does. Does Citizendium works? We shall see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. What I am trying to get across is that CZ to me does not look like experts having final say. There are "special" member(s) of the project who work outside the system and can step in and enforce arbitrary restrictions on content, and who refuse to lay out written enforceable guidelines about what will and will not be permitted. From the message board thread that I refer to above, it would seem that Sanger has given himself the privilege to step in and control content, and no users or editors would have any recourse or policy statement to defend themselves with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of CZ with specialist editors, the problem I have with it is the god-like powers which seem to be granted to a select few, who are not themselves experts in the subjects at hand. Sanger has a PhD, yes, but it is in philosophy. He does not have a PhD in every subject that the site could possibly have articles on. If CZ is to be portrayed as a product of a community of academics, it does not work in my mind to have users with special executive power, especially to the extreme level that Sanger openly proclaims within the CZ forums. To me it looks like a god complex.

I'd gladly participate in a community project with more enforceable rules along the lines of CZ, as long as the same community has the rights to control the content, rather than a central entity who has the power to make sweeping changes to the site, such as removing the fork, seemingly on a whim. Sanger needs more publicly documented checks and balances to control his own behavior if he really wants to convince his potential editors and writers that the project is worth their time.Fehrgo 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be tempted into a 3RR violation on the inclusion of completely irrelevant links to Wikipedia articles on sexual practices. The language and footnote I have crafted in this version of the article are completely adequate to the discussion of CZ's family-friendly policy. I'll leave the dispute to other editors, two of whom have previously reverted the inclusion of links to Wikipedia articles with no relevance to CZ. Casey Abell 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a CZ censorship and 'group friendly' - the situation is even worse with Wikipedia. Any administrator can block any author's account under just formal excuse like - POV-pushing, disruptive editing, uncooperative editing, sockpuppeteering, etc. Moreover, a contributor of an expert knowledge many times has to deal with ignorants, their self-importance, their wish to have last word, which at the same time, are lacking even ability to carry the discussion rational.
• The sheer nonsense is the Wikipedia's notion of 'sockpupeteering' - which gives unlimited rights to the check users and administrators to ban i.e. to close anyone's account under claim that the same person uses two or more different accounts. The truth is - if a person does not provide the data identifying him/her, and if the identification data (if provided) are not verifiable - there is no technical and legal way (here in the USA) to say that behind the same IP address (assigned to a Wikipedia account by the ISP) - is the only one user.

Citizendium and Web Ranking

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)

As a kook inclusionist, I'm not a big fan of "notability" as a criterion. But CZ will probably always be notable as an attempted competitor to Wikipedia, even if its Alexa rankings fade into obscurity. The project raises too many significant questions about the reliability of user-produced content. Which has become a notable subject of Internet controversy, regardless of what happens to Larry's site. Casey Abell 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but shouldn't its fading into obscurity be noted in the article? Elijahmeeks 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The decline in hits after the Beta launch needn't be construed as "fading into obscurity" -- this happens with many new site launches of this sort (e.g. Conservapedia). Alexa tracks the top 100,000 sites, but with the WWW at its current size, the tracked sites are only a small minority of existing sites, any one of which could suddenly boom into prominence (as an example, check their tracking of catstevens.com, which shows an enormous spike when he was detained in Maine). Clevelander96 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a note on the project's fall in the Alexa ratings in the article, but others might see it as Wikipedia's captious and biased criticism of a competitor. Maybe we should just leave the discussion of the Alexa ratings here on the talk page. Casey Abell 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not notable to include this trivia. No thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexa ratings are considered non-trivial enough to be mentioned and footnoted in the Wikipedia article. The ratings are relevant, but mentioning them in the Citizendium article would look biased and unfair. Similarly, Conservapedia's declining Alexa ratings aren't mentioned in its article. Casey Abell 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Casey (As noted by my acknowledgment that this is a tender subject), that's why I phrased it as a question of "when". Perhaps we could set a benchmark now and if it falls below that benchmark we can make note of it. I think the same info would be useful for the Conservapedia article. After all, these websites are referenced in news and blog posts and I, for one, would think that a lay observer would be better informed by such information. I also realize that the Alexa rankings are popularity and not significance, however, as per my earlier note regarding projects on Sourceforge, Wikipedia does not have articles about every project on the Internet, regardless of participation or heft, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not simply a collection of various wiki-powered projects, so we should not censor or preference a project simply because it is Wikipedia-like. Elijahmeeks 22:38, 10 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)

Please help improve a 'critiques of Citizendium' section

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)

Citizendium is not big enough yet for there to be any "major criticisms." Bramlet Abercrombie 09:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a size requirement for criticism. Of course, no project is above criticism regardless of size. I've reformatted the critique section as a subsection with correct footnotes. The criticism is hardly given undue weight, and the article doesn't endorse the criticisms, just notes their existence. Casey Abell 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a requirement, it's just a fact. Notable sources haven't bothered yet to do any substantial criticism of Citizendium, since it's too early to make judgments while it only has 2,300 articles. The section cited Kali Tal, who seems to be entirely non-notable, and Clay Shirky, a borderline-notable person associated with Wikimedia. That's not useful. If you can find criticism published in major media rather than random blogs, you can cite it. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The existence of criticism isn't dependent on your personal opinion of notability. There's absolutely no reason to coddle CZ from a reasonable criticism section that's not given undue weight. Casey Abell 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No one wants to "coddle CZ". There just is no notable criticism out there at this point. We don't include random people's opinions just to have a criticism section. Otherwise anyone could put his opinion on a webpage and then cite it in Wikipedia. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's not "just anybody." Clay Shirky is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and Kali Tal was offered a position on the CZ board by Larry Sanger. At any rate, the small, neutrally phrased and well-sourced criticism section is hardly objectionable. Casey Abell 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Being offered a position on the CZ board at this point doesn't make you notable, since CZ itself is only moderately notable. Shirky is associated with Wikimedia and thus inherently biased. We wouldn't mention criticism of a product coming from a direct competitor either. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we would mention criticism from a competitor if it was properly sourced and discussed in a neutral manner. The Criticism of Wikipedia article contains criticism from Larry Sanger, who's a competitor of WP. At any rate, I've rewritten the criticism section with quotes from sources anybody would consider reliable – sources that are, if anything, quite sympathetic to CZ. Casey Abell 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia is notable since he was a co-founder of Wikipedia. Your new sources are OK, but of course the criticism is still just speculation that the concept might not work. There's no substantial product to evaluate yet. It remains to be seen if Citizendium really "takes off" and achieves the exponential growth necessary to get to a serious size in a reasonable time. Then the next question would be if its content is substantially more accurate than Wikipedia's. Time will tell. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of criticism doesn't depend on a disputed "co-founder" status. We can and should include criticism from competitors of a project if it is well-sourced and discussed in a neutral manner, which is the case with Sanger's comments in Criticism of Wikipedia. In fact, the criticism of CZ from IWR and Ars Technica strikes me as dead-on. Is there a compelling incentive for experts to contribute to CZ? And will would-be contributors who are not deemed "experts" willingly submit to "gentle expert guidance"? As you say, time will tell if the criticisms were prophetic. Casey Abell 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one disputing his co-founder status is Wales, and of course it is notable if someone criticizes the development of the thing he himself co-founded and becomes a competitor. As to your question, well, there's at least as much of an incentive for experts to contribute to CZ as there is for non-experts to contribute to WP. Wikipedians aren't paid either, and they also could use the time they spend editing for money-making pursuits instead. But obviously there are still many (after discounting the trolls, self-promoters, POV pushers, etc.) who contribute to WP just to do something useful for mankind. Experts are only more likely to do so, since they know they have so much more to contribute than the dilettantes, and they are inclined to go to a place where their expertise is recognized. The second question is more interesting - how many non-experts will accept expert guidance? The more sensible of them probably will - if it's done right. I think Sanger tends to give too much to formal credentials. There are many non-credentialed experts, and many fools with academic titles. There should be a process to identify the real experts based on their edits. Any reasonable user will gladly accept the guidance of someone who knows things better. It's a different matter when, for example, you're a self-taught expert and have to submit to someone of lesser competence who has been given special authority just because he has a PhD and you don't. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" phrase thrown around a lot here? I think that is the point Bramlet is making above. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 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)

This whole article is way too premature. Elijahmeeks 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. We are not a magical crystal ball. We can not predict the future. There is also clearly no consensus. Understand?  QuackGuru  talk 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speculating. I'm not predicting anything. I just think the size of this article as well as its content greatly exaggerates the current scope of this project. That's supported by easily acquired information, such as Alexa or even the Citizendium stats that were just posted (Showing that Citizendium is, at best, currently a minor Wiki project). This whole article is 99% emotional involvement of pro and anti-Wikipedia folks and, maybe 1% by actual noteworthiness. Of course there won't be any consensus when there's a room full of opposing zealots. Elijahmeeks 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Elijahmeeks said in part: Of course there won't be any consensus... I agree. And thats the end of this discussion.  QuackGuru  talk 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And you're kinda creepy. I mean, what's up with the talk-page wiping? And the "thats the end of this discussion" claptrap? You're not exactly presenting a well-reasoned and stable position, you know? Elijahmeeks 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to report my talk-page blanking. So what! You said, basically no consensus. Anyhow, I support your position of no consensus. Agreed?  QuackGuru  talk 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would I report it, I just think it's creepy. Speaking of which, did you just purposefully follow your real edit with a fake minor edit to make it look like you didn't change anything? My complaint was not that there was no consensus, but that there were too many zealots.Elijahmeeks 01:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Creepy? Fake edits? Zealots? Lets stick to the point. There is no consensus which is to be respected.  QuackGuru  talk 02:18, 14 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)

You've been admirably dispassionate with this article the entire time, Casey. I wonder, though, (and I've stated this since the article and the project's inception) how much we're conflating visibility with notability. It's a concern, but there's more than enough hard drive space on Wikipedia and there's obvious interest among the contributors, and so I'm just voicing this concern to keep it in everybody's mind. Not so much for Citizendium, but for articles like it, that are extremely interesting to Wikipedia contributors but have little or no impact on the world at large. Elijahmeeks 19:30, 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)

Nice crystal ball

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)

Current Event Template

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)

Isn't that already obvious from the article? David D. (Talk) 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

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)

"citizendium:" now works as an interwiki prefix; citizendium:Netherlands. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Messing around with irrelevant Wikipedia material in article

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 [5], then fact-tagged his own addition. [6] He had previously fact-tagged an item already covered in a footnote cited in the following sentence [7]. 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. [8]

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)

This may be an attempt to draw me into a 3RR violation, but I'll assume good faith. I will note that previously QuackGuru had twice deleted brief, reasonable, well-sourced and relevant criticism of Citizendium from this article [9] [10] on what I regard as spurious WP:CRYSTAL grounds. Now he seems intent on drawing as much attention as possible to the (in my opinion, completely irrelevant) criticism of Wikipedia in the article. These actions are unfortunately consistent with the ideological tendencies and editing patterns noted in QuackGuru's Request for Comment.

It's obvious that such actions only create wikidrama and contribute nothing to the writing of better encyclopedia articles. A number of other editors have commented on similar problems at QuackGuru's talk page, though he has systematically removed their comments. Quack, if you're reading this, I only ask that you cease such counter-productive behavior and contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia. That's what we're here for. Thank you. Casey Abell 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Really?--Tom 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not assume good faith based on a cursory examination of all the comments and warnings he's removed from his own talk page. I don't know what the procedure is, but I'd recommend having someone review all of this. Elijahmeeks 01:30, 11 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)

for example of a Wikipedia alternative that seems to be flopping, try Wikinfo. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Intros should stand alone and sum up the whole article. I made it so. 74.233.157.219 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it does now (Sep 30, 07). We don't need minor details, for example, on who Larry Sanger is. -- Taku 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Joining Citizendiun

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)

Some people will frown upon you using this talk page to discuss the merits of the website. The talk page is primarily meant to be a place to discuss improvements to the article, but I personally don't think some chatting on talk pages every now and then harms anyone. A.Z. 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilot project date

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)

Good Article Review

The article has been placed On hold. When the point explained below is corrected, the article will be passed.

Prose

There was only one point I could come up with from the prose

• "On January 19, Sanger announced the formal organization of Citizendium as a legal non-profit."" A legal non profit what?

Verifiability

The article is well referenced and uses reliable sources.

Coverage

The article covers most of the aspects of the topic.

Neutrality

The article is neutral.

Stability

I noticed a small edit war, but it appeared to be an editor who wanted to remove the images in the infobox.

Images

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)

Related to this, it would be nice if the following points are clarified (they are not most essential but still of minor importance):

• When was the pilot project launched exactly? What the article says and the comment (very gracefully) given by Larry Sanger himself are (a bit) inconsistent.
• What's the difference between live and non-live articles? (The article gives the definition, but I'm not so sure about, for example, if there is still any non-live article today.)

-- Taku 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified that "non-profit" refers to a non-profit organization and linked the term to the WP article for readers who want more information. I've left a note on themcman1's talk page about the change. As for the launch of the pilot project, it appears that work on the pilot became possible on October 23, 2006, but the exact date is a little hazy. All we can do is give sources on the issue from CZ people, even if the sources don't always agree exactly. Finally, the article says that CZ has encouraged the deletion of articles which aren't "live" in the sense of receiving significant work. Again, this seems to be the best we can say from the CZ sources themselves. The limited number of articles currently on the site suggests that "non-live" articles have been substantially eliminated. Casey Abell 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also added a picture of Larry Sanger. Should have added it months ago, but I forgot! Casey Abell 16:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Citizendium is now a good article! themcman1 _talk 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA recognition. Casey Abell 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is so cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.7.10 (talk) 00:19, 16 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)

Would you be more specific? What kind of problems in the article do you have in mind? I and the others will be happy to address the concerns. (By the way, to me, the tone of the article looks quite neutral.) -- Taku (talk) 11:52, 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)

Non-profit status, and updating graphs

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)

Lead

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)

It is a matter of fact, not disputed by anyone except Jimbo. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That means it's disputed, and we have an obligation to be neutral. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that doesn't mean it. Who gave Jimbo a magical power to make things "disputed"? There is objective evidence, there's no need to rely on anything either Jimbo or Larry says. If Jimbo says 2+2=5 we don't have to change our mathematical articles either in order to be "neutral". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've been focusing on this issue for some time, making the same arguments, reverting anyone who disagrees with you.

The fact is that none of us knows "the truth," and there probably is no "truth," just a series of perceptions, with one person feeling the idea was his and he was in control of it (paying for it), and the other feeling he was doing all the work because he'd been given so little guidance. It certainly seems that Sanger acknowledged Jimbo as founder when he wrote:

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. [11]

Still, it depends what's meant by "founder." I can see that the person who does most of the development work would end up seeing himself as a co-founder. What we do in a situation like this is simply note the dispute, according to reliable sources. We don't use words that imply one or the other side is correct. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see when you're out of arguments you try to make it personal. If I make the same arguments, it is because they have not been contradicted, while your side keeps repeating long-refuted arguments. Your suggestion that Sanger "acknowledged Jimbo as founder" in the very memoir in which he counters Jimbo's revisionist history is the height of absurdity. From the same text: "I have also been quoted, as co-founder of Wikipedia, in many recent news articles about the project, ..." and "I guided the project through force of personality and what 'moral authority' I had as co-founder of the project." As evidenced from the words "to be clear," in the paragraph you quote he describes the entirety of Jimbo's role precisely to indicate that it was not more than that. Jimbo invested in it, while Larry actually developed it. Paying for the creation of something isn't equal to creating it yourself. If it were a business, you might call Jimbo the founder. For a cultural entity, that attitude makes no sense. But such abstract discussion isn't even necessary - who were the founders of Wikipedia can be easily looked up in documents from the time, first in all of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's own press releases up to 2004 (you aren't going to suggest Jimbo might not have read any of those?) and secondly in various press reports such as the New York Times story of September 2001 (which was based on interviews with Jimbo and Larry and which Jimbo most certainly read, making it perfectly clear he supported the co-founder view at the time). Thus it is not a matter of "Jimbo says this, Larry says that, so it's disputed". There's objective evidence dating from 2001 up to today of Larry being called co-founder. The view Jimbo adopted in 2004 (of being "sole founder"), on the other hand, is not backed by any evidence or supported by any notable authority whatsoever. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there's no sense in arguing the issue out on talk, because neither of us was there, and we don't know the truth. And I suspect even if we had been there, with cameras trained 24 hours a day on all the players, we still wouldn't know the truth, because there is no "truth." There are simply different perspectives, different uses of the word "founder," different emphases on various aspects of who did what.

What we do here is try to find neutral wording wherever possible, and describe the dispute where appropriate. We don't take sides, or take part in it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You apparently haven't read what I just said. The truth was determined at the time, between Jimbo and Larry and the community - all were in consensus that Jimbo and Larry were co-founders. Then in 2004, Jimbo tried to unilaterally change history. This patently self-serving manoeuvre does not make the matter suddenly "disputed". We don't take sides in a dispute, we do take side with the objective evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What sides are there to take? Sanger has been refered to as the co-founder of Wikipedia by numerous reliable sources in the past. Wales started to dispute this a while back. Wales disputing this fact means what? Anyways, --Tom 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter when a dispute began. It now exists. I'm not suggesting that we write Sanger wasn't the co-founder. I'm suggesting we choose wording that avoids the issue entirely, as with Jimmy Wales. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does. If Wales didn't object before 2004, and then suddenly did, it means his objection has nothing to do with reality. And his say-so by itself is as irrelevant as anyone else's. It is not up to him to define who founded Wikipedia. The original official press releases and independent press reports closest to the actual founding define it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're being a little inconsistent, Bramlet. On Talk:Jimbo Wales, you argued for neutral wording. You wrote: "Actually the consensus was precisely the version I reverted to, namely to mention his "role in founding" or that he was "involved in founding" rather than either calling him founder or co-founder." Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why argue one thing there, and the opposite here? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that's the best consensus achievable there with all the Wales groupies watching that page. I think "co-founder" should be used there too, but people like SqueakBox keep on pushing "founder", so avoiding either term seemed the best possible settlement. But that has no bearing on other pages. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Credit for the success of Wikipedia is being used by both Wales and Sanger to provide credibility for their current projects, one of which is the subject of this article. It is relevant to this article. Claiming to be sole founder of Wikipedia, rather than sole founder of the Wikimedia Foundation was a mistake on Jimmy's part. He makes lots of mistakes, as do we all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's irrelevant. What I was saying is that it doesn't make sense to have this kind of editorial dispute in this particular article. I quote this from the history section of Wikipedia:

"Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia."

If anyone has a problem with Sanger being the co-founder, he or she needs to challenge this language before editing this article. What is irrelevant here is what Jimmy is claiming. It doesn't concern this article. -- Taku (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to co-founder but left the other changes. Can this be looked at and corrected in regards to the references. I sort of agree with Slim that "sides" should not be taken as far as how the sources are given/read, but I disagree that we should not refer to Sanger as co-founder since that is clearly sourceable and relevant. Anyways, --Tom 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, what is sourceable is that there is a dispute, and we can't take sides in it. Here is the Bergstein (Associated Press) quote, which I used as a source: "The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it ... Wales insists that Sanger was a subordinate employee of his, and by that measure, 20 other people would deserve co-founder status. Wales claims Sanger wrote those early news releases to inflate his role; Sanger responds that Wales approved the releases."

So -- there you have it -- the issue is disputed, according to a reliable source, which was reproduced by many different media outlets, including ABC News. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. What you have is that WALES disputes this. This does not mean "the issue is disputed". Any established fact can of course be "disputed" by any crackpot, but that doesn't make such a fact disputed per se. You can only say it is "disputed by crackpot X". An issue being in dispute means there are two sides with multiple notable proponents on each side. Here there is only Wales. In fact your reliable source explicitly says that the claim "doesn't seem particularly controversial" - it says the very opposite of what you read into it! Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, please don't let facts get in the way of a good story ;). Slim, I have to agree with Bramlet here that the passage you cited shows that they are both co-founders and that it is Wales who disputes that and that the claim really is NOT controversial(expect for Wales of course). Anyways, --Tom 20:52, 22 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.

"Wikipedia". New York Times. Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has grown rapidly.

"Open, but not as usual". Economist. 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.

"White bread for young minds, says university professor". Times. Even one of its own founders, Larry Sanger, described it as "broken beyond repair" before leaving the site last year.

"Wikipedia a force for good? Nonsense, says a co-founder". Times. But Larry Sanger, who helped to found Wikipedia in 2001, said

"Why does Google want to compete with Wikipedia?". Guardian. 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.

"It's a Wiki, Wiki World". Times magazine. 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.

"Google aims at Wikipedia with Knol service". Financial Times. 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)

Citizendium community

[12][13] 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)

Criticism

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)

This has OR problems. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, and not very good OR at that. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)