Talk:Citizendium/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Links of interest 2 Article Citizendium needs update 3 Citizendium is not forking after all 4 Fork of Citizendium announced 5 Sources 6 Removal of "first vandal" material 7 Proposed encyclopedia? 8 Question 9 New Biology Article 10 Login required to view articles 11 license? 12 Regarding vandalism 13 Is there something to learn from Citizendium? 14 Nature of the project 15 Citation for business model comes from forum - is not definitive and not a filing that indicates a change in non-profit status 16 difference between this and wikipedia? 17 more limited scope? 18 Goal to become a reliable source 19 Reliability as a reference

Links of interest

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)

Hey, Larry, why not introduce yourself like Al Gore does:

• "My name is Larry Sanger, and I used to be the co-founder of Wikipedia." --Uncle Ed 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Citizendium needs update

According to the mailing list "Citizendium-l", the project is currently pretty much dead:

We've got a few more articles that are dipping their toes into approval waters. Hurray to them! I know we're in the middle of "the dead zone". I can tell because THERE IS NO ONE AT WORK.

-- 217.51.4.143 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I would not go singing Ding-dong the Wicked Witch is dead just yet. Note the entry's date, Dec. 29, 2006. "The dead zone" is clearly referring to "the zone" between two major holidays. Like most people with a real life, they probably did not spend time writing CZ articles between Dec. 25th and New Year's. Sorry. CyberAnth 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to disappoint you, but Sarah was exaggerating the lull, actually, and we've bounced back from the predictable holiday lull...and will soon be growing much stronger than ever. I personally have been out of pocket, moving across the country, but I'll be back in the saddle later this week. --Larry Sanger 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In a pre-Christmas blog entry Larry estimated the project was getting 300-400 edits a day, with 600+ articles being worked on. He gives many other numbers on contributors and workgroups - 400+ registered users, 136 editors. I'd put them in the article, but they'd probably just get deleted as "excessive detail". So I'll put them on the talk page.

Other posts indicate that three articles have now reached approved status. Two of them are "Biology" and "Chiropractic" - an intriguing combination. Another interesting note from Larry was that editor contributions far outweigh those from grunt-level authors. There's no specific date yet on a public launch of the project. Casey Abell 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to see chiropractic. That is a touchstone article we've had a lot of trouble with over the years. Fred Bauder 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In my reading of it, it was throughly gone through from top to bottom; re-organized; much of it re-written; the bog from the WP version was cut out; it is much more encyclopedic, and the experts' hand prints are clearly evident; an excellent product. The Biology article--the best description is that it is simply fabulous, authoritative, with truly compelling prose to boot. CyberAnth 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the chiropractic article, I had to check its history to confirm it had been imported it is so much changed. It is an excellent article. However it avoids the problem we have grappled with so intensely here by severely limiting criticism in the main article with creation of a subpage titled "Criticisms of chiropractic" which itself is not that good, consisting mostly of self-criticism by the profession. Writing a good "chiropractic" article is not a trivial problem. Fred Bauder 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are four approved articles: Chiropractic, Biology, Barbara McClintock, and Metabolism (Links to WP articles) Making PDFs of approved articles is on my ToDo list, but so are about a dozen things. Bonny Hicks is up for approval soon I think, and Nuclear Chemistry is another fine article, but is still short of approval. The medical and scientific workgroups have the most active editors at the moment, which explains why the approved articles are either medical or biological. Disclaimer: I'm on the CZ Executive committee. --ZachPruckowski 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW we've put up a PDF of our first approved article on http://www.citizendium.org/ --Larry Sanger 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium is not forking after all

• The Citizendium unforks

-- nyenyec ☎ 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The non-forking is experimental. It is not final. CyberAnth 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

same is everything else at CZ :) -- 217.51.7.233 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The "unfork" is currently in progress (good old rebuildall.php post-erasure) and is a trial for the time being. --ZachPruckowski 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fork of Citizendium announced

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)

In general, writing about a project that is in its infancy is very difficult: the rules, even the nature of the project (a fork or not?), keep changing. I'm not sure if the current version is so poor that it needs to be thrown away and begun from scratch, but by all means give it a go. The excessive detail problem seems to be have been much improved in recent versions (although further trimming of the blow-by-blow stuff wouldn't hurt). — Matt Crypto 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a significantly better Citizendium article, JF, and I think it should replace the bloated blog of a page that currently exists. Elijahmeeks 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Very nice work, JFPerry. Just one copyediting issue I see: it overuses parenthetical statements. Everywhere possible, work them into the text instead. CyberAnth 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

JFPerry, I think your proposed version goes overboard on the problems of Wikipedia, and doesn't disuss Citizendium in sufficient detail. There's no mention of constables and their role, the proposed dispute-resolution procedures, the executive committee running the project, or even the actual size of the pilot project so far. The proposal looks more like a Reader's Digest version of Criticisms of Wikipedia than an account of CZ's development. Also, footnotes should be added to the various assertions in the article. I would at least trim back the overly long section on WP's faults - it would be better to eliminate the section altogether and include a brief summary in "Proposed policies and structure" - and use the freed-up space to get more meat into the article on just what CZ has done to this point. Casey Abell 13:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Casey. I will replace the footnotes. They were initially removed solely to facilitate the textual editing. I kept cutting them in half, orphaning them, or leaving them hanging with other material. And I will trim the laundry list of WP faults. I really look at the proposed re-write as a draft version of what should go here (main CZ article) once the CZ goes fully public. JFPerry 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

James, thanks for taking my grumpy criticisms in stride. If the article is to have a second haircut, it probably makes sense to get as much about Citizendium into the shortened version as possible. Which means a severe cutback on material about Wikipedia, including WP's faults. An even briefer version of the current article's nod towards those faults, plus the link to Criticisms of Wikipedia, should be plenty. As for the footnotes, you might want to consider Matt's suggestion to invite some third parties to the, er, party. Although outside media stories about Citizendium generally haven't been very specific, there may be enough comments on the role of experts in CZ and some other details to furnish a note or three. Casey Abell 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your critque was basically spot on. And if anyone wants to help with restoring the refs, they are more than welcome to! Truth is, having started that task, I'm finding it perhaps even harder than editing with the refs in place. Chalk it up to experience! JFPerry 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reader's Digest version of Criticisms of Wikipedia or not, I think it is crucial to get into them to give solid context as to why CZ has even been proposed in the first place. The project did not crop up in a vacuum. It exists very largely because of the criticisms against WP. One cannot know CZ without knowing this basis of it. CyberAnth 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One of my main criticisms of the current article is that it doesn't explain the why behind Citizendium. Still, the bulleted listing was pretty poor and I recast it to highlight just a couple of what I see as the really important points. I have also re-written (greatly expanded) the section on CZ policies and structure in accord with Casey's suggestion. JFPerry 03:30, 26 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)

James, thanks for taking my criticisms so well. I feel a little guilty about continuing to criticize exactly because you've been so patient with me. But the new version of the proposed article now seems to go overboard on criticism of...Citizendium. While I agree that skeptics have expressed doubts about many aspects of the project, I think your proposal gives the skeptics too much space that could be better devoted to actual details of the project, like the size of the pilot so far, the role of constables, the executive committee, etc. And again, I would eliminate completely the "Background" section and compress its material into a brief reference to Wikipedia's perceived faults and CZ's attempt to remedy them - much as the current article does. This would also free up more space for actual discussion of what CZ has done.

And again (sorry to sound like a broken record) the proposed article remains under-referenced. I'm not a fiend for footnotes - in fact, I hate 'em - but on such a touchy topic we should err on the side of caution and footnote thoroughly.

The new proposed article is about 1100 words, as opposed to the current article's 1700 words (exclusive of footnotes). So there's not a great deal of difference in length. And I confess that the current article seems better to me because it gives so much more detail on what CZ has actually done, with much less space devoted to opinions of the faults of Wikipedia and Citizendium. I only hope you take these criticisms as well as you've accepted my other grumps and whines.

By the way, I reworded the reference to vandalism on the pilot project to eliminate any possible glorification but still record the occurrence, which is important. This is the kind of detail that I think is valuable to any article on CZ. Casey Abell 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've splattered too much verbiage already, but the vandalism issue is a good example of what I'm chattering about. James' proposed article contains opinions about vandalism on Wikipedia and its possible causes, and whether CZ's 'real names" policy will prevent such abuse. But you could read the entire proposed article and not learn whether any vandalism has actually occurred on Citizendium. The current article gives you the facts, with an authoritative reference - CZ's main page history. Of course, facts and references can and do become outdated. But my personal preference is to be as specific and factual as possible in encyclopedia articles, supported by careful references. Casey Abell 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't "splattered" too much verbiage, as you say. Your comments have been very helpful in leading to major improvements in the proposed article. I have expanded the material on the CZ proper, as best I can. Also, it is likely that in the long run there will be a WP article on Citizendium as well as one of Criticisms of Citizendium (same as with WP). Anticipating this, I removed altogether the critical and skeptical material since it would likely go into a criticisms article.

On the "vandalism reference" in the present article, I have no intention of getting into a revert war with anyone, but I'm wondering: when you restored it, you did so in two different places. I believe this raises questions about the organization and structure of the present article. And that does not count the three occurrances of the reference to the new, self-reg process on CZ.

I think the issue of vandalism as it may develop on CZ is important, but I don't believe this can be proprly examined until a statisticaly significant amount of data is available. Besides, I am no longer sure the "Chris Nguyen" incident was vandalism! Can you be sure that one of the high muck-a-mucks in CZ did not do it as a test to see how it would be dealt with, or maybe just to raise the alert level before the self-reg policy was formally announced?

Now it is probably time for me to stop (if I haven't gone too far already ;-) ) JFPerry 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, JF! One small note, I think there's too many external links. Are they supposed to be used as references? They should be inline, if that's the case. Do you know about Citizendium's licensing? I read in a forum post it may be dual-licensed: GFDL and Creative Commons. Secondly, don't forget about categories. On a slightly related note, why is Category:GFDL in this article, anyway? I just noticed some anon removed it, but he/she was reverted. One other touch-up, maybe you should include an image of Larry Sanger? Just some things to consider. :) Again, good work! 70.104.16.217 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

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)

There were a number of third-party sources - The Independent, The Guardian, The Financial Times, and IDG News - that were eliminated as too Wikipedia-related. We could try slipping them back into the article, but they might just get reverted out again. It's difficult to find third-party sources for details about Citizendium, because the project hasn't launched publicly yet, and third parties have mostly concentrated on 35,000-foot opinion about CZ instead of the nitty-gritty. Anyway, it would be hard to find a more reliable source than Larry for the facts about Citizendium. And the article doesn't contain any original research, but only reports what Larry and others have said about the project. Casey Abell 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not following our rules regarding reliable sources, almost all of the information is original research, but that Ok; this is an appropriate exception. Fred Bauder 13:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "first vandal" material

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)

Proposed encyclopedia?

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)

OK. Thanks for the response. How good do you think CZ is, anyway?

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)

Question

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

I'm not sure who 'governs' it in a legal sense, but Sanger runs most of it, though he has said that he plans to hire a Managing Editor to assume most of his wiki duties. There is also an editorial board at present which votes on governance issues. It will take some time to see whether it's going to 'amount to much,' but after dumping WP content, it's certainly more distinct.

The expert model had irked some, and will probably make growth slower, but the plan is that in the long run the overall content will be much stronger. I think the CZ entry here in WP would be best served by leaving judgments open when there is not yet any clear consensus.

Rapotter 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New Biology Article

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)

• On the other hand, it also reflects the nature of its contributors--it's Euro-centric with a strong emphasis on historical development. That's not a problem, necessarily, but it's a different article than what we have. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Login required to view articles

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).

This has been the case for some time now, actually. Whatever your opinion on individuals' rights to privacy, it doesn't diminish the site's notability; if anything, it would affect its credibility, a concept which is very much up for debate. -- Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This was because the project was still in its pilot phase. The real launch is today, and from now on, anybody can read articles on Citizendium. --84.103.5.98 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC), former wikipedian and future citizen.

license?

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)

"Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All new articles will be available under an open content license yet to be determined. Fred Bauder 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's outdated. See Sanger's blog post. Plus, they're not using Wikipedia's article. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not closely following it, but apparently the debate continues. Some articles did originate at Wikipedia. I wrote one myself like that. I edit on 3 Wikis, an original article gets to be linked to from the other two. Fred Bauder 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to make a link to that article, but they have gone done, apparently overwhelmed by traffic. Fred Bauder 21:44, 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)

Regarding vandalism

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)

That's a logical fallacy there, Mil. Third party sources by definition rely on internal sources. That's how they get information to create stories. But you can also see http://www.daveydweeb.com/wordpress/?p=114 and https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-February/ C.m.jones 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you with unshifting confidence that the vandalism screenshotted in that first link was not a result of slashdotting, but I suppose the article must go based on what the sources say. I'll hunt for some dissenting sources later, hopefully there are some or the article will be wrong :-O Milto LOL pia 09:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah, can ignoring all rules apply to sourcing? The source is wrong about the cause of vandalism, maybe it would be best to just leave out any speculation regarding the causes and disregard the incorrect source? That's what I've done just for now... Milto LOL pia 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something to learn from Citizendium?

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)

Nature of the project

"Fork of Wikipedia"

Is this a pun? :-) Axl 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it :( Milto LOL pia 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fuck off Wikipedia". :-D Axl 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. LOL. Milto LOL pia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for business model comes from forum - is not definitive and not a filing that indicates a change in non-profit status

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)

Additionally, people can say one thing in a blog or even public speech and retract tomorrow. No mention of an actual change to the license is mentioned - meaning the filing of paperwork to change status. Talking about a business model, which is a direct quote does not equate to a filing either online or with the state the project is licensed in. To use "logic" involves WP:OR which also is not allowed. Morenooso 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are misrepresenting WP:ATT. In particular, ATT is critical of using such sources for claims about third parties. By omission it indicates that a parties claims about themselves are fine taken from less perfect locations. I would not expect otherwise, because refusing to accept a persons claims about himself would be patently ridiculous. Furthermore, that Citizendium engages in commercial activity is mostly independent from its legal status (non-profits can and do engage in commercial activity). In any case, 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.

At a minimum the non-commercial claim should be removed, it is not sourced and is obviously a matter of contention.

Is your logic comment a reference to this edit summary? --Gmaxwell 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You invoked "logic" in your revert. That involves solving an edit by usage of WP:OR. I do not misrepresent anything. There is nothing definitive in that blog or forum. If you wish to remove the non-profit claim, you need to place a citation request by it. Morenooso 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add, that citation requests that are not cited properly within a reasonable period can then be disallowed. Morenooso 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

... --Gmaxwell 05:17, 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)

C.m. CZ isn't, they are being sponsored by a non-profit incubator. CZ isn't a non-profit itself, yet. This is totally normal and no big deal because the paper work is a huge pain. Go read your own source. :) --Gmaxwell 06:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit war has begun. I placed a reasonable citation request by the disputed claim. I will now remain WP:COOL while still disputing the questionable source and "logic" jump used to avoid a 3RR situation. Please see proof theory. Morenooso 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"The edit war has begun." is not a nice way to encourage colaboration. :( --Gmaxwell 06:21, 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've tried to steer a middle course by quoting the exact words CZ is currently attaching to its main page and articles. The encyclopedia is using the GFDL for all content derived in any way from Wikipedia, as required by the license. For new articles, there's a glaring "to be determined" notice. At this point, we can only wait and watch what happens with the site's new non-WP-derived content. Casey Abell 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

difference between this and wikipedia?

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)

Only if third parties make htose ocmparisons, editors making them would be original research. Milto LOL pia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We have something on that outside of the article; see CZ:We aren't Wikipedia for Citizendium's side, and Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium for Wikipedia's side. --cesarb 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

more limited scope?

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)

Goal to become a reliable source

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)

There's no reason to duplicate material from Criticism of Wikipedia that has nothing to do directly with Citizendium. An explicit reference to Criticism of Wikipedia is now included in the article, for any readers who want to read further about, well, criticism of Wikipedia. The focus of the Citizendium article should be on Citizendium, not on Wikipedia's supposed faults. Casey Abell 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that some of the changes at Citizendium are made in response to Wikipedia's faults (which are not "supposed", but self-admitted). If any negative mention of Wikipedia (in this case made by Wikipedia!) is to be kept out of this article (not very NPOV behavior), then at least leave in the main positive point about Citizendium, which is its attempt to create articles that are stable and reliable sources. Right now the baby is being deleted with the supposed bathwater. This is one area where we can learn from them, and even beat them at it. -- Fyslee/talk 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment, the following is the word-for-word copy from Criticism of Wikipedia:

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. 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. University of Maryland professor of physics Robert L. Park has characterized Wikipedia as a target for "purveyors of pseudoscience."

Since all this material, word for word, is already in Criticism of Wikipedia, and none of it pertains directly to Citizendium, it seems completely unnecessary to duplicate it here. Casey Abell 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, remove just the part that isn't relevant to the point, and keep what's relevant. That's all I'm asking. -- Fyslee/talk 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. The article now notes that CZ hopes to overcome perceived flaws in WP, and quotes Sanger on the issue. An explicit reference to Criticism of Wikipedia is provided to readers who want to read more about those perceived flaws. There's no reason to duplicate a large swatch (or any-sized swatch) of Criticism of Wikipedia in this article. I should know - I wrote part of the section of Criticism of Wikipedia that was, completely unnecessarily, copied word-for-word into this article. Casey Abell 17:01, 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)

This eliminates the unnecessary copying, but the language about WP's "admission" is POV-ish and still unrelated to Citizendium. In fact, Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, where the quote originates, may not be adopted at all. The straw poll shows no consensus for adoption, at any rate. The current language in WP:RS reads: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should generally not be used as sources." Which would include Citizendium, as well!

I would let the article stand as is, with Sanger's quotes and the comment about CZ trying to fix WP's perceived faults. This is completely NPOV and accurate. Casey Abell 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a new one. When a site is being discussed, it is allowed to quote from that site. I get the feeling that you believe you own this article. Am I correct? -- Fyslee/talk 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. I'm just pointing out that you are quoting from WP:ATT, which has not been adopted as Wikipedia policy and may well never be adopted due to lack of consensus. In fact, another editor tried to shorten this section even more by eliminating not just the copied material from Criticism of Wikipedia and the quote from WP:ATT, but also the Larry Sanger quotes on WP's perceived problems. I did restore the Sanger quotes, and I hope this doesn't lead to more "ownership" charges. Casey Abell 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not quoting from WP:ATT. I haven't even studied it. I still use the old Big3. -- Fyslee/talk 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The footnote you attached [3] to the quote "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources" referred to WP:ATT, and that's where the quote does come from. Okay, the quote actually comes from the attached FAQ page for that proposed policy. But the quote is definitely not in the approved policy WP:RS, which only contains a general caution against all wikis, including Citizendium. Casey Abell 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is some code so we can see the references:

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)

The guideline from WP:RS is that all wikis are to be used with great caution. There's nothing in WP:RS about "closed" wikis as opposed to, I guess, "open" ones. Actually, the key quote from WP:RS - "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should generally not be used as sources" - would be relevant to Citizendium.

By the way, QuackGuru has copied back some of the same stuff from Criticism of Wikipedia into the article. You're right, I should be flattered that this material, which I helped write, is considered so indispensible even when it's irrelevant. My guess is that sooner or later a respected admin will come along and clean all the irrelevant Criticism of Wikipedia stuff out of this article. Last I checked, the title of the article was Citizendium, not Copy of Criticism of Wikipedia. Casey Abell 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't/shouldn't force content changes. Anyway, most of the section doesn't mention Citizendium at all... since the top of this page says this is an article about Citizendium, the section either needs to be refactored to discuss Citizendium a little more, or it needs to be removed.

Also, regardless of what WP:RS says, tertiary sources (which Citizendium and Wikipedia both are) are broadly considered not-very-reliable in the academic community, correct? --Interiot 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to remove the irrelevant material copied from Criticism of Wikipedia, and it keeps getting put back in. I don't think there should be a separate section for this at all. See the version I tried to create here. Anyway, I'm tired of the dispute and I figure the article is headed for the lockdowns I've seen on Essjay controversy. Casey Abell 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability as a reference

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)