On 1 July 2010 16:57, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Citizendium is perhaps most valuable for having
showed us a path we should not follow--elaborate bureaucracy and
expert editing--but in a more positive sense did highlight the need
for us to improve article quality.
Citizendium's bureaucracy and expert editing weren't the main reason
for its failure. The main reason was that Wikipedia already existed.
For all we know, Citizendium's approach may have been better than ours
(although personally I doubt it), but it wasn't sufficiently better
for people to switch from Wikipedia, which was already very
successful.