On Jan 24, 2008 5:51 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Good idea!
On Jan 23, 2008 10:48 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see the post didn't mention the 5,000th
article in question.
Citizendium
> is one of the few big wikis where I haven't poked around and
registered
for
an account (actually, probably the only one).
This makes me wonder if
they
> are living up to their goals. Is it 5,000 GA and/or FA quality
articles,
like they
profess they are going to build better than Wikipedia? Or is
it
5,000 total, with lots of schlock thrown in?
We should go through those 5000 articles, and compare them to the
corresponding Wikipedia articles. (It would be good if we can get an
independent body to do a sample of them too.) We should try and make
sure our articles on subjects covered by Citizendium are at least as
good as theirs - call it friendly rivalry. ;)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
There are 48 approved articles which are supposedly the creme de la creme.
They are here.
The Citizendium article on Australia for instance is skimpy and with a lot
of red links.
In summary, I would say that not only is Citizendium not as good as
Wikipedia but it is probably not as well developed as Wikipedia at a similar
stage of its development. They have added 3,000 articles in their first
year.
Regards