On Jan 24, 2008 6:01 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I don't think it's fair to compare only one article. That's pretty much blatant cherrypicking.
Folks,
OK, let's do a comparison by Citizendium random articles.
Apple Inc.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.
Winner Wikipedia. More detailed, more references, lot less red links.
Cleromancy
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cleromancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy
Winner. Close victory to Wikipedia. More cultures mentioned.
Planet
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
Wikipedia. Article is far more detailed and extensively referenced.
Social Work http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Social_Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work
Wikipedia. Longer article with more references although one section flagged as needing references.
Adam Ferguson
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Adam_Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Ferguson
Both articles appear similar probably because they incorporate material from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia article has more details.
It is a relatively short comparison but a clear trend is developing. Of course, most Wikipedia articles do not have corresponding Citizendium.
On this basis, you could not claim that Citizendium is of superior quality to Wikipedia at this stage.
Regards
*Keith Old* ** ** ** **
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 5:51 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
Good idea!
On Jan 23, 2008 10:48 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles
The Citizendium article on Australia for instance is skimpy and with a
lot
of red links.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Australia
The Wikipedia article on Australia is a feature article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l