On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia, which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is (in theory) anyone writing articles and experts resolving disputes and approving articles. That is a very different model.
Different, not "very different".
Anyway wikis of a certain size and achievement (done some useful writing but not going to set the world on fire) tend, I guess, to have features in common because of the type and scale of the communities involved. It seems that "social structure" = "the rut we're in" is about right for these communities, including Citizendium.
I don't think the English Wikipedia is immune from the "rut", but we are the ones with the "very different" model. I think what Phil Sandifer was saying is not correct, but that is because I would argue that utility of a piece of hypertext shouldn't be measured as if the hyperlinks don't matter (we saw this when the big rush on [[Michael Jackson]] caused all that traffic to [[vitiligo]]): surf's up. And I would also argue that the policy and community superstructure is useful (though not all of it, and not all uniformly useful, of course).
You are aware that Nupedia wasn't a wiki, right?