On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)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).