Durova
- Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have
been, if Larry Sanger had remained with the project?
Not a testable question, since Wikipedia already dominates the niche. One might also ask "Is Wikia what Wikipedia would have looked like (entertainment, sports, toys) if Larry Sanger had never been with the project?". Note in a certain way Wikia looks a lot like Bomis. (granted, it's missing the aspect of soft-core porn, err, "glamour photography", but that's likely an artifact of Google Adsense's policy restrictions)
There's many situations where a business/marketing type and an academic/creative type produce something in collaboration which is far more successful than what either ever does on their own.
It's also pretty common for those two type to have conflicts, and that usually ends with the business/marketing type working-over the academic/creative type. Wikipedia is NOT an original story there :-(.
- Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site. (I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is Google)
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Speaking here just as a very interested observer, apart from matters of personal injustice or formal relevance, there's many issues at the bottom of this about Wikipedia itself. To note just one, either way there's a pretty scary implication - that is, EITHER:
1) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is claiming his biography is being kept wrong, by a group favoring "a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie"
OR
2) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history for his own self-promotion, with only the threat of outside scandal limiting his attempts to do so "I can't {{sofixit}} without creating a media firestorm"
[I assume the infamous IRC transcripts I'm quoting are accurate] [I'm of course for case #2, but I acknowledge there's belief in case #1, which after all does include that prominent and high-ranking Wikipedian]
Though case #2 is better for Wikipedia itself than case #1, again, either way, there's something profound there.