On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
- d.
'I think the whole debate is silly. Ironically, I think Larry is given too little credit for his role in the early days of Wikipedia as the “editor-in-chief” of the project (his actual title). He was an employee working fully under my direction with no ownership interest of any kind.'
What a very legalistic answer.
2009/4/3 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
'I think the whole debate is silly. Ironically, I think Larry is given too little credit for his role in the early days of Wikipedia as the “editor-in-chief” of the project (his actual title). He was an employee working fully under my direction with no ownership interest of any kind.' What a very legalistic answer.
It certainly beats them publicly sniping at each other, to no credit to either project.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical.
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
Citizendiums "narrative" and "engaging the reader" style does in fact sound good in theory, and it could work, if the people writing citizendium were actually good at narratives; but in fact they are not. Mostly it falls flat in a stupendously comic fashion. Witness for instance the citizendium article on imaginary numbers. The narrative voice there grates as if there was a Sunday school supervisor reading text to wee bairns and smiling every three words, to emphasize that we so love this stuff, ain't it cute and cuddly, these imaginary numbers, stuff and golly-winks.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Very few academics are actually good textbook writers; they usually need extensive help from editors who know the art.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical.
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
Citizendiums "narrative" and "engaging the reader" style does in fact sound good in theory, and it could work, if the people writing citizendium were actually good at narratives; but in fact they are not. Mostly it falls flat in a stupendously comic fashion. Witness for instance the citizendium article on imaginary numbers. The narrative voice there grates as if there was a Sunday school supervisor reading text to wee bairns and smiling every three words, to emphasize that we so love this stuff, ain't it cute and cuddly, these imaginary numbers, stuff and golly-winks.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sounds a lot like Simple English Wikipedia.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 6:13 PM
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical.
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
Citizendiums "narrative" and "engaging the reader" style does in fact sound good in theory, and it could work, if the people writing citizendium were actually good at narratives; but in fact they are not. Mostly it falls flat in a stupendously comic fashion. Witness for instance the citizendium article on imaginary numbers. The narrative voice there grates as if there was a Sunday school supervisor reading text to wee bairns and smiling every three words, to emphasize that we so love this stuff, ain't it cute and cuddly, these imaginary numbers, stuff and golly-winks.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scientia Potentia est wrote:
Sounds a lot like Simple English Wikipedia.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 6:13 PM
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical.
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
Citizendiums "narrative" and "engaging the reader" style does in fact sound good in theory, and it could work, if the people writing citizendium were actually good at narratives; but in fact they are not. Mostly it falls flat in a stupendously comic fashion. Witness for instance the citizendium article on imaginary numbers. The narrative voice there grates as if there was a Sunday school supervisor reading text to wee bairns and smiling every three words, to emphasize that we so love this stuff, ain't it cute and cuddly, these imaginary numbers, stuff and golly-winks.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Just by the by, the article of course on imaginary numbers is a bare stub on citizendium. The article I was thinking about is of course "Complex numbers".
Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm Citizendium. And that would be bad.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm Citizendium. And that would be bad.
I think you vastly over-rate the influence wikipedia has on anything. Specifically what influence words by Jimbo have.
If pressed I would say that wikipedia does not gain from diminution of citizendium, even though it unfortunately won't even gain from having an effective loyal opposition in the form of citizendium. My judgment is that citizendium is vastly more dysfunctional than wikipedia, and as such largely irrelevant, even as a check and balance.
I do however in the larger scheme of things think that having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I have very little hope of that happening in a form that is genuine, and not just a mocker.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I do however in the larger scheme of things think that having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I have very little hope of that happening in a form that is genuine, and not just a mocker.
Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I do however in the larger scheme of things think that having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I have very little hope of that happening in a form that is genuine, and not just a mocker.
Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At this stage, I'd say that the odds of a successful fork are roughly nil. The problem for a fork is that it is immediately competes with wikipedia, and is offering a product that the average reader or contributor will probably not differentiate much from wikipedia. If it takes the whole database, it won't have enough initial users to maintain it. If it doesn't, then why would anyone use it when they have wikipedia?
The only real hope for a competitor would be one that offered something substantially different to both reader and writer. Only then can it overcome the "motivation problem" of getting people interested in an initially small project, when there's the giant wikipedia available.
The ingredients of a "different product" are there:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
Readers could be offered things like: 1) useful commercial links ("people interested in this topic might like to buy the following books") 2) a more reliable - stable product 3) a more "child friendly" product. 4) ability to know the qualifications - or even online reputation - of the author. 5) ability to read articles written from a POV you share.
Now, some of those attributes were offered by veropedia, some by Citenzium, or Conservapedia, and some by others. Some are obviously incompatible, or possibly infeasible, and so far no one has found a recipe to combine any of them successfully. (I'd class all current offerings as failed or failing). However given that the rewards for success here could be remarkably high, I'd suggest that there will be more attempts in coming years, and possibly by very well-resourced players (Wikipedia is vulnerable in that the WMF is underfunded - what happens if a competitor goes for advertising with a massive publicity budget could be interesting). It is not beyond possibility that someday someone will stumble on a formula that works, and will either complement or overshadow wikipedia.
2009/4/4 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example.
geni wrote:
2009/4/4 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example.
I do not assume that a future competitor to wikipedia will be a wiki. Indeed I doubt anyone could compete on that basis.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example.
I disagree with this. Some of the most successful non-wikipedia wikis I know of are in fact extremely similar to wikipedia. I'm thinking here mainly of pop-culture wikis, like the Battlestar Wiki, Wookiepedia and the Lostpedia. They all borrow heavily from the Wikipedia "style", so they all look just as dry and formal, and they generally have similar policies when it comes to POV and original research.
An interesting case study is Lostpedia. Since most of the fun that comes from endlessly discussing Lost is speculating about what the hell is going on and coming up with your own pet theories, you'd expect the wiki to be infested with original research. In fact, it is not. They only allow confirmed canonical information in the articles themselves (i.e. no speculation), and then each article has a sub-page called "Theories" (essentially a discussion page) where people can speculate to their hearts content. But it can't make it into the article. Just for funsies, check out the article on Lostpedia on the DHARMA Initiative and tell me if this doesn't look like a wikipedia article: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/DHARMA_initiative
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
--Oskar
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
- d.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
Two things which, incidentally, go hand in hand. NPOV would be virtually impossible to achieve without open and public debate about every single damn sentence.
--Oskar
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
Two things which, incidentally, go hand in hand. NPOV would be virtually impossible to achieve without open and public debate about every single damn sentence.
--Oskar
NPOV, taken seriously, is impossible to achieve. But that is not the problem, NPOV is a process which is subject to manipulation by organized interest groups. Very few articles on Wikipedia about significant contested issues come close to the goal of being NPOV. There are winners who have played the game successfully and have succeeded in imposing their point of view on key articles in a major reference work.
Fred
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view.
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.)
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view.
The obvious alternative is to allow point of view editing but structure the wiki to include articles from diverse points of view, not an innovation, editorial pages of major newspapers are typically structured in that way.
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.)
-- Sam
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can be balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia.
Fred
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view.
The obvious alternative is to allow point of view editing but structure the wiki to include articles from diverse points of view, not an innovation, editorial pages of major newspapers are typically structured in that way.
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.)
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can be balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia.
Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from an "NPOV" article *on* Wikipedia...
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can be balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia.
Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from an "NPOV" article *on* Wikipedia...
--
That would be true if it were not for the campaign to delete external links and discourage their addition.
Fred
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can be balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia.
Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from an "NPOV" article *on* Wikipedia...
--
That would be true if it were not for the campaign to delete external links and discourage their addition.
I think this campaign has passed me by...
2009/4/5 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
The obvious alternative is to allow point of view editing but structure the wiki to include articles from diverse points of view, not an innovation, editorial pages of major newspapers are typically structured in that way.
I'd say that's not serving what the readers want, seeing Wikipedia vs Wikinfo, where you tried implementing this. Not that Wikinfo is worthless, but Wikipedia is doing very well as somewhere that neutrality is at least attempted. NPOV is not an attainable goal, but it is a reliable compass to follow.
- d.
Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view.
An enforced POV cannot really be neutral.
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.)
Not really, in a paradoxical way. Many rarely visited articles on non-controversial subjects already achieve that neutrality. An unchallenged article written by a single person is neutral at the moment it is written, and remains so until challenged. If the content is outrageous that neutrality will seldom last more than a few minutes.
Ec
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view.
An enforced POV cannot really be neutral.
Exactly. My dilemma is between an enforced POV and no POV (i.e. NPOV).
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.)
Not really, in a paradoxical way. Many rarely visited articles on non-controversial subjects already achieve that neutrality. An unchallenged article written by a single person is neutral at the moment it is written, and remains so until challenged. If the content is outrageous that neutrality will seldom last more than a few minutes.
But on other articles it would be plain impossible, the general point I was aiming at.
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website.
- d.
Saying NPOV is our key innovation is the equivalent of saying gaming the system is our key innovation. NPOV is only the game board. Interest groups who play well win favorable treatment of their point of view.
Fred
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example.
I disagree with this. Some of the most successful non-wikipedia wikis I know of are in fact extremely similar to wikipedia. I'm thinking here mainly of pop-culture wikis, like the Battlestar Wiki, Wookiepedia and the Lostpedia. They all borrow heavily from the Wikipedia "style", so they all look just as dry and formal, and they generally have similar policies when it comes to POV and original research.
An interesting case study is Lostpedia. Since most of the fun that comes from endlessly discussing Lost is speculating about what the hell is going on and coming up with your own pet theories, you'd expect the wiki to be infested with original research. In fact, it is not. They only allow confirmed canonical information in the articles themselves (i.e. no speculation), and then each article has a sub-page called "Theories" (essentially a discussion page) where people can speculate to their hearts content. But it can't make it into the article. Just for funsies, check out the article on Lostpedia on the DHARMA Initiative and tell me if this doesn't look like a wikipedia article: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/DHARMA_initiative
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
--Oskar
Wikipedia works like Wall Street works, because it has an effective monopoly. Lostpedia fails to resolve a fundamental problem Wikipedia has not been able to successfully resolve, how to deal with creative thought, even trivial thought about how future plots on a television series might be structured.
Fred
doc wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I do however in the larger scheme of things think that having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I have very little hope of that happening in a form that is genuine, and not just a mocker.
Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
At this stage, I'd say that the odds of a successful fork are roughly nil. The problem for a fork is that it is immediately competes with wikipedia, and is offering a product that the average reader or contributor will probably not differentiate much from wikipedia. If it takes the whole database, it won't have enough initial users to maintain it. If it doesn't, then why would anyone use it when they have wikipedia?
The only real hope for a competitor would be one that offered something substantially different to both reader and writer. Only then can it overcome the "motivation problem" of getting people interested in an initially small project, when there's the giant wikipedia available.
The ingredients of a "different product" are there:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
Readers could be offered things like: 1) useful commercial links ("people interested in this topic might like to buy the following books") 2) a more reliable - stable product 3) a more "child friendly" product. 4) ability to know the qualifications - or even online reputation - of the author. 5) ability to read articles written from a POV you share.
Now, some of those attributes were offered by veropedia, some by Citenzium, or Conservapedia, and some by others. Some are obviously incompatible, or possibly infeasible, and so far no one has found a recipe to combine any of them successfully. (I'd class all current offerings as failed or failing). However given that the rewards for success here could be remarkably high, I'd suggest that there will be more attempts in coming years, and possibly by very well-resourced players (Wikipedia is vulnerable in that the WMF is underfunded - what happens if a competitor goes for advertising with a massive publicity budget could be interesting). It is not beyond possibility that someday someone will stumble on a formula that works, and will either complement or overshadow wikipedia.
I think I agree with just about everything you posit, except that I would limit it to the English wikipedia, or conceivably to some of the larger language wikipedias. It seems clear to me that minor languages just don't have enough mindshare to split out to produce a viable fork without completely decimating the original wikipedia, essentially rubbing it out as a going concern.
However an intriguing possibility does peek at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Should wikimedia ever stop the expansion into the very tiniest of languages at some definite level, an outside project that picked up on languages that wikimedia had rejected, would have a form of opening at doing something that would quite genuinely complement wikimedia.
Essentially the most realistic scenario for the creation of a viable fork of the English Wikipedia remains the prospect that enwiki completely loses its way, and precipitates an exodus. But we all know that at that point many good people would kick in and try mightily to right the ship of wikipedia on its keel. I would be in there, working shoulder to shoulder, not jumping ship. I have every faith that any such foundering would prove a short lived experience, and the experience would merely revitalize our community. And of course I don't envision that scenario even as remotely likely. I have always maintained as my personal belief that wikipedia will still be going strong decades and centuries from now.
I believe the comparison in terms of longevity of the wiki model of encyclopaedia building is to that of movable type. Printing with movable type is still with us, even if the type is set electronically these days.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm Citizendium. And that would be bad.
On that note, is there a good summary anywhere of the forks and "similar" projects (i.e. encyclopedias) anywhere? Not so much a summary in a Wikipedia article, but more a critical look at the timescales, size, and quality of various spinter projects or attempts to do something different. The only ones I can remember at the moment are Citizendium, Veropedia, and Epistemia. Is Wikinfo something separate or a fork?
"Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons. Wikinfo does not require a neutral point of view and allows original research. New Wikipedia-inspired projects — such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, and Google's Knol — have been started to address perceived limitations of Wikipedia, such as its policies on peer review, original research, and commercial advertising."
OK, so the list is:
Citizendium (article) Veropedia (article) Epistemia (no article) Wikinfo (article deleted) Scholarpedia (article) Conservapedia (article) Knol (article)
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_encyclopedias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_encyclopedias
Wow, a really fascinating category here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knowledge_markets
"Knowledge markets provide means and venue for discovering and sharing knowledge resources among individuals and organizations."
Article is interesting as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_market
Carcharoth