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?
On Jan 23, 2008 2:16 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/01/22/citizendium-breaks-5000-live-articles...
Going well :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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. ;)
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Well, we know Wikipedia is better now than Citizendium is now, I don't think anyone disputes that. Wikipedia may have had more/better articles at the same age (I would have to look up the stats), but Citizendium is probably more reliable, since back then, we had hardly any references so it was pot luck whether the information you got from an article bore any resemblance to the truth (most did, sure, but there was no way to know which ones).
Keith Old schreef:
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.
That's not exactly true.
After fourteen months, Wikipedia had 29,000 articles with an average size of 1768 bytes (http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm). At a comparable age, CZ has about 5500 articles in total, with a total size of 5,620,000 words; that is about 1000 words per article. (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics)
Assuming about 7 bytes per word, WP was only 30% larger than CZ at the same point in their development; and in the first 4 or 5 months of CZ's existence, it was not public, so its equivalent age is probably less than 14 months.
The problem with CZ is that it is growing linearly. Larry Sanger sees CZ accelerating, and points at the number of articles; the stats clearly show that this is because CZ now allows the creation of stubs. The number of articles grew strongly in November, but the number of edits and the number of contributors stayed the same; the average article size plummeted.
Between October 2001 and March 2002, WP grew by 200% (in byte count); between July and December 2007, CZ grew by about 37% (in word count).
CZ hasn't failed yet, but they seem to be heading for failure the way it goes now... Even if some of their content is very good, it will be a very long time before they can compete with Wikipedia.
Eugene
It would be nice to have a bot that goes through their article and our article on one subject, looking for different sources and references, that would be something useful for both sites, I think.
Nick
On 23/01/2008, 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
I think we should just invite some journalist to do it.
On Jan 23, 2008 10:56 AM, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
It would be nice to have a bot that goes through their article and our article on one subject, looking for different sources and references, that would be something useful for both sites, I think.
Nick
On 23/01/2008, 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
-- Nick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should just invite some journalist to do it.
To decide which articles are best, sure, but for giving tips on how to improve individual articles, a bot that finds good references for you would be very helpful.
On 23/01/2008, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
It would be nice to have a bot that goes through their article and our article on one subject, looking for different sources and references, that would be something useful for both sites, I think.
That's a good idea. I might look into that if I remember next time I'm bored.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
We should go through those 5000 articles, and compare them to the corresponding Wikipedia articles.
You can start at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Citizendium list of missing articles]]. It's a list of Citizendium article titles that are not in Wikipedia. Outdated, but can be easily updated now that Citizendium is publishing database dumps.
Eugene