[Moderators: if you don't wish to forward this post, I'll understand. If you do, thanks in advance. --Larry Sanger] All, I saw this unfortunate article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ and I felt inspired to reach out to the Wikipedia community and invite those of you who are seriously disaffected to give the Citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org/) another look. In case you took seriously a certain article about us in the Wikipedia Signpost last summer, let's just say that wishful reports of our demise were greatly exaggerated. Since then, we've nearly doubled our number of articles and our activity; our growth has been accerating, and recently, we've had a great growth spurt. Obviously, we're still small, but we've got an excellent opportunity to replicate Wikipedia-style growth. I've never actually extended an invitation to Wikipedians before. I've always felt that Wikipedia and the Citizendium naturally attract different constituencies, and that that's a positive thing. I have never wanted to appear to be competing with Wikipedia for people. I just didn't think that's necessary--and I still don't. But, especially to those people who are seriously disappointed with the management of the Wikipedia community, I feel it's appropriate and important that I say: we all (humanity) might be able to do better than the Wikipedia model of production and governance. Maybe, for some of you, it's time to explore the Citizendium model. I know I'm going to make a lot of people angry or disappointed by my saying this here, in the lion's den, so to speak. (Does it help that I started this list? I doubt it. :-) ) I'm sure there will be no shortage of hostile response. But bear in mind, I am reaching out only to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its management. I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the open source/free culture movement. After all, I am *not* trying to undermine Wikipedia, which I hope will always exist as a popular source of information. (I've always said that.) I'm merely trying to build *another* source of information. I hope that those who are contemplating exiting Wikipedia will consider joining the Citizendium. If you want to know how (we think) we're different, see this page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren't_Wikipedia The present "scandal" is over the community and governance. So what's special or interesting about the Citizendium community and governance? Here's a summary. The community as a whole is by and large a mature and pleasant place to work. But it's still an open wiki. We are ramping up an open, online representative republic. (We're still drafting our rules!) Among other things, this means we've got an Editorial Council (a "legislative"), a Constabulary (a "police force"), an Executive Committee (an "executive"), and we will soon be adding an independent judiciary. These community components are rule-governed and being established with the well-known challenges of Wikipedia's community in mind. We take "the rule of law" seriously. "Ignore all rules," which I originally proposed for Wikipedia as a sort of joke back in the spring of 2001, isn't recommended. Boldness and not caring too much if you make beginner mistakes are strongly recommended. (But that was the original spirit of "ignore all rules," in case you didn't know.) We require that contributors agree with a Statement of Fundamental Policies. (And, soon, a Citizendium Charter.) No endless arguing about our fundamental policies: we are all committed to them up front. We still argue about stuff that really matters. We take the notion of "cyber-citizenship" seriously. We require real names. We actually check that there is someone with a particular (real) name and we try to match this name up with an e-mail address. Our methods of doing this are very fallible, but so far they seem to have worked just fine. So sockpuppetry, while in principle still possible, becomes much, much more difficult. (I'm not aware of our having any sockpuppet contributors on CZ.) On the issue in question--should there be a "secret cabal" of people to deal with sockpuppets?--well, it's interesting. On the one hand, we don't have a sockpuppet problem to speak of, because we require real names. On the other hand, we do have a "Constabulary," and occasionally they deal with difficult cases, and indeed privately, but the constables are bound by certain rules. Among the rules are the right to appeal to a fully independent body. For example, recently one editor (a very kind University of Edinburgh professor who served in the same appeal function that we'll soon formalize with the Judicial Board) "heard" an appeal and reversed my decision to ban someone. This is fine with me and I am glad to be able to demonstrate that I do *not* have the final say. No single individual should, in a republic. The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law. But, just as with closed police records, closed access is sometimes necessary to protect contributor privacy and interests, and to avoid libel issues needlessly. If a person wishes us to make our deliberations public, we will. We regard it as their *right* as a citizen. This guarantee of rights, however, would be rather more problematic if we weren't using real names. In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the next year or two at most. This will require that I do fundraising to pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly from writing, speaking, and consulting fees. I will at that time no longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the Citizendium encyclopedia project. (I will try to behave like the traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.) It just seems obvious to me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually *step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power. Finally, we have a role for experts (only they are called our "editors"), who can approve articles and make content decisions where necessary, but who otherwise work shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone. In fact, anyone can join (as an "author") and contribute, as long as they are 13 or older, write good English and otherwise make a positive contribution, agree with our fundamental principles, and help us establish that the name/identity they claim is their own real name. If you are motivated to try something different, join here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount Coincidentally, tomorrow (Wednesday) is a good day to join. It's our monthly Write-a-Thon (details linked from the front page). By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible. Also, by the way, I'm going to start up SharedKnowing (a new, "neutral" mailing list) soon. Some prominent Wikipedians are already subscribed. Join here: http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more In conclusion, I'm hoping sincerely for the best outcome for everyone. I hope Wikipedia can overcome its obviously difficult problems, and let me add that I don't expect the Citizendium to be free of problems when it's bigger, either. They'll just be different, and I hope not so fundamental. My best to the Wikipedia community, Larry Sanger Wikipedia ex-co-founder ;-) ----- Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D. | http://www.larrysanger.org/ Editor-in-Chief, Citizendium | http://www.citizendium.org/ sanger(a)citizendium.org