-----Original Message----- From: Glen S [mailto:wikiglen@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:34 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Sanger and CZ
Tell me, have any of you read this: http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/07/citizendium-isnt-interested-in-your-opinion...
I was shocked when I read it... that is, until I read Sanger's response beneath it... then I was absolutely dumbfounded. With a guy with that attitude at the helm, I'm expecting the CZ project to fizzle out VERY quicky.
Glen
If you go to Citizendium and participate you need to wear your Citizendium hat. I'm an old hand at that. When I post on this list, edit Wikipedia, act as an administrator, as an arbitrator, propose policies, I wear my Wikipedia hat. That is, I accept the premises of Wikipedia; if I consider how policy might be better, I think of that while accepting the premises. I suppose part of that comes from legal training, but basically, if you want to play football (American), you've got to try to move the ball towards the right goalposts, pass only behind the line of scrimmage, and tackle without grabbing the runner's facemask.
I'm writing on Citizendium and having fun doing it. I'm not sure about being an editor. I'm qualified in law--I can remember working on the law article on Wikipedia and having to deal with some rather difficult editors, including a developer who thought that status gave him a lot of clout, apparently he had taken a law course or two. Although lawyers can present a quite nasty face when they are advocating for your opponent, it is quite remarkable how well they get along when they are together talking about the basics of law. Only problem is, at this point I interested in a lot of other things I would rather write about, and haven't practiced law for 10 years. Yet, I might like working with a small group of professionals on encyclopedia articles.
The premise of Citizendium is that certified expertise is important in producing the product. There are potential problems, for example, in law, most of the real experts are working, rates run $200 a hour and more. To be sure, lawyers have fun too, and a few might find editing an encyclopedia fun, but would even 5 genuine experts be available? We accept 14 year olds here. I have voted for people who said they were 14 years old to be arbitrators. But I will be a lot more comfortable when that person has some life experience.
Bottom line, Citizendium operates from different premises. They are promising, but remain untested. Only a fair trial will determine the merit of the approach.
Fred
On Feb 11, 2007, at 11:15, Fred Bauder wrote:
The premise of Citizendium is that certified expertise is important in producing the product. There are potential problems, for example, in law, most of the real experts are working, rates run $200 a hour and more. To be sure, lawyers have fun too, and a few might find editing an encyclopedia fun, but would even 5 genuine experts be available? We accept 14 year olds here. I have voted for people who said they were 14 years old to be arbitrators. But I will be a lot more comfortable when that person has some life experience.
Finding experts isn't the only potential problem. Being an expert doesn't mean one can use English as effectively as is required for an authoritative encyclopedia. Sure, experts can say, "this is factually accurate," but can they explain in an encyclopedic tone the basics of their field? Reading the biology article (the PDF version), I'd have to say, so far, the answer is no. I'm astounded at the tone of the article, a tone which insults my intelligence and treats me, the reader, as if I were eight. It reads like a textbook, not a neutral collection of information. And if the "authors", the ones who could clean this up and make it more encyclopedic, are treated like they don't matter, I don't think it is going to get much better. Unless Citizendium has a hidden army of English majors. Which it might. But maybe they are only allowed to edit linguistics articles.
I won't contest that maybe the editing atmosphere is more relaxed and enjoyable, but I will contest that the outcome is the same or better. It doesn't seem that Citizendium is going to achieve the critical mass it requires either, but time will tell.
--keitei
On 2/11/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Finding experts isn't the only potential problem. Being an expert doesn't mean one can use English as effectively as is required for an authoritative encyclopedia. Sure, experts can say, "this is factually accurate," but can they explain in an encyclopedic tone the basics of their field?
Not necessarily, and in Citizendium they don't have to. That's why there are *authors* in addition to *editors*.
I think Fred Bauder is correct that most of this is pretty ho-hum if you take off your Wikipedia hat and put on your Citizendium hat.
All this said, I'm currently sitting back and waiting for Citizendium to figure out whether or not it's going to be a fork, and what kind of copyright policies are going to be adopted. I'm afraid to touch articles based on Wikipedia, because CZ isn't making any attempt to follow the GFDL (something Larry Sanger himself seems to think is acceptable), and I'm afraid to touch articles not based on Wikipedia, because there is still a vocal group of CZers that are trying to get these articles licensed under a noncommercial-only license.
Anthony