----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vandenberg" <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a
rationalwiki page as evidence.
Actually David wrote the page. I thought it was interesting ...
Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger
and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP. I wonder how large their
WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
... but as you say, byte for byte, there may be a similar level of
'pollution'. I wonder if it was 'credentialism' that was the problem, or
just the lack of editors. I joined CZ when it was formed, with one other
philosophy editor http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Peter_J._King
defected from Wikipedia. He was a good philosopher but had some kind of
stupid row with Larry and left. I found it difficult to edit in a vacuum so
I left also. And that was the end of "credentialled" philosophy on CZ.
Larry is not a bad philosopher himself and has credentials but he was in a
management role. He has this naive faith that academic philosophers would
come flocking to CZ and fill the gap but they didn't. So in the end he
lowered the entry barrier and the rest is history.
In summary, the evidence as far as my discipline is concerned is that Sanger
wrongly expected the project to attract credentialled academics. It didn't.
He allowed a number of uncredentialled or 'less credentialled' editors in,
and the results are much as David Gerard describes them.