[WikiEN-l] Citizendium

[Kim van der Linde]

gwern branwen wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com> wrote:
>> As an expert who has left Wikipedia more or less, I can give you an answer:
>> 1. I would write there for Citizendium, not for Wikipedia.
> 
> And judging from the current success of Sanger's past endeavours (I'm
> thinking of Digital Universe here), you would be wasting your time.
> Remember, "the good is the enemy of the best", or better yet, "worse
> is better".

Maybe it does not work, maybe it does, I will see. If it does, it has 
the potential to become a much better source for reliable information 
than Wikipedia.

>> 2. Content from there included in Wikipedia will deteriorate at
>> Wikipedia over time, there is will remain sound.
> 
> 'Soundness' can be read as 'static', and the value of staticness can
> be overrated. Cyclopaedia is static, yet not useful.

Well, that is your interpretation of sound, not mine. Sound content is 
dynamic. If I want static content, I go for a paper encyclopaedia. And 
dynamic high quality content on Wikipedia deteriorates all the time 
unless experts babysit the complex articles. Nice dynamic, sure......

>> 3. Content there, if the right editing paradigm is chosen, will continue
>> to improve, which would either require Wikipedia to repeatedly insert
>> the newest version, of basically fall behind.
> 
> If anything, the flow would be the other way. By definition, Sanger's
> various projects must  expect to draw upon a smaller stock of possible
> editors. Without even considering first mover, network, or
> winner-take-all effects, we should expect Citizenpedia to be borrowing
> content from Wikipedia, not the other way around.

Initially, yes. But that will change as soon as there is a sound 
community of editors at Citizendium. The pool of editors might be 
smaller, but the vandal fighting also, which results in a lesser need 
for editors to babysit the many articles. It probably will also contain 
less pseudo-notable stuff, like all pokemon characters and such for 
which Wikipedia is and will remain a perfect place. And by the sound of 
colleagues around me, they might be way more willing to help out with 
less open-to-all-editing initiatives.

Besides that, the contributors have more time to spend on actual content 
due to less vandal fighting. Finally, at current, the stream of 
information is from Britannica to Wikipedia, not the other way round.

Kim
-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com