[WikiEN-l] Citizendium

[Guettarda]

On 9/18/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Unless Citizendium is suggesting that it would seek out and welcome
> people who write rubbish just because they claim to be 'experts' (surely
> a recipe for disaster) I don't really see how it will attract anyone on
> the basis of its content (especially since any decent stuff that it
> produces will be re-merged into Wikipedia, perhaps even by a bot) - all
> it will do is attract people who want to give themselves a sense of
> importance by telling 'less expert' people what to do. An expert-focused
> wiki is a good idea, but since 'experts' are given more control than
> 'non-experts' then it seems likely that no 'non-experts' will be
> interested. At which point Citizendium basically becomes Nupedia without
> the peer review process.


If the people who have written about the "expert problem" that Wikipedia has
are correct, then no, there is real value to a place where there can be
expert-driven work.  While it is easy to write on subjects that no one else
cares about, getting things done on topics where there is some amount of
controversy requires considerable political skills.  Granted, an
expert-driven process does not eliminate the problem of politics, but it
does reduce the need to deal with people peddling fringe theories.

Wikipedia has a persistent problem with fringe theories.  If you ever edit
any page related to evolution, there are persistent problems with people who
repeat creationist arguments regarding evolution - argument which they have
picked up from some web site or book, and they now push as gospel truth.  It
doesn't matter that the arguments have been {explained/refuted/are trivial} -
you are dealing with someone who doesn't understand the scientific method or
how science is done, so you have to start explaining from first principles
why the issue they want to insert into the article is idiotic.  And, you
have to do so without calling the idea idiotic, or you will get people
screaming at you for violating WP:BITE or WP:NPA.

Now, there are also problems with expert editors.  There are real disputes
about how some idea should be presented - some of them (like the Natural
selection article) end up before the arbcomm as well.  So, of course,
expert-driven does not mean "free from conflict".  But it does establish a
set of ground rules for discussion.  It still requires considerable
political skills to get a stable version, but the range of possibilities is
reduced.  This might make for a considerably saner work environment.

The idea that such an environment is meaningless because the content can be
ported back to Wikipedia isn't true.  For one, it provides a work
environment for people who don't want to deal with the stress of Wikipedia.
It also creates a "stable version" against which the Wikipedia version will
always be compared. Implemented properly, it can serve as a buffer against
articles becoming degraded.

The idea that expert-driven process will result in experts "telling people
what to do" seems like a rather pessimistic view of "experts".  We have lots
of experts on WP - some of them lack the ability to work with others, some
of them grow disenchanted and leave the project - but lots of others stay
and slog it out - and work quite well with others.

Ian