David Gerard wrote:
It's a useful idea, yes. I'm wondering, though, if their model includes non-experts as important contributors (which is what you seem to be saying), whether their initial publicity will prove problematic. It's not so much pro-expert as anti-non-expert. I don't see why a non-expert would bother with volunteering for it, what's in it for them.
Ok, suppose I end up being an expert there (which I do not know yet as I am not knowing enough about their model). Say, a non-expert, high school student passes by. He just inserts junk. No issue, such a person will be out of it quickly, as there is nothing to gain for either side. But the next does know where he talks about, adds good content, and with some instruction, produces good content. As an expert, I know that person from then on, and keep working with him. It can result in a productive two-way interaction, beneficial for both. Just expand that to a group...
And just to add on the often used comparison of Wikipedia with open source software. It fails, software additions are required to work properly together with the existing code, additions at Wikipedia do not, in fact, a total rewrite is nothing less than deleting the source code and start anew. I have added to open source software and expert control is firmly in place in those projects.
Expert review of Wikipedia content is already possible.
Possible yes, is it done?
It doesn't even have to be done on Wikipedia - links to good versions of articles would suffice, as the URL of a given revision is unchanging.
Sure, the difference, Citizendium provides that good version to its readers, Wikipedia provides the latest vandalized version. Another difference, at Citizendium, this would be an expert approved version, at Wikipedia an admin approved? Or is the idea to get experts to do that job? If so, in what way is that different from what Citizendium wants to do?
Kim