David Gerard wrote:
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
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?
That last one is something de: is presently trying to address. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010045.html for current status.
Interesting. Lets see:
1. Unvandalized versions. Default at Citizendium, requires already considerable work at Wikipedia. Special flag, criteria when something is vandalized etc. But it would be a major step forward.
2. Reviewed versions. Ok, several options as by whom:
a) Regular editors: how are they going to check for quality and accuracy? b) In house experts: credential discussion seems to be going in already. If the credential requirements would be roughly equivalent to Citizendium, what is the difference? And I see already the same arguments as against Citizendium: "Argh, experts are going to determine what gets approved... No way..." "This leads to two classes of editors...."
c) Outside reviewers: LOTS of work!!!!
So, what I see here proposed is either doing the same as Citizendium but with more effort, as it is either more work (Citizendium will have the expertise in house by design), or of lower standard (just not vandalized, but with development of specific criteria etc.).
But the main question, in what way would the preferred option (2b) differ from Citizendium, except that the current community structure at Wikipedia is way less inviting for those needed experts to join and the massive community resistance that can be expected against such a change?
Kim