David Gerard wrote:
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde
<kim(a)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
--
http://www.kimvdlinde.com