[WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

[doc]

Depends on the people.

Wikipedia is full of people who like participating in an online 
community, and respect within that community is then a motivation. 
However, Wikipedia is notoriously bad at attracting expects, and even 
the experts we have tend to run away from their specialist areas.

Imagine a project where someone wrote the article on Quantum Physics, 
The Beetles, or the Latin declensions, not primarily because they cared 
about kudos in the virtual community but because they were experts in 
their field, cared about it, and liked the writing an article and having 
their name associated with it. Imagine a project where a doctoral 
student who usually writes research papers was attracted to write an 
general article in their field and add it to their publications resume, 
knowing that other knowledgeable people in the field would offer 
feedback and assessment.

Wikipedia does well at attracting and retaining the type of people it 
has, doing their things they do - and that produces the product you get. 
  A different model, based on a different motivational psychology, would 
yield different results.

I think the problem for the Wikipedia vs Citizendium debate is that it 
too much assumes that the Citizendium model succeeds only if it manages 
eventually to duplicate all that is good about Wikipedia, whilst 
improving on some of the downsides. Indeed, I think Sanger made this 
mistake from the outset - seen in his initial ambition to use the whole 
Wikipedia database. You can go for an authoritative, reliable, 
encyclopedia, written by experts, or you can go for size and wide scope. 
You can't square the circle. Complaining that the ordinary web user 
can't easily edit CZ, misses the point that you don't want them too. 
Elitist encyclopaedias are written by elites. (Although I think they've 
pretty much failed in attracting that elite group.)

If at any time Otherpedia.org succeeds, you will not be able to compare 
it with wikipedia. It will be apples to the WMF oranges. I, for myself, 
I don't think it it will be a wiki at all.




David Goodman wrote:
> Very few people manage to acheive in their lives either fame in the
> world as a whole, or  much money. What motivates people is the extent
> to which  they can become a respected (or, if you will, famous) member
> of whatever their own circles are, at work and outside it. Both
> Wikipedia and Citizendium are large enough to offer this.  To a
> certain extent its easier in a smaller community, but a large one
> offers more sub-groups. Large communities typically form as many
> subgroups as necessary to provide all the people after a period
> awaiting acceptance with an opportunity for this. Primates typically
> want to become alpha in their own band, not king of the jungle.
> 
> The next step in self-respect is knowing that one's community has a
> role of some significance in wider circles--that one's band will come
> out ahead in conflicts with other such bands. Typically, the actual
> alpha primate in a band doesn't have much direct function here--it
> depends on the younger ones.  This at present is why people come to
> Wikipedia: whatever small role one has with it will be seen much more
> widely.
> 
> 
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> .
>> There are two things which motivate people - fame and money. Wikipedia
>> offers neither. It is not impossible that a formula could emerge that
>> allows revenue to the writer or the writer to get the type of kudos that
>> is bankable on a CV. Knowl and CZ have both realised this - but neither
>> seems to have got the formula right. (If, indeed, it is possible to.)
>