[WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

[David Goodman]

Competent writing, enforced by actual editors, volunteer or otherwise.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/22 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps "useful" is too strong a term, "useful enough to rival
>>> Wikipedia" would be better.
>
>> I think so.  If you set your standards of success in terms of Wikipedia,
>> there's simply no competition. Wikipedia has achieved an unrivaled success
>> in terms of the standards it has set to measure success.
>
>
> Yep. If you set your standards of success in terms of Britannica,
> Wikipedia is not quite there yet. But the point is that this doesn't
> matter in practice - it turns out that Wikipedia is more useful
> because people use it in practice at their desks every day, rather
> than admiring the impressive shelf of books they remember from high
> school.
>
> Britannica was already suffering from Encarta (which was invented as
> demoware for the existence of CD-ROM drives) and the Internet -
> Wikipedia was the Internet having the temerity to use the word
> "encyclopedia."
>
> So whatever out-innovates Wikipedia from below will succeed in some
> way we haven't thought of yet. What Wikipedia rules are there we could
> try breaking?
>
> * NPOV (I don't think so, lots have tried this)
> * Notability (possibly - our breadth is our key asset, and overapplied
> "notability" rules trash this)
> * NOR (maybe - note that not every Wikipedia has this rule)
> * Expert privilege (Citizendium is trying this, we'll see how it goes)
>
> What others are there?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>