[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
>> which wasn't going anywhere.
>>     
>
> Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is
> (in theory) anyone writing articles and experts resolving disputes and
> approving articles. That is a very different model.
>
>   
Different, not "very different".

Anyway wikis of a certain size and achievement (done some useful writing 
but not going to set the world on fire) tend, I guess, to have features 
in common because of the type and scale of the communities involved. It 
seems that "social structure" = "the rut we're in" is about right for 
these communities, including Citizendium.

I don't think the English Wikipedia is immune from the "rut", but we are 
the ones with the "very different" model. I think what Phil Sandifer was 
saying is not correct, but that is because I would argue that utility of 
a piece of hypertext shouldn't be measured as if the hyperlinks don't 
matter (we saw this when the big rush on [[Michael Jackson]] caused all 
that traffic to [[vitiligo]]): surf's up. And I would also argue that 
the policy and community superstructure is useful (though not all of it, 
and not all uniformly useful, of course).

Charles