[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 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).

You are aware that Nupedia wasn't a wiki, right?