[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

[Marc Riddell]

>> But this  website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
>> academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
>> 
>> Marc

on 4/23/10 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
> 
> There was certainly a lot of misunderstanding. You can go back to the
> early history of the article "reality" a little article I created March
> 11, 2002:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality&oldid=27840
> 
> At a certain point Larry will chime in...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality&diff=356398&oldid=356321
> 
> His comment is typical of him in arrogant mode, "Start on an actual
> article on this subject, with further explanation as to why the former
> article didn't really concern the topic" as he removes all prior content
> and substitutes his view.
> 
> You see, what he taught sophomores in his Intro to Philosophy class
> trumps all other content. Note the complete absence of any reference.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality&oldid=356398
> 
> At least the intro to the current article is not bad. Not an easy
> subject, but certainly one that concerns material outside the discipline
> of philosophy. Not long after this he wanted to ban me, but Jimbo vetoed
> him.
> 
Thank you for this, Fred, it certainly appears to have been an uneasy
beginning. My comments are based mostly on the present. I am in regular
weekly contact with several key academic research groups throughout the
world. This involves many hundreds of individual scholars (academics, if you
will) in a variety of disciplines. Without fail, anytime the subject of
Wikipedia comes up, there is an overwhelmingly negative feeling about it.
Many have stories about their contributions being edited, scrutinized, and
finally deleted by persons who haven't the faintest knowledge of the
subject. When they protest, they are told of the "proper channels" they are
required to take: circles within circles. And, if that isn't enough, what
serious scholar is going to take the time to contribute to a Article in
their field when one minute later a totally anonymous, unaccountable
someone, can come along and vandalize it? These are just a few of the
comments I have heard over time. Much needs done before the Wikipedia
Project can be both popular and authoritative.

Believe it or not, I do see and value the potential of the Wikipedia
Project. But to be continually touting its positives without taking a look
at and dealing with its problems is a recipe for disaster.

Marc