[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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

I think this varies widely across the project.  There are small areas
which aren't at all friendly to academics or experts, and other areas
which are dominated by experts including leaders in the field.

The areas which aren't friendly to them are a real problem, one which
I don't want to minimize, but there are other areas which are glowing
successes or at least tolerable situations.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com