CZ:Why should experts join CZ?: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(Update intro to reflect current status, tweak text)
imported>Gareth Leng
(Trimmed, but candidate for deletion?)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''This page under construction: enter at your own risk!'''
Folks, we need a page that addresses this question.
Here is a first pass at a list of concerns and questions that might come under this rubric, along with draft answers to them; feel free to add extra questions, or improve the answers.
* Why community service of this sort; creating a free, online, encyclopaedia?
* Why community service of this sort; creating a free, online, encyclopaedia?
** Many experts (especially academic experts) have as one of their primary roles the dispersal of their knowledge. Citizendium is a way to do this, and reach a world-wide audience.
** Many experts (especially academic experts) have as one of their primary roles the dispersal of their knowledge. Citizendium is a way to do this, and reach a world-wide audience.


* Wikipedia has taken over the world.  If I want to work on a wiki that has a real-world impact, shouldn't I be working there?
* Wikipedia has taken over the world.  If I want to work on an online encyclopaedia that has a real-world impact, shouldn't I be working there?
** Wikipedia has many critics, who have a number of complaints with a great deal of validity to them: you can't ''trust'' the contents of articles there (although most are usually fine); the articles often aren't well written (quick, un-considered 'drive-by' editing often degrades an article, rather than improving it); articles on contentious topics are always in a state of siege; etc. Don't get us wrong, Wikipedia was a fantastic 'first try' in the creation of a free online encyclopaedia; but it has major problems, problems that are probqably too fundamental to the very nature of the Wikipedia community to be able to fix them. Citizendium is based on the Wikipedia experience, and tries to correct as many of the problems experience has revealed there as we can. Citizendium is not very big at the moment, but it has exactly the same feel that Wikipedia did in its early days (and there are a number of long-time Wikipedians here, who recognize the atmosphere) - it's an idea whose time has come.
** Wikipedia has many critics, who have a number of complaints with a great deal of validity to them: you can't ''trust'' the contents of articles there (although most are usually fine); the articles often aren't well written (quick, un-considered 'drive-by' editing often degrades an article, rather than improving it); articles on contentious topics are always in a state of siege; etc. Don't get us wrong, Wikipedia was a fantastic 'first try' in the creation of a free online encyclopaedia; but it has major problems, problems that are probably too fundamental to the very nature of the Wikipedia community to be able to fix them. Citizendium is based on the Wikipedia experience, and tries to correct as many of the problems experience has revealed there as we can. Besides, once you have written content here, it can easily be copied to Wikipedia, if anyone wants to.  
 
* Can I get any academic credit for my work here?  How?
** We are currently in the final stages of discussing a number of different proposals to allow people to be credited for the content they create (or help create) on Citizendium. We expect to have an initial policy out soon, which will allow all the significant authors of content in an article to be listed.
 
* As an expert, why should I work here, rather than Wikipedia, which is much better known?
** For one, you will be able to get academic credit for your work here (see above). For another, we expect many experts will find Citizendium a more congenial place to work; in addition to the reasons (listed below) as to why Citizendium is better for experts, also you will find that our 'real names' policy seems to produce more pleasant and professional interaction among our contributors.


* Why is Citizendium better for experts, anyway?
* Why is Citizendium better for experts?
** Experts often find Wikipedia a less than welcoming environment, for a variety of reasons, among them the extreme egalitarianism. Again, despite years of people pointing out the scale of the problem, and how much Wikipedia loses because of this, the problem hasn't been fixed, because doing so would likely be too major a change to the very nature of the Wikipedia community. While Citizendium enthusiastically welcomes everyone (and, in fact, a number of our major contributors are in fact technically 'amateurs' at some of the fields in which they contribute here), we ''all'' understand that experts ''do'' usually know more - and should be listened to carefully.
** Experts often find Wikipedia a less than welcoming environment, for a variety of reasons, among them the extreme egalitarianism. While Citizendium enthusiastically welcomes everyone (and, in fact, a number of our major contributors are in fact technically 'amateurs' at some of the fields in which they contribute here), we ''all'' understand that experts ''do'' usually know more - and should be listened to carefully.


{{Editor Policy}}
{{Editor Policy}}

Latest revision as of 12:14, 9 December 2010

  • Why community service of this sort; creating a free, online, encyclopaedia?
    • Many experts (especially academic experts) have as one of their primary roles the dispersal of their knowledge. Citizendium is a way to do this, and reach a world-wide audience.
  • Wikipedia has taken over the world. If I want to work on an online encyclopaedia that has a real-world impact, shouldn't I be working there?
    • Wikipedia has many critics, who have a number of complaints with a great deal of validity to them: you can't trust the contents of articles there (although most are usually fine); the articles often aren't well written (quick, un-considered 'drive-by' editing often degrades an article, rather than improving it); articles on contentious topics are always in a state of siege; etc. Don't get us wrong, Wikipedia was a fantastic 'first try' in the creation of a free online encyclopaedia; but it has major problems, problems that are probably too fundamental to the very nature of the Wikipedia community to be able to fix them. Citizendium is based on the Wikipedia experience, and tries to correct as many of the problems experience has revealed there as we can. Besides, once you have written content here, it can easily be copied to Wikipedia, if anyone wants to.
  • Why is Citizendium better for experts?
    • Experts often find Wikipedia a less than welcoming environment, for a variety of reasons, among them the extreme egalitarianism. While Citizendium enthusiastically welcomes everyone (and, in fact, a number of our major contributors are in fact technically 'amateurs' at some of the fields in which they contribute here), we all understand that experts do usually know more - and should be listened to carefully.


Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Why_should_experts_join_CZ%3F&oldid=436823"