CZ Talk:Why Citizendium?: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
(→‎New version: gotta get our Editor-in-Chief to use emdashes, although it's sure a pain to bother to insert them. He's smart: he waits for someone else to do it....)
imported>Russell D. Jones
(another comment)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
I don't think this version of the article really argues the case forcefully enough.  So I'm making a new version, below. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)
I don't think this version of the article really argues the case forcefully enough.  So I'm making a new version, below. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)


= New version =
:Is there a reason why this article uses a different font size than the rest of CZ?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


"What is the point of the ''Citizendium,''" you might ask, "when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality? Is there really a need for it?"
A lot of the "why cz" page is a kind of put down of wikipedia (wp).  This seems kind of negative.  Is there a more positive way to present the case?  For example, "Using real names means that real people are attached to the entries, you can ask them questions if you like, get responses from a real person.  It also means that someone cares enough about the topic to invest themselves and let others know who they really are." Thanks.  [[User:Gene Shackman|Gene Shackman]] 14:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with this sentiment.  It's high time that CZ advance itself on its own merits instead of as a reflection of WP. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


The point can be summed up forcefully: there is ''a better way'' for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia.  If we can do better than Wikipedia—or more positively, if we can pioneer a more effective way to gather knowledge—then we should.
==Vandalism==
 
I figure the '''real''' issue with anonymous contributions is not vandalism on Wikipedia. The time from vandalism, discovery and revert is diminishing. The real problem is that some contributors concoct so called ''Original Research'' (WP:OR) and ''Undue Syntheses'' (WP:SYNTH) that very much look like true. Some articles there are worse than no article at all. [[User:Tomas Kindahl|Tomas Kindahl]] 15:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to this, a critic might argue: but you can't do better than Wikipedia.  It has millions of articles, it is ranked #8 in traffic, it has thousands of very active contributors, and ''Nature'' did a report saying the accuracy of its science articles was not far below that of ''Encyclopedia Britannica.'' As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
:Without them having a system of locking down articles after some sort of expert appraisal and sign-off, they're *always* going to have this problem. And obscure articles in which a vandal has come in and made a tiny little edit that purposely inserts a wrong fact, or a negating word, or some such, which then passes unnoticed. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::There is, I believe, a current acceptance of ''controlled'' original synthesis here, and the Charter draft does establish that a future Editorial Council could establish policies  for original research. No one is thinking, however, of these being done in other than a well-managed way. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
But to make our case, we don't have to say that Wikipedia is broken. While different Citizens have different views about Wikipedia's merits, we agree on one thing: we, humanity, can do better.  But why think that the ''Citizendium,'' in particular, can do better?
:::Your point about vandalism is quite true.  And the solution to WP's pushers of "undue synthesis" is, as Howard suggests, "a well-managed" and "controlled" system of research and writing.  My concern is that too much emphasis on "management" and an over-zealousness for "control" will make CZ like Fordist modes of production: well-engineered but debilitating to the human spirit. Fordist production overcame this debilitation through high wages. However, for CZ, as well as for WP and other collaborative knowledge projects, few people will want to subject themselves to that sort of engineered control for free.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 
== Why think the ''Citizendium'' can "catch up"? ==
The ''Citizendium'' actually added about five million words in its first year--more than Wikipedia did in its first year.  Our rate of article creation and average number of edits per day have increased--in other words, our growth has been accelerating.  Moreover, we have many very active Citizens, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and now Editor-in-Chief of the ''Citizendium,'' who are on making many improvements daily.  It is only a matter of time before the ''Citizendium'' system is fully "tuned up" and out of beta status.  Sanger believes that we might well enjoy explosive growth in 2008, and is working very hard to make it happen. Even if we merely continue to triple our rate of growth every year, we will have millions of articles ourselves after some more years.
 
In other words, we look to the long term--just as Wikipedia's founders did in its first years.  And the long-term outlook is positive indeed.  In five to ten years, we can expect similar growth, similar numbers of active contributors, and a similar traffic ranking.  So we need not worry that Wikipedia will "always be larger."
 
== We can do better ==
We do not think that Wikipedia is "good enough."  We think humanity can do better: Wikipedia is full of serious problems.  Many of the articles are written amateurishly.  Too often they are mere disconnected grab-bags of factoids, not made coherent by any sort of narrative.  In some fields and some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles.  Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache--made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution.  Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles.  Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acts as a law unto himself, not subject to a written constitution, with no official position, but wielding considerable authority in the community.  Wales and other Wikipedia leaders have either been directly involved in, or have not adequately responded to, a whole string of very public scandals. The community takes its dictum, "Ignore All Rules," seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule.  The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands--not necessarily the most knowledgable--and who manipulate Wikipedia's eminently gameable system.
 
Even if you disagree with much of this indictment, you might well agree that we can do better.
 
=== Real names are better ===
By requiring real names, we give both our articles and our community a kind of real-world credibility that Wikipedia's articles and community lack.  Real names also make it possible to enforce some modest, sensible rules, while Wikipedia's anonymity policy allows anyone who is slapped on the wrist to come back immediately under a new pseudonym.  This happens very frequently on Wikipedia.
 
To this, you might say that real names also exclude too many people, so that the ''Citizendium'' will grow too slowly.  But this is puzzling to say, considering that many thousands of people have signed up to the ''Citizendium'' under their own real names. A community that asks its members to use their real names is more pleasant, polite, and productive than one that allows abusive people to disrupt the community under the cloak of anonymity.  We believe that in time, more and more people will come to see the merits of the ''Citizendium''<!-- -->'s policy. The people driven away by Wikipedia's governance nonsense--and there are many--are much more likely to find the ''Citizendium'' mature and to their liking.
 
=== A modest role for experts is better ===
We too permit very open contribution; the general public make up the bulk of our contributors, as "[[CZ:The Author Role|authors]]."  We agree that broad-based contribution is necessary to achieve critical mass as well as the broadest spectrum of interests and knowledge.
 
But we believe that it is merely good sense to make a special role for experts within the system.  A project devoted to knowledge ought to give special inducements to people who make it their life's work to know things.  We believe--and we think our work so far bears this out--that a project gently guided by experts will in time be more credible, and of higher quality, than a project making no special role for experts.  So we allow our expert editors to approve articles (creating stable versions, with a "draft" version that can be easily edited).  Editors may also take the lead, when necessary, in articulating sensible, well-informed solutions to content disputes--disputes that sometimes go on interminably on Wikipedia.
 
To this there are a number of typical objections, all of which rest on misunderstandings of our policies.  Sometimes critics claim that our editors will inflict their personal biases on authors and our readership; but this is incorrect, as we have a neutrality policy that is, if anything, more robust than Wikipedia's.  We are often asked, "But who will choose the experts?" Our answer is: why is this a problem? The "real world" has been solving that problem for a very long time, and [[CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure|our solution]] is typical.  And sometimes people point to Wikipedia itself as evidence that no special role for experts is needed.  We disagree: the amateurish and ever-vacillating quality of Wikipedia's articles is an excellent reason to establish a system that gives a role to editors.

Latest revision as of 14:42, 25 July 2010

Here's another page that could greatly benefit from some groovy formatting...anybody? --Larry Sanger 10:16, 22 February 2008 (CST)

I don't think this version of the article really argues the case forcefully enough. So I'm making a new version, below. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Is there a reason why this article uses a different font size than the rest of CZ? Russell D. Jones 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the "why cz" page is a kind of put down of wikipedia (wp). This seems kind of negative. Is there a more positive way to present the case? For example, "Using real names means that real people are attached to the entries, you can ask them questions if you like, get responses from a real person. It also means that someone cares enough about the topic to invest themselves and let others know who they really are." Thanks. Gene Shackman 14:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. It's high time that CZ advance itself on its own merits instead of as a reflection of WP. Russell D. Jones 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I figure the real issue with anonymous contributions is not vandalism on Wikipedia. The time from vandalism, discovery and revert is diminishing. The real problem is that some contributors concoct so called Original Research (WP:OR) and Undue Syntheses (WP:SYNTH) that very much look like true. Some articles there are worse than no article at all. Tomas Kindahl 15:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Without them having a system of locking down articles after some sort of expert appraisal and sign-off, they're *always* going to have this problem. And obscure articles in which a vandal has come in and made a tiny little edit that purposely inserts a wrong fact, or a negating word, or some such, which then passes unnoticed. Hayford Peirce 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There is, I believe, a current acceptance of controlled original synthesis here, and the Charter draft does establish that a future Editorial Council could establish policies for original research. No one is thinking, however, of these being done in other than a well-managed way. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Your point about vandalism is quite true. And the solution to WP's pushers of "undue synthesis" is, as Howard suggests, "a well-managed" and "controlled" system of research and writing. My concern is that too much emphasis on "management" and an over-zealousness for "control" will make CZ like Fordist modes of production: well-engineered but debilitating to the human spirit. Fordist production overcame this debilitation through high wages. However, for CZ, as well as for WP and other collaborative knowledge projects, few people will want to subject themselves to that sort of engineered control for free. Russell D. Jones 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ_Talk:Why_Citizendium%3F&oldid=413905"