CZ Talk:Why Citizendium?

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)

New version

"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?"

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.

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."

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?

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 "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 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.