CZ:Why Citizendium?

"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?"

There is a better way for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has millions of articles, it is ranked #6 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 think that Citizendium, can do better.

We can do better

Wikipedia is full of serious problems.

Wikipedia has 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. The community takes its dictum, "Ignore All Rules," seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule.

But even if you disagree with much of this indictment, you might still agree that we can do better.

Real names are better

The Citizendium has virtually no vandalism and very little abuse of any kind.

By requiring real names, we give both our articles and our community a real-world credibility: if you look at our recent changes page, you will see nothing but real names. 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. Citizendium has virtually no vandalism and very little abuse of any kind.

A community that asks its members to use their real names should be 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 Citizendiumpolicy.

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.

A project devoted to knowledge ought to give special inducements to people who make it their life's work to know things.

But we believe that it is merely good sense to make a special role for experts. We believe that a project gently guided by experts will in time be more credible, and of higher quality. 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.

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.

Sensible governance is better

The Citizendium features the rule of law, not anarchy and not mob rule.

New Citizendium members, called "Citizens," must agree to our Statement of Fundamental Policies. Moreover, we have a group of "constables" who rein in bad behavior on the wiki. We moderate comments on the wiki in much the same way mailing lists and forums are moderated. If a Citizen is abusive, his comment is removed; if he shows a pattern of abuse, he is removed. Since we use real names, it is difficult for such abusive people to return under another name, reducing the administrative burden of so-called "sockpuppets".

The Citizendium has a CZ:Charter which codifies how the site is administered.

Some personal motivations to support the Citizendium

In time, the article you contribute to will be approved by an expert editor, and so represented to the world as containing a credible, reliable introduction to your topic.

It's rewarding to share your knowledge with the world. Your contributions to the Citizendium are less likely to be degraded by poor edits later on: others will move your contributions forward, not backward. In time, the article you contribute to will be approved by an expert editor, and so represented to the world as containing a credible, reliable introduction to your topic. And all for free.

Furthermore, academics and other experts can submit what we call "Signed Articles," presenting their own personal, but hopefully objective take on an aspect of an article already in the Citizendium. We add "Signed Articles" to a "subpage" of the main article—one of many different types of subpages a main article has. Those Signed Articles may be subject to reformatting and comments by Citizendium editors in the appropriate topic area, and to their approval for inclusion in the Citizendium, but remain the views and ideas of the submitter of the signed article.

See also: Myths and Facts, Why I contribute to CZ