Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
93 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Chet Hoover
Here's why Citizendium is far better:

* It's more open... everyone's identities are known, there are no sockpuppets, there is none of the absurd overhead that anonymity entails.

* It's more serious... vital articles come first... Pokemon comes last. Only in many years from now will we begin to see trivial articles surface: obscure films, unknown actors & etc.

*This seriousness attracts Academics. Citizendium's slow growth is actually an incentive to serious-minded writers. It means the place is clear of the nutters and fans that Wikipedia has.

*The place is in the hands of "writers" and not an army of "1600 administrators". Can you imagine writing for Wikipedia as an expert and knowing that your bosses are in high school, maybe university, and only occasionally over 35 years old?

*Because real identities are used, less rules and guideline creep exists. It's more about the material.

*All the computer guys are at Wikipedia because they like the technical aspects of Wikipedia where you have to master a lingo and comply with MOS (don't ask!). These guys see everything in terms of percents anyhow, and don't have the kind of discerning mind that understands concepts and themes & etc. With them out of the way, you get a healthier bunch of writers who show up at Citizendium.

*Citizendium's difficult entrance exam is not really all that difficult. It's a sure-fire way of keeping out those who are not prepared to edit an encyclopedia  and frankly, I love that!

Citizendium can just hang on, and stick around, because it's far less about its success over Wikipedia than it is about an environment in which serious-minded people with the werewithal can write about important subjects.

Chet



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
2009/4/21 Chet Hoover <[hidden email]>:

> *This seriousness attracts Academics. Citizendium's slow growth is actually an incentive to serious-minded writers. It means the place is clear of the nutters and fans that Wikipedia has.


I suspect this is only because it's in its early days. Keep in mind:
when Clay Shirky wrote "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", he used
Wikipedia as an example of somewhere that had *avoided* these
problems.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

As of 2009, Wikipedia looks like it's hit its head on every step on
the way down.

Larry's clearly read this essay. But remember: a group being its own
worst enemy is something every group complacently sleepwalks into.


> *Because real identities are used, less rules and guideline creep exists. It's more about the material.


It's not clear those have anything to do with each other. Instruction
creep is a problem in all organisations. See above re: complacency.


> *All the computer guys are at Wikipedia because they like the technical aspects of Wikipedia where you have to master a lingo and comply with MOS (don't ask!). These guys see everything in terms of percents anyhow, and don't have the kind of discerning mind that understands concepts and themes & etc. With them out of the way, you get a healthier bunch of writers who show up at Citizendium.


Thus resulting in spectacular successes like the Homeopathy article. *cough*


> Citizendium can just hang on, and stick around, because it's far less about its success over Wikipedia than it is about an environment in which serious-minded people with the werewithal can write about important subjects.


Citizendium sticking around would be much better than it not, and most
of the people involved are less bitter than Larry.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Chet Hoover
2009/4/21 Chet Hoover <[hidden email]>:
> Here's why Citizendium is far better:
>
> * It's more open... everyone's identities are known, there are no sockpuppets, there is none of the absurd overhead that anonymity entails.

The identities aren't generally verified, the only requirement is that
you use a name which is plausibly a real one. It doesn't have to be
your real name.

> * It's more serious... vital articles come first... Pokemon comes last. Only in many years from now will we begin to see trivial articles surface: obscure films, unknown actors & etc.

Um... http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pokemon

> *This seriousness attracts Academics. Citizendium's slow growth is actually an incentive to serious-minded writers. It means the place is clear of the nutters and fans that Wikipedia has.

It's an incentive to writers, maybe, but not to readers. Nobody reads
Citizendium articles because there aren't enough of them to be worth
the trip. The articles may, in some cases, be better than the
corresponding Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia is good enough and you
know before you start that the article will exist. With Citizendium,
chances are it doesn't. That's not really Citizendium's fault, any
competitor to Wikipedia is going to face the same problem - Wikipedia
got there first.

> *The place is in the hands of "writers" and not an army of "1600 administrators". Can you imagine writing for Wikipedia as an expert and knowing that your bosses are in high school, maybe university, and only occasionally over 35 years old?

That statement just shows a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia
admins do - the are janitors, not bosses.

> *Because real identities are used, less rules and guideline creep exists. It's more about the material.

The premise is false (see first response) and the conclusion doesn't
even follow from it.

> *All the computer guys are at Wikipedia because they like the technical aspects of Wikipedia where you have to master a lingo and comply with MOS (don't ask!). These guys see everything in terms of percents anyhow, and don't have the kind of discerning mind that understands concepts and themes & etc. With them out of the way, you get a healthier bunch of writers who show up at Citizendium.

That may be true, but Wikipedia is so much bigger than Citizendium
that we still have far more good writers, even if the proportion of
good writers is less.

> *Citizendium's difficult entrance exam is not really all that difficult. It's a sure-fire way of keeping out those who are not prepared to edit an encyclopedia  and frankly, I love that!

Wikipedia finds users that just want to make a couple of minor
copyedits useful, if Citizendium feels they aren't worth the trouble,
that's just a matter of opinion. I can certainly see Citizendium's
point of view, but I don't agree with it.

> Citizendium can just hang on, and stick around, because it's far less about its success over Wikipedia than it is about an environment in which serious-minded people with the werewithal can write about important subjects.

So it's all about the writing? I would have though the important thing
was the reading. Wikipedia is all about spreading free knowledge - if
no-one reads what you write, there is no point writing it. If you
don't reach a comparable size to Wikipedia (you don't have to be
bigger, just within an order of magnitude or so) you won't attract
many readers. Without readers, you won't attract more writers (pretty
much all Wikipedians started out as readers, if Citizendium wants to
attract a significant number of writers it needs to use the same
source). Without more writers, the current writers will eventually get
bored and move on and the project will cease to exist.

I think competition is fantastic and fully encourage people to start
competitors to Wikipedia, but in my view Citizendium has failed. It
wasn't sufficiently better than Wikipedia to attract enough writers
and readers to kick off exponential growth, which is required to reach
a useful size.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> So it's all about the writing? I would have though the important thing
> was the reading. Wikipedia is all about spreading free knowledge - if
> no-one reads what you write, there is no point writing it. If you
> don't reach a comparable size to Wikipedia (you don't have to be
> bigger, just within an order of magnitude or so) you won't attract
> many readers. Without readers, you won't attract more writers (pretty
> much all Wikipedians started out as readers, if Citizendium wants to
> attract a significant number of writers it needs to use the same
> source). Without more writers, the current writers will eventually get
> bored and move on and the project will cease to exist.


Yes. This is a fallacy we see over and over: "Wikipedia would be so
much better if you did X for the writers." Whereas that doesn't serve
the readers, so is why we don't do it. So other projects come along
that will do X for the writers, and fail to gain traction. Knol is the
highest-profile failure so far - untrammeled freedom for the writers
has made it a spam repository.


> I think competition is fantastic and fully encourage people to start
> competitors to Wikipedia, but in my view Citizendium has failed. It
> wasn't sufficiently better than Wikipedia to attract enough writers
> and readers to kick off exponential growth, which is required to reach
> a useful size.


Citizendium's not dead yet!

But it'll get good in direct proportion to how much it forms its own
positive identity, rather than one based on comparing itself to
Wikipedia.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Chet Hoover
Many of these very constraints are exactly what are likely to stop
Citizendium from reaching "critical mass". Whatever that phrase means
Wikipedia has it and Citizendium does not. I think it's an interesting
question whether Wikipedia would have been successful had these influences
prevailed early on in its history (post-Nupedia).

Many people are easily discouraged by barries to participation. That doesn't
mean that the information contained inside their brains ceases to be useful
to the project, it just means you'll have to come up with ways to help them
participate in a constructive manner. These two constraints seem to be at
odds - how can we get people who have information that is useful to us, but
are perhaps a bit fickle when it comes to technology,  to contribute that
information without hurting the encyclopedia? The answer is not to weed them
out - that would be to avoid the challenge entirely. The trick is to use
that very technology to lower the barrier to participation to a level low
enough to get them hooked. On Wikipedia this means allowing them to go ahead
and submit their ideas and allow several thousand more technically minded
contributors - or other anons - to clean up and polish the contribution.

So far this technique has worked really, really well. Even fairly reasonable
independent academic reviews show that Wikipedia's content is actually not
that bad - definitely a good place to start. If we go by numbers of articles
then its true that most of the encyclopedia is low quality. But if we look
at the actual popularity of subjects we find that quality does indeed scale
with public interest. This is not very surprising since we show an edit box
to every member of the public. We expect that the articles that get looked
at more get edited more as well and that quality might scale with number of
edits. And this is true.

So we see how Wikipedia and Citizendium are different: Citizendium thinks
that fewer high quality edits made by exactly the right people is better
than many low quality edits made by anyone who wishes. In this regard its
hard for me to see a distinction between the relationships between
Nupedia/Wikipedia and Citizendium/Wikipedia. Both of these less successful
projects have gone to some length to weed out contributors, whereas
Wikipedia takes a *totally* different  approach to acceptance - everyone
except the GDs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PBAGDSWCBY

These are both projects to build an encyclopedia and despite the different
approaches that Wikipedia and Citizendium take it seems reasonable to
compare them on their successes and failures. So far Citizendium is not even
close to Wikipedia's quality despite the hullaboo made by its community. In
fact, it's not clear how it could possibly catch up given their choice of
weeding out contributors.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Chet Hoover <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here's why Citizendium is far better:
>
> * It's more open... everyone's identities are known, there are no
> sockpuppets, there is none of the absurd overhead that anonymity entails.
>
> * It's more serious... vital articles come first... Pokemon comes last.
> Only in many years from now will we begin to see trivial articles surface:
> obscure films, unknown actors & etc.
>
> *This seriousness attracts Academics. Citizendium's slow growth is actually
> an incentive to serious-minded writers. It means the place is clear of the
> nutters and fans that Wikipedia has.
>
> *The place is in the hands of "writers" and not an army of "1600
> administrators". Can you imagine writing for Wikipedia as an expert and
> knowing that your bosses are in high school, maybe university, and only
> occasionally over 35 years old?
>
> *Because real identities are used, less rules and guideline creep exists.
> It's more about the material.
>
> *All the computer guys are at Wikipedia because they like the technical
> aspects of Wikipedia where you have to master a lingo and comply with MOS
> (don't ask!). These guys see everything in terms of percents anyhow, and
> don't have the kind of discerning mind that understands concepts and themes
> & etc. With them out of the way, you get a healthier bunch of writers who
> show up at Citizendium.
>
> *Citizendium's difficult entrance exam is not really all that difficult.
> It's a sure-fire way of keeping out those who are not prepared to edit an
> encyclopedia  and frankly, I love that!
>
> Citizendium can just hang on, and stick around, because it's far less about
> its success over Wikipedia than it is about an environment in which
> serious-minded people with the werewithal can write about important
> subjects.
>
> Chet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Chet Hoover
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Chet Hoover <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

> * It's more serious... vital articles come first... Pokemon comes last. Only in many years from now will we begin to see trivial articles surface: obscure films, unknown actors & etc.

Some people *like* those articles on obscure topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_elephant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun

And Citizendium's coverage is lacking in vital areas.

I tried to look up Macedonia, but no article.

One sentence article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Mongolia

One paragraph article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Greece

No articles on Chad, Bolivia, Malawi. I stopped looking.

I also couldn't find a list of countries needing articles.

OK, turns out I didn't look hard enough. It is there if you look:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Geography_Workgroup

Though not all the missing countries are listed there.

That kind of organisation is stuff that Wikipedia did (and does) well,
and which needed those willing to make lists and do lots of heavy
lifting, and writing of stubs, rather than writing really good
articles. That is why you will always need more than just writers. You
need a wide variety of people working on an online editable
encyclopedia if it is going to really work and scale, which leads on
to your other points, which I snipped. But others have addressed
those.

To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article
for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question
for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries
with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a
study of how the articles have increased in size since creation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

If you look at the bottom of this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

Even the smallest countries and territories have impressively-sized
Wikipedia articles.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/4/21 Chet Hoover <[hidden email]>:
> > Citizendium can just hang on, and stick around, because it's far less
> about its success over Wikipedia than it is about an environment in which
> serious-minded people with the werewithal can write about important
> subjects.
>
> So it's all about the writing? I would have though the important thing
> was the reading. Wikipedia is all about spreading free knowledge - if
> no-one reads what you write, there is no point writing it.


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes. This is a fallacy we see over and over: "Wikipedia would be so
> much better if you did X for the writers." Whereas that doesn't serve
> the readers, so is why we don't do it.

"If no one reads what you write, there is no point writing it."  Is that
something most Wikipedians would agree with?  There really ought to be a
Wikiversity course on this stuff.  I think it's essential reading for anyone
who wants to be a Wikipedian.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Doc glasgow
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> Yes. This is a fallacy we see over and over: "Wikipedia would be so
> much better if you did X for the writers." Whereas that doesn't serve
> the readers, so is why we don't do it. So other projects come along
> that will do X for the writers, and fail to gain traction. Knol is the
> highest-profile failure so far - untrammeled freedom for the writers
> has made it a spam repository.
>
>
> - d.
>

Ultimately, I think this is true. Almost....

Wikipedia has cornered the market in "huge coverage, but somewhat
questionable reliability" online encyclopedias. Whilst it is true that
Wikipedia could be improved on and a Wikipedia+ system devised, it will
fail. Just as surely as any new operating system will fail if it tries
to sell itself as "Windows but a bit better". The saturation of the
established product will squash it. This is also why content forking is
quite useless. The only hope for An Other is to offer an entirely
different formula from "huge coverage, but somewhat questionable
reliability". (If you up the reliability by selecting your writers, then
your coverage will be proportionately decreased anyway.)

You would need to be able to offer a product which was *substantially*
more reliable, but still wide and participatory enough not just to be
another Veropedia. If you could do that, comparisons with wikipedia
would be pointless - the point would be that people looking for
reliable, citable, material on any core subject would use that
encyclopedia in preference to/or alongside Wikipedia. That Wikipedia had
100 times more articles would be beside the point.

(It is interesting to consider what would happen if Encarta had been
made available and maintained free to use by Microsoft - perhaps ad
funded - it might well have taken the business from Wikipedia on many
core topics.)

I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up
than the "writer question". Readers will not be interested until you
have enough writers to produce the goods, and do so in a reliable way.
So you really need to find a motivation to make qualified people want to
contribute (or Wikipedia's best to switch). Ultimately, having a lot of
readers will do that, but any start up needs initially to offer
something else to the writer.

There are two things which motivate people - fame and money. Wikipedia
offers neither. It is not impossible that a formula could emerge that
allows revenue to the writer or the writer to get the type of kudos that
is bankable on a CV. Knowl and CZ have both realised this - but neither
seems to have got the formula right. (If, indeed, it is possible to.)

The Other does not need to think in terms of replacing Wikipedia - or
scoring more Goggle juice. Success is where someone looking for a source
they can quote in their school essay says "better try Otherpedia.com".

Indeed would it not be great if in ten years time I can google a
subject, easily find the wikipedia article, and then, if the subject is
not so obscure that only Wikipedia will cover it, follow the link to the
academically respectable Otherpedia.com article (which, indeed, is
reliable enough to have been allowed as a source for Wikipedia)!

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
2009/4/22 doc <[hidden email]>:
> I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up
> than the "writer question".

I don't think the two questions can be separated. Without the feedback
between the two (readers becoming writers) you'll never get
exponential growth and without that you'll never reach a size where
you are useful.

I completely agree with you than new Wikipedia-like projects need to
be substantially different to Wikipedia if they are going to get
anywhere. However, achieving significant growth will still be a
requirement for any such project. You mention a project 1/100 the size
of Wikipedia. Citizendium is currently 1/250 the size of the English
Wikipedia and at its current growth rate it won't reach 1/100 the size
for another 3 years or so - I don't think the project will last that
long unless there are major changes. People will just get bored and
leave. At its current size, even if Citizendium was significantly more
reliable than Wikipedia, it still wouldn't be useful.

As for your "otherpedia" - I would like to think we can achieve
something like that within Wikipedia. An enhanced version of Featured
Articles, making use of FlaggedRevs and verified experts, could
achieve the same goals are your "otherpedia".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
2009/4/22 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>

> And Citizendium's coverage is lacking in vital areas.
>
> I tried to look up Macedonia, but no article.
>
> One sentence article:
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Mongolia
>
> One paragraph article:
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Greece
>
> No articles on Chad, Bolivia, Malawi. I stopped looking.
>
>
Oh boy. And Belgium is plain *wrong*. I applied for an author account just
to be able to change the most egregious nonsense.

Michel
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/4/22 doc <[hidden email]>:
> > I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up
> > than the "writer question".
>
> I don't think the two questions can be separated. Without the feedback
> between the two (readers becoming writers) you'll never get
> exponential growth and without that you'll never reach a size where
> you are useful.
>

What is the minimum size a project must be in order to be "useful"?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Chet Hoover
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Well, then I hope they tighten up the identity checks but with respect
to an individual's privacy, of course. This is what makes the
environment interesting, that everyone's using real names.

As a reader I just don't like reading what the anonymites of the world
have to say anymore. I'd like to know what serious people have to say
about certain subjects. Who would edit the article about "cyberspace"
and what would they write?

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cyberspace

Whenever someone has something to say, and wants their name to be attached to it, they can go to Citizendium.

Chet



________________________________
From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:46:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

2009/4/21 Chet Hoover <[hidden email]>:
> Here's why Citizendium is far better:
>
> * It's more open... everyone's identities are known, there are no sockpuppets, there is none of the absurd overhead that anonymity entails.

The identities aren't generally verified, the only requirement is that
you use a name which is plausibly a real one. It doesn't have to be
your real name.

----


     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
2009/4/22 Anthony <[hidden email]>:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/22 doc <[hidden email]>:
>> > I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up
>> > than the "writer question".
>>
>> I don't think the two questions can be separated. Without the feedback
>> between the two (readers becoming writers) you'll never get
>> exponential growth and without that you'll never reach a size where
>> you are useful.
>
> What is the minimum size a project must be in order to be "useful"?

I don't know. It depends on the intended breadth of the project, for a
start. A general encyclopaedia needs to be bigger than a specialist
one. A Wikipedia-like project becomes useful when you can be
reasonably confident that it will have the information you seek (if
that information is within its intended bounds). If you can't be
reasonably confident of that then you would probably go somewhere else
for the information. People may find useful information on a smaller
project via search engines, but few people will go directly to the
project as their first port of call, as people often do with Wikipedia
(although a very large proportion of our readers still come from
search engines).

Perhaps "useful" is too strong a term, "useful enough to rival
Wikipedia" would be better. Doc said, 'Success is where someone
looking for a source they can quote in their school essay says "better
try Otherpedia.com".' That will never happen until that someone can be
reasonable confident that they will find what they need on
Otherpedia.com.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> I don't know. It depends on the intended breadth of the project, for a
> start. A general encyclopaedia needs to be bigger than a specialist
> one.


I like that Wikipedia has led to a proliferation of specialist
wiki-based encyclopedias. In most cases the key difference is allowing
original research.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Perhaps "useful" is too strong a term, "useful enough to rival
> Wikipedia" would be better.


I think so.  If you set your standards of success in terms of Wikipedia,
there's simply no competition. Wikipedia has achieved an unrivaled success
in terms of the standards it has set to measure success.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article
> for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question
> for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries
> with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a
> study of how the articles have increased in size since creation):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/countries

A list generated from that page -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty
good.  The change in size is rather more difficult to study ;-)

Sam

--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Bill Carter
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Maaaayybe NPOV could work with specialist wiki-based encyclopedias. But with Wikipedia, NPOV is only good so long as an article is popular or not controversial.

With Citizendium, it remains to be seen.




________________________________
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:24:26 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> I don't know. It depends on the intended breadth of the project, for a
> start. A general encyclopaedia needs to be bigger than a specialist
> one.


I like that Wikipedia has led to a proliferation of specialist
wiki-based encyclopedias. In most cases the key difference is allowing
original research.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article
>> for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question
>> for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries
>> with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a
>> study of how the articles have increased in size since creation):
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/countries
>
> A list generated from that page -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty
> good.  The change in size is rather more difficult to study ;-)

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%85land_Islands&oldid=726060

Aland Islands is actually March 2003 - problem with redirects there.

So it looks like all that low-hanging fruit went by 2002, with the
outliers by 2004. A bit slower than I'd thought, really. Though
Denmark is earlier than the date on your list.

Not sure what is going on there.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Sam Korn
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article
>>> for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question
>>> for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries
>>> with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a
>>> study of how the articles have increased in size since creation):
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states
>>
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/countries
>>
>> A list generated from that page -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty
>> good.  The change in size is rather more difficult to study ;-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%85land_Islands&oldid=726060
>
> Aland Islands is actually March 2003 - problem with redirects there.
>
> So it looks like all that low-hanging fruit went by 2002, with the
> outliers by 2004. A bit slower than I'd thought, really. Though
> Denmark is earlier than the date on your list.
>
> Not sure what is going on there.

I went by the links on that page, and didn't check each one!  I think
the main problem is cut&paste moves or suchlike.

But yes, the overall picture is "most countries had articles by 2002",
so within two years of the beginning.

Sam

--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
2009/4/22 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:
> So it looks like all that low-hanging fruit went by 2002, with the
> outliers by 2004.

Some of those outliers aren't universally recognised countries.
Transnistria, South Ossetia, etc. Some are regions of other countries
with varying levels of autonomy. Udmurtia, Mordovia, etc. The most
recently created article which is about something I recognise as a
widely recognised country (I have never committed the list of
countries to memory, so I may have missed one!) is Kenya, created in
February 2003.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345