Wikipedia talk:We aren't Citizendium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Be bold!

Hello! Please be very bold in editing this essay, my only plea is that we focus on the interesting ideas and on relevant criticism. I see absolutely no need to try to convince anyone that we are better, as that's quite obvious. --Merzul 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Way to keep a neutral point of view.--Dacium 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent. And a valuable discussion to have as many (perhaps) are beginning to consider whether to commit to CZ instead of WP. If there are ways learn from Citizendium's perceived advtanges, let's do so.Shawn in Montreal 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stable versions

I think the best thing we can do is implement some kind of stable versions. I think we attempted this once, but nothing came from it. The division of powers would be help us get more stuff done, but it goes against Wikipedia's philosophy. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, stable version seems like the best idea. And perhaps something should be added about revision tagging. --Merzul 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very good, Merzul, and very well-written too. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the problem often mentioned that prevents this from happening is deciding just how to implement this -- yet I think that we are already drifting towards that goal. Take a look at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 & (admittedly outside of Wikipedia) 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection: both rely on one, specific draft of the articles in their collections. If we were to convince the people at Featured articles and Good articles to provide a link to the version of the article when they considered that it met their standards, this would move us further into that diretion. Beyond that point, I don't have any further suggestions, except personal initiative to compile lists of "preferred versions", & see if trial & error somehow provides a solution. -- llywrch 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of respect for copyright?

Certain Citizendium articles like Jesus, List of inorganic compounds, and Ciénaga, Magdalena were obviously block copied from Wikipedia without attribution. This is in violation of the GFDL. Wikipedia bans editors who refuse to respect the copyrights of others. I guess the same can't be said for Citizendium. --Born2x 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just funny - "Copyright Violation Policy" and "Libel Policy" are both redlinks over there [1]. --Born2x 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you are taking this much more seriously than I am. That's probably a good thing. --Merzul 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Theres more than just these couple ommisions, but to really see the picture look at article histories. Gnan garra 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A clarification about "autobiographical objection"

By this "autobiographical objection" I meant that it is only based on Sanger's experience on wikipedia, and that this isn't generally our attitude. I hope this isn't seen as a personal attack on Sanger, which wasn't the intention. If this needs clarifying then perhaps someone could better express it. I'm going to sleep now, again, please be very BOLD in editing this. It will be interesting to see what this essay looks like in a few days. Happy editing... :) --Merzul 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

I don't know where to put this in there ... so if someone wants to refactor this, feel free. A fundamental difference that most users will notice is is the use of real names and that your identity is confirmed before your account is created. This is going to cause problems eventually. When a notable individual or company gets annoyed at their Wikipedia article, they moan and groan a little bit But what's going to happen on CZ? They will sue the contributor. If your real name and a bio are out there, that's enough for someone who really wants to to get your phone number, home address, etc. I would love to be able to contribute in an environment without trolls and vandals ... but if the cost is having my family harassed when someone decides that details of their company's lawsuits should be left out of the article? Forget it. Using real names is a two-edged sword. CZ has no vandalism whatsoever ... but how long do you think it's going to be before someone begins harassing editors that they don't like? --Born2x 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This definitely does belong in the real names section. I'm not sure if being legally responsible is a bad thing. At least when looking at how some of our admins have to fight to keep biographies of living people compliant with policy, I sometimes wish editors who want to debunk or expose subjects were indeed legally responsible for what they write. I still agree that privacy concerns are very serious. I would worry that if the editors, who keep intelligent design at such high quality, were widely known, they might be harassed for "spreading lies" about the movement, and so on. I'm too tired to write anything sensible about this though. --Merzul 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues there. If someone posts that person XYZ murders babies, I have no qualms about that user being sued for libel. But there are plenty of times where a person or company has decided that they want any and all criticism - even accurate criticism - removed from their article. A little guy like you and me can't afford to defend ourselves in a libel lawsuit, even if we are innocent, and we don't want our families harassed just because some notable person decided that they don't want their criminal record in their article or some such thing. That's the privacy issue that concerns me. --Born2x 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm certain that if identification was required we wouldn't see many people writing on pedophilia, bdsm, and Scientology controversy for fear of some kind of being harassed. It's a two-edged sword, as you say. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, both of you... if only real content disputes were so easy :) I notice there is an NPOV tag at the top of this page now, that's funny... I will deal with the lead and then finally go to sleep. I don't like that it says "this is wikipedia's standpoint", that's too serious and will be misunderstood as an official response. --Merzul 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm going to remove the NPOV tag. This isn't an article - it doesn't have to be neutral. Most essays aren't. --Born2x 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought too. But I hope he meant the arrogant "we are obviously better" that was not neutral. I certainly hope it wasn't the "good people" which he considered a {{POV-statement}} :P --Merzul 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the arrogant part mostly. The Placebo Effect 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia using content from Citizendium

I thought I should expand on my edit summary (why is the space so limited?)
User:72.153.175.42 made an edit that suggests "The Wikipedia Biology article (at least) has unattributed content from Citizendium.", and links to a Citizendium blog entry. By the entry's own admission, the edit in question was added anonymously (it could, for example, have even been a Citizendium user trying to create a stir - it could have been anyone), but the main objection I had to the statement is simply that the diff in question doesn't exist, as it has been deleted as a copyvio, as explained in the deletion log for Biology, merely the day after the blog entry, so to suggest that the article contains Citizendium material, months afterwards, is surely incorrect. --Dreaded Walrus 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Citizendium biology article actually uses original Wikipedia content, in the etymology section. This has been there since it was started, as it was deemed the only Wikipedia content worth keeping for that article.--ragesoss 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great essay

Well done. Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IPs

I'm seeing a few edits by anonymous IPs, while some of them are genuinely constructive, I did a bulk revert, there were two separate issues:

Needless trivializations like "experts are equal to teenagers" are not appropriate here. I don't know about the culture on Citizendium, but we prefer polite discourse. This is also supposed to be Wikipedia's response, so it is not going to be too self-critical, it is after all OUR perspective on the matter being discussed.
The relevant section on Consensus versus experts I think should be discussed in the major differences section, there already is a discussion on Expert editors.

That's all. You are all welcome to edit, but keep in mind that this is primarily Wikipedia's response, not a platform for Citizendians to post criticism. --Merzul 02:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The good information incorporated into here forward is relevant and factual. Please understand the absolute TRUTH. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-league

This is an interesting discussion piece after reading I went to CZ just to see if any articles I have contributed to are there. Some things I noted theres not an article for Australia nor any of the states or territories or even any of the major cities. They do however have an article on the A-League CZ this article is interesting, these articles are nearly identical.

Now take a look at the history of the two the WP article has evolve from over 1000+ edits during the last 3 years. The CZ article was created on 12th February 2007 by <name removed> with an edit summary, "(start page (mostly from my own wording on WP))" now go and look at the edit history of our article, it was created on 20th December 2004 in the first 50 edits there was 14 different users and 9 IP (one edit reverted). Since then the article has recieved over 1000 edits with no single contributor dominating the edits.

Ignoring the editorial claims, the 4th edit to the article on the 16th February is "Protected "A-League": prevent vandalism moves" to put such a summary indicates that they do have problems with vandalism. Gnan garra 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove this isnt a once off problem try List of dog breeds CZ, found while searching for Kangaroo CZ dont have an article but this was the first result returned. Gnan garra 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted via email from the person whose name I've removed, the edit histroy of our league article does indicate that the person made some changes just prior to writing of the CZ article. Those edits IMHO do not confirm the claim of "mostly from my own wording on WP", also CZ now acknowledges that the article was source from here. Gnan garra 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium "has been organized by the same person who organized Wikipedia, Larry Sanger."

I'm quoting their words, and since I can't edit their pages, I'll just post it here. I thought Larry helped to organize Wikipedia. Xaxafrad 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hubris to claim that Wikipedia was organized by a single person. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of editors who made meaningful contributions to templates, categories, guidelines and other forms of organization. Most of that work has been done after Larry's departure from the project. >Radiant< 11:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium has some very valuable ideas Wiki should benefit from

Wiki is great. We need it. But it could be better, specifically as it relies on inexpert editors. However - most of the wiki articles aren't necessarily best off being controlled by an expert, especially concerning most of the modern cultural content in articles on such. So experts are better for efficiency with most stuff, but average joe should have at the less "field"-oriented subject kind of articles, the more modern culture stuff. The idea of a draft version helps the experts, but not average joe. see what I mean? Jyre 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Experts are just as capable of making mistakes, they have opinions. Being a botanist doesnt mean you know everything about every plant, others can and do know more. Yet CZ implies its experts are the fountains of all knowledge, how do they ensure that is the case. What is CZ selection process for its experts? What testing or quality assurance is undertaken by CZ, what processes do they have in place if an experts opinion is challenged? or What if they have an expert thats been able to falsify qualifications? Without being able to address these types of issues how could WP benefit from experts having editorial control. This doesnt even consider cultural or political bias. Gnan garra 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, CZ is to a significant extent Wikipedia2, articles lifted from here with the aim of getting an "expert" editor to validate them and provide a stable "approved" version. Which should of course meet licence conditions by acknowledgements which sadly seem to be a bit lacking at present. If they can do that in a spirit of cooperation that could benefit both 'pedias. Since their work is under GFDL it is equally available for us to copy back with acknowledgements – raising the question: is CZ a reliable source? ..... dave souza, talk 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is remarkable that Sangar knows exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia, but doesn't seem to have the vaguest clue what's right about it. I have to admit, I looked over the site and was tempted to join until I got to the Citizendium is strongly censored parts that seem to have been lifted right out of Conservapedia. The issue is, of course, why try to make a free Encarta when Encarta is already free? WilyD 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and the Citizendium

Just thought Wikipedia and the Citizendium was quite amusing:

Do you want to try to "steal" people from Wikipedia and divide the community?

That is not the aim. Wikipedia has already driven off no doubt thousands of would-be contributors, and there are thousands, if not millions, of people who never would think about contributing to Wikipedia in the first place, but who might be willing to give the Citizendium a go. We want to set up, not a replacement, but an alternative to Wikipedia, a responsible constitutional republic that makes a special place for experts and invites the general public to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them.

Shoulders to the grindstone, chaps! Nuff said, .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on family friendly

How does the following sound?

Wikipedia initially received funding from Bomis, a portal that included pictures of scantily clad women. By contrast, Citizendium receives funding through the Tides Center, an organization that also funds CAIR, some of whose members wish to impose sharia law on the USA. So yeah, Citizendium may be a bit more "family friendly".

Thanks, Andjam 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds silly. Fredrik Johansson 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds mental. I like it! 4kinnel 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! --Smokizzy 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Essays

Regarding essays, wouldn't it be a better policy that they should be editable only buy their authors? --Smokizzy 14:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can put essays on user space if one doesn't want others to edit, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. I didn't join this project to write my own essays. At least with this essay, I have quite explicitly invited everyone to edit, and I don't intend to maintain this my own POV, but we should all make sure it still reflect Wikipedia's view, i.e., it should be written from our perspective not theirs. --Merzul 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but essays are the opinions of their authors, and there have been cases were users have deliberately changed essays to reflect their opinions, which defeats the whole purpose of the essay. --Smokizzy 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to this essay, I have a suspicion that it has attracted more Citizendians than Wikipedians, so perhaps the direction this has taken is a bit skewed, but being overly protective is not in the spirit of our culture of self criticism. ;) I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don't know exactly, if I should be more protective or not. --Merzul 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another important difference: the professionalism policy and reversions

See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Professionalism#Reversion_and_deletion_as_unprofessional_behaviors. I'm thinking about how this contradicts the "be bold" principle (they also have one):

"[reverting] without warning or explanation is unprofessional because it demonstrates contempt for the person whose work was undone. [...] Similarly, deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban."

From what I've observed, this leads to lengthy discussions in the talk page but very little action in the article. I've seen how an article that was copied over from wikipedia was actually made worse by the expert editor (who also "approved" the article), with essentially no change in the article since then, despite the lengthy and sometimes verbose discussions in the talk page.

I know that reversions and deletions without warning are not always acceptable in Wikipedia either, but boldness seems to be encouraged to a greater extent here. In Wikipedia, if you do something bold that involves deleting what I wrote, but the article ends up being better for it, no one will be threatening you with a ban for being "impolite" or "unprofessional" (which is what the Citizendium policy seems to imply). --Itub 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which article? C.m.jones 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into specifics here. No need to embarrass a good-intentioned expert editor in public. What matters is the general principle. Obviously Citizendium is very new and I may be overgeneralizing from a few observations, but I do feel that the policy I mention will result in a slow-moving culture that may be detrimental to the project. Just as a note, I have no Citizendium account. I just went in to look at some articles on familiar topics and their discussion pages, to decide whether I should apply for an account or not. So far my impression has not been positive. I may eventually give it a try, who knows. --Itub 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the points made in the section of that page. Specifically:

"[reverting without warning or explanation][...] demonstrates contempt for the person whose work was undone."

and

"If I spend ten minutes working on a page, and you simply undo my changes, you render my time spent pointless--which is tantamount to the claim that I spend significant time doing pointless things"

If I revert someone's edit to an article, it is often because the edit is vandalism or something of that sort, and never because I hate that particular editor. I say "often" because sometimes it is an edit by a contributor that I heavily respect the work of, but is not vandalism, rather it is work that accidentally introduces errors into a code, or something of the sort.

I disagree with the second section I quoted, simply because it is a slight leap of logic. When I undo an edit, it is not because I felt that particular user "spends significant time doing pointless things", but rather that particular edit was disagreeable for one particular reason. Even if that means I am saying that that particular edit was time wasted, it does not mean I am therefore stating that that user spends their time doing pointless things. --Dreaded Walrus 11:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tougher than they expected?

Try as they might, Citizendium's founders are finding it's pretty tough to do a better job than Wikipedia. ........

When she included a reference to atheist Richard Dawkins, there were complaints that she should leave religion out of the article. "I got so much grief," Sculerati said. "I could never have imagined the amount of work this was along the way."[2] ... dave souza, talk 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Citizendium blog, however, points out what appear to be many very bad errors by that journalist. Also, the blog said they approved another article today. C.m.jones 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tbanks, reliable sources can indeed be problematic. Ah well, they're the experts ;) .... dave souza, talk 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Citizendium do a better job?

Hi.

I think we should have a page or poll to see what Wikipedians think of Citizendium's work. For example, does Citizendium really do a better job than Wikipedia? Ie. are it's "approved" articles on subjects of better quality (ie. accuracy, neutrality, writing, etc.) than Wikipedia's Featured Articles? I'm curious, after all it's the self-proclaimed "competitor" (although not much of one as of yet) to Wikipedia. If Citizendium does do a better job, maybe it might provide insight in how to improve Wikipedia. mike4ty4 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts

Just in response to the statement that there are also experts working on Wikipedia: this is true, but the problem with Wikipedia -- or to be more accurate the Wikipedia community -- is this expertise is often discounted or ignored simply because someone disagrees with a POV. I'm throwing my lot in with Citizendium after being treated like an idiot one too many times by other editors here. 68.146.8.46 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been dabbling there. It strikes me as a good idea but not very well executed. The demand for a biography from every editor is doubtless keeping people away, and it can take them a loooooong time (weeks to a month or more) to respond to queries. CZ would be great if it were more similar to Wikipedia (easier to contribute, less bureaucratic) and WP would be great if it were more similar to Citizendium (less hostile to competence, more willing to act against troublemakers and those with an agenda). Raymond Arritt 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English Languages

I just checked out citizendium after reading a bit about it. I thought that while there were differences between Wikipedia and Citizendium, the goal of access to information for everyone (not just those of us who speak English). Wikipedia has been doing a great job getting contributors from around the world to share knowledge in many languages. However, Citizendium seems to only have an English version (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I understand that the project just started, and that they only have a few thousand English articles, but I would think that a version in at least one other language would be present, even if void of articles. That said, I think another source of this problem is its intensely strict editing policy. Though it only has the effect of slowing down the addition of articles in English (and soon, I'm sure, in other widely-spoken languages), it would have a much more severe impact on smaller linguistic communities, which may have fewer "experts" according to Citizendium's standard, due to a lower population. Then, to compound the problem, it seems that it would be hard for a multilingual contributor to simply translate pages from another language without them being tagged as being somehow unreliable. I think the project is interesting, but I don't think that I'll be taking part in it, because I'd rather be engaged with a more dynamic, globally-oriented project such as Wikipedia. Just my take on everything, cheers and good luck to Citizendium! I hope they provide a useful resource. Rushisawesome88 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,21.0.html The basic idea seems to be that of getting the English version more solidified as regards its governance, then to open it up. 74.233.86.241 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Hi.

I saw this:

"If I'm a regular contributor who doesn't get a say in serious content issues, why should I bother with copy-editing?"

Based on my discussions on the Citizendium Forums it did not seem that regular contributors would not get a say. The Expert Editors would simply be the final judges -- they would not be the only ones involved in the debates. I think this should be changed or rephrased. mike4ty4 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)