Citizendium - Wikipedia For Grownups.

7 comments

The Citizendium Project will begin life as a Wikipedia dump, moving on to become updated, modified, and, by implication, improved and rendered more accurate via the contributions of folks aged over 25 with proven higher education qualifications.

The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance. It will begin life as a "progressive fork" of Wikipedia. But we expect it to take on a life of its own and, perhaps, to become the flagship of a new set of responsibly-managed free knowledge projects. We will avoid calling it an "encyclopedia," because there will probably always be articles in the resource that have not been vouched for in any sense.

We believe a fork is necessary, and justified, both to allow regular people a place to work under the direction of experts, and in which personal accountability--including the use of real names--is expected. In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.

Funding (how might it be corrupted)?

While the Citizendium will never accept advertisements, we might accept sponsorship and post unobtrusive sponsorship statements. We know this is a sensitive issue: see this question for details.

And this ....

Another funding model (we think it is exciting and innovative) that will be revealed in good time.

No point quoting large tracts here - there's an FAQ on the first page, and a call for applicants on this page.

Comments

So, more like the DMOZ model

So, more like the DMOZ model then? Restrict the spam to those on the inside - once you're an "expert" you have the power...

TallTroll brings up a good

TallTroll brings up a good point: The idea of a wiki is anti-heirarchical almost to the point of anarchy. I note they have dropped the use of "wiki" -anything from the name on this one.

Every public wiki I have seen is either overrun with spam or had been overrun with spam and were now frantically attempting to repel boarders. So does this mean public wiki's are a failed experiment that cannot exist when released into the wild?

So does this mean public

Quote:
So does this mean public wiki's are a failed experiment that cannot exist when released into the wild?

Essentially I'd say yes.
I have a small wiki running on my site for a group of bloggers to use. Nothing special, just a place for them to list things of interest in their niche etc...

Unfortunatley I had to lock it down as it got spammed to hell and back by all sorts of porn/drug stuff. It's basically just like blog comment spam, but wiki's don't seem to have the same spam filtering tools.

The popularity of wiki's just brought the attention of spammers, and ruined it for everyone.

Old Age and Treachary

Sure limiting it to older educated folks like say the CEO's of Enron and MCI would certainly keep out people with low ethical standards ...

Heh, I very nearly made a

Heh, I very nearly made a comment along those lines Graywolf. Obviously you don't know anything worthwhile unless you have something like a degree (on a probably unrelated subject).... More prominent in the web industry where so many are self taught I guess.

Wikis

Quote:
Every public wiki I have seen is either overrun with spam or had been overrun with spam and were now frantically attempting to repel boarders.

Wow - certainly the vast majority of wikis have been spammed to death, but that is due to them not attracting enough editors to watch over the content, and not being managed adequately by their owners.

I think most of the Wikimedia projects do NOT fall into this category, as they generaly have a pretty devoted community. I myself run a fairly successful public wiki, and while it has been spammed on occassion, we've been quite successful in holding our own. I don't think calling wikis a failed experiment is a fair generalization, in spite of the number of failed wikis.

I absolutely agree with the "More like Dmoz" comments though - one of the virtues of a wiki is the (partial!) decentralization of power. Off on a tangent, it has been interesting to watch wikipedia evolve from a more anarchist collection of individuals to a pretty sizeable bureaucracy. Somewhere, someone must be doing a dissertation on it.

The Problem

The problem with Wikipedia isn't age and isn't expertise. It's the fact that there are a select few who have too much control. It will be the same problem with Citizendium. Until a checks and balances system is in place for all editors, there simply will never be an unbias wiki.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.