Comments on: Why fix something that isn't broken? Wikipedia vs. Citizendium

By: nails63

nails63 — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:26:52 +0000

Interesting blog, interesting take on Wikipedia. I see less value in it, I guess I have had too many conversations with people who have no idea what they are talking about to have much faith in a discussion group dissecting a wikipedia article. I agree that CZ is not going to make things any better, though. While I agree that all reporting can be wrong or slanted, I do think time-tested encycl.; scholarly works, etc. that hire pros and have been peer tested offer greater guarantees. If the people I have heard talking about Jena 6 were the ones writing the wikipedia article, it would be worthless. Great Blog, interesting read.

By: John

John — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:12:40 +0000

Because we can do better!

CZ is pretty much vandal-free, and you get the benefit of actually knowing who's written what. This is vital, for instance, on controversial topics: is that person writing about Intelligent Design a scientist, a theologian, a creationist, someone in off the streets?

We also seem to get articles up to a good standard much quicker. For example, our 'Tony Blair' article went from nothing to developed in less than three months with only a handful of people working on it.

Yes, we don't have an article on X or Y yet – but we're still in beta. We're addressing the issue of licensing at the moment, for instance – you can't get something like this finished in just a few months.

PS. You might find access a little slow at the moment – we're upgrading the servers.

By: proutj

proutj — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:44:18 +0000

Trevor

I agree with your take; its an evolving medium and we ought to let it evolve.

Jerry