Comments on: Big update http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=170 Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:46:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Citizendium Blog » Reply to Nicholas Carr http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=170#comment-9828 Citizendium Blog » Reply to Nicholas Carr Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:26:18 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/21/big-update/#comment-9828 [...] hoss.   You should probably read up on why the Citizendium will (probably) succeed as well as the most recent update.  I know we were supposed to fail, but apparently we missed the memo — we’ve been [...] [...] hoss.   You should probably read up on why the Citizendium will (probably) succeed as well as the most recent update.  I know we were supposed to fail, but apparently we missed the memo — we’ve been [...]

]]> By: Dan F. http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=170#comment-9152 Dan F. Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:05:19 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/21/big-update/#comment-9152 The Citizendium has been mentioned on the Huffington Post: http://huffit.huffingtonpost.com/category/US%20News The Citizendium has been mentioned on the Huffington Post:

http://huffit.huffingtonpost.com/category/US%20News

]]> By: Yuval Langer http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=170#comment-8986 Yuval Langer Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:18:43 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/21/big-update/#comment-8986 The Big Speedydelete The Big Write The Big Cleanup The Big Update Life, approved The Citizendium is truely grandiose :-p The Big Speedydelete
The Big Write
The Big Cleanup
The Big Update
Life, approved

The Citizendium is truely grandiose :-p

]]> By: Andjam http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=170#comment-8921 Andjam Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:12:00 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/21/big-update/#comment-8921 Isn't Everest the highest mountain, not the tallest? "As a result, the Wikipedian "crowd" can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims, which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an "average" of public opinion on a subject." I'd be interested in examples of this. "impressive-looking articles are all too frequently full of errors or half-truths, and—just as bad—poor writing and incoherent organization." Impressive-looking but with poor writing? "If Wikipedians actually believe that the credibility of articles is improved by citing things written by experts, will it not improve them even more if people like the experts cited are given a modest role in the project?" In my humble opinion, not necessarily. Just because dividing people into experts and non-experts works in some circumstances (writing a book with original research) doesn't mean that it will necessarily work in other areas (writing an all-encompassing encyclopedia). "They have a mysterious, talismanic value, apparently." It means we have someone else to blame if the content is bad. (Only joking ...) Isn’t Everest the highest mountain, not the tallest?

“As a result, the Wikipedian “crowd” can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims, which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an “average” of public opinion on a subject.”

I’d be interested in examples of this.

“impressive-looking articles are all too frequently full of errors or half-truths, and—just as bad—poor writing and incoherent organization.”

Impressive-looking but with poor writing?

“If Wikipedians actually believe that the credibility of articles is improved by citing things written by experts, will it not improve them even more if people like the experts cited are given a modest role in the project?”

In my humble opinion, not necessarily. Just because dividing people into experts and non-experts works in some circumstances (writing a book with original research) doesn’t mean that it will necessarily work in other areas (writing an all-encompassing encyclopedia).

“They have a mysterious, talismanic value, apparently.”

It means we have someone else to blame if the content is bad. (Only joking …)

]]>