On course to replicate Wikipedia’s success? (Daily Mail)
The U.K.-based Daily Mail has an interesting take on CZ; for them, the story is that we are “on course to match the online encyclopedia’s [Wikipedia’s] success just six months after it was launched, according to its founder.” I think I might have said something like that, but surely with considerably more qualification and uncertainty. I hope no one will hold us to this extremely ambitious notion. We’re on track of Wikipedia’s early growth, in terms of activity and word count (and within an order of magnitude, in terms of article count). But I wouldn’t wish to imply that this means we certainly will match Wikipedia’s longer-term growth. Just that we still might.
QUOTE: “The service is already distinct from Wikipedia because it has a bank of experts, rather than ordinary users…”
Ouch!
Have you thought of this…… If you want the big picture on Cold Fusion research you don’t bother to ask not-yet-tenured physics professors. They could damage their careers by saying that some of the experimental results merit serious consideration by the mainstream physics community. Citizendium editors are required to make public their real names and credentials.
The WP article is huge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
On the other hand: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pseudoscience. The article omits to mention that the pioneering neuroscientist Franz Joseph Gall was the founder of Phrenology.
Comment by Eire Islander — September 13, 2007 @ 7:52 am
As always these articles work in the ‘CZ against WP’ mentality. First, does cz need to be another wikipedia with respect to number of articles count? Of course not. I doubt whether CZ could ever surpass the pop culture expertise at WP since their collection in that department has unprecendented depth. Also many of the more academic articles excel, let’s not fool ourselves (even if the newspapers always do), there are plenty of real experts editing at WP too.
The big difference is that CZ offers an environment where the vandalism and arguments are minimal. It is a different venue that is perfect for those frustrated by having to continually protect and correct articles from juvenile editors (mostly from school IP’s).
To have stable articles and a more predicatable editing environment are the two meaningful differences between CZ and WP. Everyone makes ommisons and mistakes when writing on a given topic. So to dwell on mistakes in CZ articles is to miss the point. Those can be corrected, it’s a wiki too, after all.
Comment by Chris D — September 13, 2007 @ 9:31 am
You’re right Chris, simple omissions can easily be corrected in a wiki. I do think it’s inevitable, however, that “Citizendium vs. Wikipedia” comparisons by the media will continue as long as CZ is being touted as an expert-driven encyclopedia. The Pseudoscience article is bluntly dismissive of Cold Fusion…
QUOTE: “1989 - Physicists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah announce the discovery (soon discredited) of ‘cold fusion’.”
Again that could be expanded into an article which looks at (all) the evidence. Without due care, there’s always the risk that straightjacketing encyclopedia entries to match prevailing academic doctrines could backfire and add kudos to The Cult Of The Amateur.
Comment by Eire Islander — September 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm