Comments on: On course to replicate Wikipedia’s success? (Daily Mail)

By: Eire Islander

Eire Islander — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:52:03 +0000

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.

By: Chris D

Chris D — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:31:54 +0000

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.

By: Eire Islander

Eire Islander — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:47:12 +0000

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.