Further, I am unconvinced by your argument that you are somehow more open than Wikipedia. As a science student, in any real-world academic context, I would be scorned as some tiny underling because I do not yet have a degree, because I am younger, less experienced. Similarly, on Citizendium, I would be scorned because I do not have credentials, because I, despite being committed to the idea of a free encyclopedia, relatively intelligent, and willing to help in good faith, am too young to qualify for any position of trust such as “constable” or “expert”. It strikes me that Wikipedia’s system is vastly more open - that I am trusted to help out, and can do so, even in trusted positions like that of “the mop”, as adminship is known to those familiar with Wikipedia.

It only vindicates my decision to avoid Citizendium when I read posts such as these with your petty caricatures of Wikipedia administrators. No, Wikipedians aren’t perfect. Yes, I know that Wikipedians, even administrators, have acted badly before. None of these mean that any other system is somehow better; the members remain human.

Wikipedia’s system is indeed more open in the sense that anyone can become an admin. You are correct there. But that is not a sense of openness that strikes me as particularly valuable. CZ’s system is more “open” in the sense that the rank and file can actually get stuff done uninhibited by all sorts of nonsense — and that is a more valuable sort of openness, I think. That was my point.

The notion that admins merely wield “mops” belies a realistic understanding of the very nature of authority — this is a common, self-congratulatory, and completely unjustified concept of the admin role.

And, “Nihiltres,” my characterizations were not petty in the least. They were serious and substantial. Just because you disagree with a criticism does not make it “petty.”

Quite frankly I believe because of the non-existent “management” of WP that the basic GFDL licensing scheme is inoperative and most contributors were fooled into thinking the people who “control” Wikipedia were going to be “transparent” and open. It has turned into a closed gang of about 1000 admins and an incestous group of people in the “inner circle”(just check out their profiles on facebook) who just like listening to the sound of Jimbo Wales’ voice (and want to get some of his fame by proximity) who can’t take any criticism and can’t listen to anything but their own voices, there is no dialogue at the upper echelons of Wikimedia IMHO. That “free knowledge” for the world is the mantra of a slave owner who is trying to keep his little children from revolting and learning that Wikipedia will never be more than a bunch of notes like high school and college students write before taking exams, useful to some degree but never great writing and not something to immortalize as a great work of literature like Diderot’s “Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers.” There is no comparison at all WP is written by a bunch of anonymous teenagers, not by some of the greatest writers of all time.

Please note I am no longer affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation since circa December 2006.

The stickiness of edits is mostly a function of the maturity of the content of the wiki and of the number of contributors. You are right to say that “there are zillions of topics that are still wide open” but that’s the primary reason why edits on CZ stick, and not because Citizendium is fundamentally better.

And you then go on to bash Wikipedia because of that? Tooting your own horn at the expense of another doesn’t seem to me to be a professional way of promoting Citizendium, especially when you keep on saying that Citizens act more “professionally”. I will be much more impressed with your promotion of Citizendium’s good points if you didn’t have to resort to crab mentality.

It is hard to take your view as a serious, balanced, fair one, when you exaggerate in this way.

Larry, please think a moment about what the Nazis did - then think again whether you should call bad wikipedia admins like that. It’s inappropriate, to say the least.

The question of which of the wikis is more open is, to risk using a cliché, like comparing apples and oranges: Wikipedia’s huge scale and presence and Citizendium’s relative obscurity make comparisons between the two often irrelevant. On the one hand Citizendium’s eager focus on the authority of experts (and, by extension, though this might be contentious, the exclusion of amateurs) can be weighed against Wikipedia’s community, which enforces, through dozens of concerned editors, standards through policies and guidelines which are the result of much debate, such that these debates need not be repeated for each article. Some issues cannot be compared - the extreme difference in scale and visibility prevents comparisons from being relevant, as is mentioned in this blog post. Issues involving such elements as edit stickiness or lack thereof, or criticisms of one’s work as not being up to standards, are, at least in part, a function of the size, maturity, and prominence of the wiki. Eugene’s comment above says it well.

My point of view as regards openness favours Wikipedia; without being the required age or having the recognition of experience brought on by a degree, Citizendium is liable to treat me as merely another author, trusted little, regardless of the expertise I may have in particular fields, and on certain topics, that would rival or even surpass someone with a basic degree (for that subtopic, at least). On Wikipedia, however, it is more simple, and, I would say, open - everyone is held to community standards, which are open to discussion and editing by anyone - unlike “Editorial Council”-style declarations such as where a formally limited group of users has editorial control over what the desired format should be. It is telling to examine the history of major Citizendium policy pages such as “Article Mechanics” where there is a clear principal editor, as is visible at and as opposed to the more varied history of Wikipedia’s similar page:

Citizendium does have some advantages; I should not, and do not, suggest that Wikipedia is necessarily *better* than Citizendium in any particular respect. Each project is devoted to some extent to the idea of a good free encyclopedia, and that goal trumps by many measures the process used to generate it. The two are, however, at heart based on different philosophies, and Citizendium’s underlying philosophy is arguably more authoritarian in that so-called experts are arbitrarily handed control, as opposed to Wikipedia’s anyone-can-edit philosophy where everyone is held to the simple standard of verifiability.

I do want to take the time, though, to explain why you are wrong, “Nihiltres,” in your notion that Wikipedia is less authoritarian because, according to the collective fantasy, “everyone is held to the simple standard of verifiability.” Hmm, well who decides whether some text is verifiable? “Everyone,” you say. But this is a fantasy, because it can’t be everyone — people disagree, of course. Who makes decisions when there are disagreements? “Matters are decided through rational discourse and then consensus among equals,” I suppose you want to say. Balderdash. Everyone with the slightest bit of experience on WP knows it does not work that way. Matters are decided by admin rank and other pull, sockpuppetry, free time, and stamina, i.e., by the mob — and yes, occasionally also rational discourse and reasonable consensus. I submit that polite discourse (as required on CZ) and actual proven expertise (as provided, usually in a very gentle, scholarly way, by our editors) is a far better way.

One other thing: “cleverly” speaking of “so-called experts” (outside the fold of Wikipedia kool-aid drinkers, anyway) is only going to make you sound like a crank. Yes, there are experts. People spend their whole lives advancing their understanding of relatively narrow areas of knowledge. They deserve respect for their knowledge.

It is unfortunate that it seems that way to you, or that you had that experience. However, I don’t ever recall running into that at Wikipedia. I am sure there are some trolls somewhere that do that, but I don’t gather it represents the site as a whole.

WP certainly has respect for authoritative sources, including scientific journals and statements on behalf of major scientific associations. Unsourced statements are not tolerated as much as they used to be. What WP does not do is try to give expert users more weight than others. Since we don’t confirm identities like Citizendium does, we couldn’t do it informally either (otherwise, people like Essjay could get more editing weight). Additionally, because of the “Original research” policy and focus on peer reviewed and consensus opinion, citing single “lightweight” (not well known) experts doesn’t really happen often. This helps to avoid cranks and users throwing around contradictory sources and perhaps cherry-picking (not that there aren’t other ways to do that, but it helps). Citing of “heavy weights” is done, but journal/major organization statements and such are still preferable. The cost, and I think it is worth it, is that more cutting edge research and theories will be hard to get sourced and therefore included on WP. That is the sort of material for journals and magazines.

As Nihiltres said, they are different projects with different goals and advantages. One advantage to CZ is that editors are more like to have a much better idea of what the basic knowledge of the field is, which allows for them to identify “extraordinary” claims (which need good backing), and they can write good “examples” for math/science topics without making mistakes due to ignorance of the topic. Their subject knowledge allows for them to better paraphrase technical sources because they are more likely to actually understant what it is talking about.

It’s interesting how often this concept is repeated by the media and wikipedians (the idea if you’re not an expert you are somehow not worthy to edit in citizendium). Everyone works side by side in CZ (experts and authors) to create articles and obviously CZ also works within the boundaries of verifiability. From my perspective the only point an expert has more control is in a content dispute (which should be no issue since verifiability is the gold standard) and at the time of approval. In no way does this control stop anyone adding content or contributing in any way differently to wikipedia.