I agree with Sage that there are aspects of writing that go better with fewer, not more, authors. Good points by Hasan Murtaza and andrew too. The ability to differentiate valuable information from that which is not, is a very valuable skill in the internet age — even if dubious content is successfully eliminated from Citizendium.

The issue which prompted me to reply is Martin Baldwin-Edwards\’ observation that Wikipedia\’s social science articles are either full of errors and bias, or an incoherent compilation of everything anyone ever thought on the subject. Following on from that, Peter Bradshaw suggested that CZ should concentrate on social sciences, some areas of biological sciences, and politics in the widest sense. That\’s something to bear in mind. These are the areas where WP is often unreliable.

Larry Sanger said of CZ articles:

\”They do not favor any side in any controversy, but provide full details of the debate, so that the reader can be fully informed so as to make up his or her own mind.

I sure hope so. As I pointed out in a reply once before, the history of academic psychology is the history of a swinging pendulum of orthodoxies. Before cognitive and evolutionary models took over, the opposite view - \”behaviorism\” - was dominant. Behaviorists believed hereditary factors counted for nothing and research should focus on the \’conditioning\’ of observable behaviors. Now, in the same offices of the same universities evolutionary psychologists are sitting behind the desks.

A similar phenomenon occurs in psychiatry. Until bio-psychiatry swept away everything that went before, psychiatrists practiced psychoanalysis — with all the circular reasoning that entailed. In fact, the International Psychoanalytic Association seldom accepted candidates who were not medically qualified. In my view, bio-psychiatry is a topic where dissenting voices against reductionism and circular reasoning should be given serious coverage. On Wikipedia, defenders of prevailing orthodoxies in psychology and psychiatry tend come out on top in the edit wars. There doesn\’t appear to be a CZ article titled \”Psychiatry\” so far.

Wikipedia might be “good enough” in some situations, but not “good enough” in others.

Sometimes a fast “takeaway” meal is “good enough” and sometimes it is not.

Sometimes an old Volkswagon bug is more appropriate (as it permits a learner driver to have a few prangs with minor repercussions) and sometimes one wants more safety and comfort.

Wikipedia has its place in the world, as does Citizendium. They both have value. The world benefits by having both.

My (twelve-year-old) daughter often asks me questions I can not answer. Citizendium does not always have the answers to all of these diverse questions (and might never). So she sometimes goes to Wikipedia. She knows to take information on Wikipedia with a few more kilos of salt than what she finds on Citizendium (which can not be perfect, as nothing is).

But having Wikipedia as a source, though it includes more furphies (rumours, misleading information or false information), also gives her the experience she needs in life to differentiate valuable information from that which is not.

Wikipedia will then become the haunt of trolls and newbies, where people who value their dignity will avoid publishing to like the plague. CZ can distinguish itself by bringing the right tools to the job, for the type of interactions that scholars actually would want to be doing. I was always thinking that this is the way to do a scholars encyclopedia, by providing the tools for them to do what comes naturally to them. Such as keeping an article open on their desk for one month at a time, and being able to merge it meaningfully afterwards. Etc. Etc.

Basically the tools should reflect the practise of these scholars, and be the place for them to do ALL of their collaborating, and the body of work that comes out of their efforts will be the CZ.

Hasan

Yours in discourse,
Sage

An interesting experiment would be to place an approved CZ article on WP and track its de-evolution over time. (With additions of Simpsons references of course.)